« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Philadelphia area, the problems of the metropolis straddle portions of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. In the St. Louis area, Missouri and Indiana are involved. In the Kansas City area, it is Kansas and Missouri that are concerned. In the Chicago case, one has to worry about portions of Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. And so on.
The second kind of reason for Federal interest in the problems I have just described has to do with the fact that the Federal Government is already involved in these problems, willy-nilly. In fact, one may say that some aspects of the problems we have talked about are the result of Federal programs. For instance, the policy of the FHA in stressing the financing of one-family homes has probably speeded the exodus of populations from the old cities. This was surely not an intended consequence of the program, but it was probably a consequence, nonetheless.
The Federal public housing and title I programs are producing another impact on metropolitan growth-again, probably unwittingly. By working through local governments, these programs require each jurisdiction to look at its housing problem without much regard for the needs of the metropolitan area as a whole. Meanwhile, the low-income groups for whom these programs are designed have no such narrow outlook. Commonly, these groups are following the outward movement of their jobs from the old central cities to almost-as-old suburban cities. Perhaps new low-rent public housing should not be in the neighborhoods of the old slums at all; with low-income jobs moving outward to the suburbs, it could well be that the slums razed in one jurisdiction should be replaced by low-income housing in another. But the Federal housing program, unwittingly and—it may be-unwisely, tends to produce another result.
The hand of the Federal Government is affecting the shape of the metropolis in other ways as well. The Federal highway program will probably have more impact on the growth patterns of the metropolitan areas of the country than any other single force. Its impact will be expressed in many ways. As new radial highways probe into the countryside, they will pull more space into the ambit of the urban developer, and will speed the outmovement of populations. Roads of this sort will also cut further into the off peak business of the mass transit facilities and will create even greater pressures for parking space in cities. Whether or not they will help solve one of the big urban transportation problems of the future-how to get from a home in one suburb to a job in another suburb—depends on how they are designed. Still, a Federal Government which pretended that metropolitan development was not its problem could also pretend that it did not need to take such questions into account in laying out its roads.
What my observations come to is this: Our metropolitan growth problems are serious and promise to get more so. The nature of our metropolitan problems is such that they straddle State and local boundaries, embracing areas which make them a problem of Federal concern. And indeed, the Federal Government's operations are already having an impact on these problems, helping them in some ways, exacerbating them in others, without much conscious policy or design. The question is not whether the Federal Government should concern itself with these issues. It is rather whether that concern should be framed wisely and consciously or whether it should be the blind and haphazard consequence of the impact of half a dozen different Federal programs.
Senator HUMPHREY. You are certainly a highly respected expert in these matters and we are extremely grateful for your interest.
I understand that you do support the Clark bill. Mr. VERNON. That is correct, sir. Senator HUMPHREY. Do you feel that it is needed now and immediately?
Mr. VERNON. Well, if time allowed I could elaborate on the size of the problems that this Commission would have to deal with. They are enormous and they are growing and will continue to grow and I think a commission of this sort is indispensable.
Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you, sir.
We also have with us Germaine Krettek, the director of the Washington office of the American Library Association, and understand that she would like to include that statement in the record.
STATEMENT OF GERMAINE KRETTEK, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON
OFFICE, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION Miss KRETTEK. Yes, the statement was prepared by Mr. Emerson Greenaway, director of the Free Library of Philadelphia and immediate past president of the American Library Association.
We have supported Senator Clark's bill wholeheartedly because we are aware that libraries in urban centers face these same problems such as transportation, taxation, and others. We would like to support the Senator's amendment that he proposed this morning, that in any proposed study under a commission, that the problems of libraries be specifically included since libraries are a basic agency in the total educational picture.
Senator HUMPHREY. I thank you and I fully concur in the suggestion including the libraries and the problems relating to them and I want to compliment the American Library Association for being right on the job.
I am sorry I didn't get over to your conference here earlier this summer.
Miss KRETTEK. We missed you and are sorry you could not join us.
(The statement of Mr. Emerson Greenaway, previously referred to, follows:)
STATEMENT OF MR. EMERSON GREENAWAY, DIRECTOR OF THE FREE LIBRARY OF
PHILADELPHIA, ON S. 1431 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as a representative of the American Library Association and the immediate past president of that organization, I should like to endorse the objectives of S. 1431, a bill to provide for the establishment of a Commission on Metropolitan Problems.
We believe that the work to be carried out by this Commission should include specifically a full and complete investigation and study of the problems of providing adequate public and school library services in our metropolitan areas, including those services which transcend State jurisdictions, with particular reference to the management, support, and use of metropolitan units.
The problem is two-fold: First it is not only financially impossible, but unwise to build up large reference and extensive nonfiction collections which are comparable to those found in large city libraries, for use by the small peripheral communities; second, no plan has yet been evolved to reimburse the city library for the costs of reference services given to nonresidents and hence nontaxpayers. There is an increasing need for the answer to these two problems, among others.
The American Library Association, therefore, wholeheartedly endorses the objectives of S. 1431 and urges that in any study made of the problems of metropolitan areas, problems of libraries be given specific consideration. Senator HUMPHREY. We also have a statement from the U.S. Con
a ference of Mayors signed by the general counsel and one by the executive director.
These statements will be made a part of the record at this point. (The statements referred to follow :)
U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS,
Washington, D.C., July 21, 1959. Mr. GLENN K. SHRIVER, Committee on Government Operations, New Senate Ofice Building, Washington,
D.C. DEAR MR. SHRIVER : Enclosed herewith are two copies of the communication of March 17 