« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
nomic growth, will take place within metropolitan areas. We are not now, unfortunately, handling current growth with effectiveness and dispatch. The creation of a study commission could bring the great resources of the Federal Government to bear and could mean earlier and more effective action. We think it would, and we urge you to recommend the creation of such a commission to your colleagues in the Senate.
Mr. WEST. There are one or two comments I would like to make.
I am very much encouraged this morning at the hearing to hear the statements of some of these Senators because when I arrived in Washington yesterday, I was pretty much in a gloomy attitude.
The Presidential veto of the airport bill in effect stated that airports are the responsibility of local governments. Also the Presidential veto of the urban renewal bill with its erroneous assumption showing the glaring lack of knowledge of the actualities, and the rumor that cities are going to be cut out of the highway program.
All of these matters, it seems to me, point unerringly to the tremendous need for Senator Clark's bill being enacted.
Mayor Dilworth talked about the State legislatures. I traveled from one end of this country to another as the president of the American Municipal Association a year or so ago, and let me assure the committee that I found that every State legislature in every State, without exception, according to the opinions of municipal officials are rurally dominated and rurally controlled.
In December we adopted at our meeting in Boston a policy statement, which is included in the written statement I have filed here, wherein we had a figure of 173 metropolitan areas, and we want to amend that to 188, showing this committee that the metropolitan areas in this country are growing by leaps and bounds in this great population explosion that we are experiencing.
It is not only growing in the East where my good friend, Mayor Dilworth, has his problems as other officials, but we have our problems in the South. In the South the metropolitan areas are growing by leaps and bounds. A number of them are doing that, and I happen to represent one that is.
Now there has been no reapportionment in my State, although the State constitution requires it, for 50 years—1901 was our last one, 58 years ago.
Let me say this to the committee just as an interesting sidelight. One county in our State which has a population of 3,948, we checked with the State agricultural department and it has 4,739 pigs, 8,611 cows and calves, and if you add the people, the pigs, and cows all together, the pigs and cows in that county are better represented in the legislature than thousands of human beings in the city of Nashville.
I noticed with interest the chairman's comment about some of the farm groups concerned with the statements of the mayors.
Let me assure the farm groups that we hope they will consider their customers, and their customers are the people of this country and the people of this country live in the cities and urban areas, and it is going to be more and more so.
I am here today to send up a Macedonian cry for consideration of some of our problems in these great metropolitan areas.
I would like to add my voice as a southern mayor to those of my colleagues in support of this legislation.
I am also in favor of the legislation on the intergovernmental picture also, but that will not do this job here, in my opinion, if I may add that.
Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. We are very pleased to have you here. You represent a great organization.
I want to personally compliment you on your splendid leadership in the American Municipal Association. It has not gone unnoticed, , may I add. You have done an excellent job.
Mr. West. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF HON. VANCE HARTKE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF INDIANA
Senator HARTKE. Senator Humphrey, if it is all right I will submit my statement in support of the bill.
Senator HUMPHREY. Yes, indeed.
Senator HARTKE. I count it a real privilege to have an opportunity to appear
before this committee to state briefly some of the reasons why I am so strongly in favor of this bill to establish a national study commission on metropolitan problems.
In the first place, I am for this proposal because America's cities are in trouble_deep trouble. The recent newspaper accounts of the meeting of the U.S. conference of mayors in Los Angeles serves to illustrate this point. There are many reasons why the cities are in trouble. We know what some of them are, and we have ideas as to what might be done about them. But the problem, as a whole, is so vast in scope and beset with so many complicating factors that there are no simple answers. A doctor does not undertake to treat a patient until the necessary tests have been made and the diagnosis has been completed. Similarly, in dealing with our social and political ills, it is necessary to obtain the facts before undertaking to prescribe treatment.
I support this proposal for a so-called mixed commission to study the problems of our metropolitan areas because I believe that, at this time, we are not in a position to go further. There have been, for example, a number of bills introduced in recent sessions calling for the establishment of a department of urban affairs. As a matter of fact, one was introduced last year by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clark (author of the bill now under consideration), another only last week by the Senator from New York, Mr. Keating. It is my understanding that the Senator from Pennsylvania is backing the present proopsal, not because he thinks the department proposal is undesirable or may not ultimately be adopted, but because as of now—we simply do not know how such a department should be set up and what duties and responsibilities should be assigned to it.
With that in view, I fully concur. As a former mayor myself, I realize full well that our urban areas have no monopoly on many of their most serious problems. Some of these problems are financial; certainly they have no monopoly on those. Some involve physical facilities for supplying the needs of people-housing, public works (including water supply and sewage treatment and disposal), and mass transit facilities to relieve the pressure on traffic-clogged streets and on downtown parking facilities. Some are governmental, including the organizational problems involved in securing the adoption of uniform policies in individual metropolitan areas, and uniform enforcement of these policies, once adopted, in the dozens, scores, and even hundreds of separate and independent political subdivisions, each intensely jealous in maintaining its own powers and prerogatives. Many of these problems are serious, or have serious implications, in nonurban areas.
Where does one draw the line between urban and rural? How, even does one decide what to do with housing and slum clearance (there are rural slums as well as urban), highways, problems of water pollution and water supply, all of which affect urban and nonurban areas alike? It is my view that a comprehensive study of the whole field of urban and metropolitan area problems would help us, not only to identifiy what the problems are but to supply a factual basis upon which we could proceed to deal with them in a constructive manner.
The cold statistics which describe the scope and extent of the trend toward urbanization in this country provide a compelling reason for taking favorable action on this bill. I am not going to take up the time of the committee with still another recital of the figures on population growth, or population shifts, either those which have already taken place or those which are anticipated. These matters, I contend, are a proper concern of the Federal Government, as well as of the municipalities, the States, and other local units. There have been times in the past when the Federal Government viewed the problems of these units with supreme indifference. I have been told of a Member of Congress from my own State who, a number of years ago, speaking with great emotion and with tremors in his voice, proclaimed that “We are opposed to the Federal Government doing things for the States." And I suppose he might have added, and probably intended to include, the cities.
No section of country or segment of the population can afford to be uninterested in or indifferent to the problems of other sections or other segments. The Central Government is the Government of all the people. It has a definite responsibility for assisting States, metropolitan areas, and other local units in the solution of problems whose magnitude exceeds their individual capacities and resources. This alone, it seems to me, would provide ample justification for congressional approval of S. 1431, and for Federal sponsorship and financing of the study of metropolitan area problems which it contemplates.
As a former mayor, I am interested in what Mayor West had to say. I am also a member of the American Municipal Association. A few years ago Mayor West sent a delegation up to Evansville and suggested that we should move down to Nashville. I am glad he was here today to give us a contrary view.
I know you, Senator Humphrey, visited with us in the city of Evansville. We were delighted to have you there. We showed you the fine parts of our city and we tried to make your visit a very hospitable one.
We cannot continue to do this if the efforts are not being made to help make it possible for the cities to make it possible to help themselves.
Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you, Senator. We are glad to have you, the former mayor of Evansville and now the distinguished junior Senator from Indiana.
We also have with us Mr. Raymond Vernon, of Harvard University and I understand that Mr. Vernon out of the kindness of his heart and his general spirit of tolerance has decided to just file his statement. Is that correct?
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND VERNON, HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Mr. VERNON. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. That was not difficult to do since everything I had planned to say has been said so much better this morning.
Senator HUMPHREY, I am not so sure of that.
Mr. VERNON. I will content myself with submitting the statement for the record.
(The statement of Mr. Vernon is as follows:)
STATEMENT BY RAYMOND VERNON ON S. 1431 My name is Raymond Vernon. I am the director of the New York Metropolitan region study, a study being done by the Harvard Graduate School of Public Administration for the Regional Plan Association in New York. For the past 3 years, while trying to understand how the New York area is likely to develop over the next two or three decades, I have done a considerable amount of worrying and writing about the future development of the Nation's metropolitan areas as a whole. As a result, I am satisfied about two things : First, the problems which these areas are generating will provide one of the great national headaches of the next generation. Second, the Federal Government cannot remain aloof from these problems; indeed the Federal Government is already involved in them up to the hilt. Accordingly, I am appearing here today in a personal capacity to support S. 1431.
Since most of us live in metropolitan areas, we start with a considerapie familiarity with what is going on inside these areas. Still, I think it may help a little to indicate some of the critical developments.
First of all, the older portions of most of these metropolitan areas are losing in population. If we look at the older sections of such central cities as Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore, Detroit, and San Francisco, it is perfectly clear that a major population decline is going on. And it is a decline that cannot be explained altogether by demolitions or by the conversions of property to nonresidential uses. One of the things that is happening is that the grown-up children of city dwellers are refusing to live in the outworn, obsolescent housing which their parents occupy; they are looking for better housing in the suburbs and finding it. As a result, the size of the average family in the cities is shrinking and the age of city dwellers is increasing relative to the rest of the country.
The 1960 census promises to provide some mild surprises to many of the old cities of the Nation. In the past most of these cities managed to show a net growth in population-the result of a balance between the decline of the older neighborhoods and the growth of the newer ones within the city. But today the older neighborhoods are the dominant ones for many central cities, and they are not offset by growth elsewhere. So we can look for a comparatively new phenomenon in American local government. More and more of the old cities will show population declines; more and more, they will be the repositories of those who are prepared to live in obsolescent housing—the lower income groups and the older citizens of the country.
At the same time, the older cities are beginning to show a decline in jobs—in retail jobs, of course, as their populations stagnate or decline; and in manufacturing jobs, as well, as businessmen look for newer structures and more spacious sites in the open suburban areas.
This picture is not unrelieved by some countertendencies. In the very core of these central cities, deep down in the downtown areas, some growth is going
The number of people working in offices in the United States is growing and will continue to grow. For good reasons, much of this office activity prefers a downtown location. This downtown growth has been coupled with an increase in high-rise, high-priced dwellings close by some of our downtown areas. Manhattan's middle East Side, Boston's Back Bay, Philadelphia's Rittenhouse Square, and similar areas elsewhere have shown some vitality as a result. But we must recognize that this kind of activity is limited to a minuscule portion of the old cities and will remain so limited. Out beyond the central business district, in the endless miles of builtup neighbo ds that some of us call the "grey areas,” the rot goes on unchecked.
The suburban portions of our great metropolitan areas, meanwhile, have been having their own problems. In some cases, these problems bear a considerable resemblance to those of the central cities. Some of these so-called suburbs, such as Camden, Newark, and Lowell, are cities in their own right, with the same problems of obsolescence as the central cities nearby. Others suffer from the fact that they are so new ; all at once, suburban communities that had thought of themselves as semirural are being asked to provide the streets, schools, police, water, and sewage which urban living demands. And because the young couples who fill these raw suburban towns are settling on the land at densities of 5,000 to the square mile rather than 50,000 or 100,000, some of the capital costs of public facilities such as water mains and roads for the average family are even larger than in the crowded cities.
THE PROBLEMS While this brief sketch is hardly a complete analysis of what has been happening inside the Nation's big metropolitan areas, it may be enough to suggest the nature of the problems.
First of all, there is the question of the recapture and reuse of the hundreds of square miles of space in our cities which are encumbered by wornout housing and outmoded factories and which promise to be more and more neglected and underused in the decades ahead. It would be best if the normal market forces of our private economy were to handle the conversion job in the ordinary course; but I think it can be shown that this is not going to happen. It would be second best if the cities could handle the problem on their own; but if my guess is right, many of the cities are going to be faced with a shrinking tax base and with no chance of reducing their services at anything like the same rate. Besides, the new uses to which such recaptured land should be put may well be of the sort which no city could sponsor or underwrite. Some of these city areas, built at high densities for a horse-trolley era, should probably be redesigned for fewer people and more open space. But in how many cities could officials initiate and finance such a move?
Then there is the old tough question of passenger transportation. The persistent vitality of the downtown districts of some of our biggest cities is at once a boon and a problem for the metropolitan areas in which those downtown districts are found. The people who work in these districts have to be hauled daily between home and work. And each year, the average home is getting a little further from downtown, adding to the length of the daily haul. Today, a considerable part of the commuting to downtown starts at points outside the city, outside the reach of the city jurisdiction. So today, the question of commuting is a metropolitan area problem, not a city problem.
Each year, the forces which are creating a crisis in passenger transportation promise to grow a little stronger. Commuting trips, on the average, will grow longer and will involve more local jurisdictions. The business of the suburban rail lines and the subways should grow even less profitable, on the whole; offpeak volumes and weekend traffic will persist in shrinking and costs should increase faster than fares.
It is easy enough to expand the list of problems which the metropolitan areas face. Water pollution and air pollution promise to grow worse before they are better, and such pollution is peculiarly indifferent to political boundaries. Water supply is a problem which is sometimes indifferent to political boundaries as well.
Granted that these are problems, why should the Federal Government concern itself with them? First of all, as we have already pointed out, these problems are no respecter of local political boundaries. They encompass groups of municipalities and counties without regard to their political limits. And, as often as not, a problem area is found straddling one or more State lines.
In the New York area, it is almost useless to think of transportation, water pollution, or air pollution unless one is willing to blanket portions of three States--New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut-in his thinking. In the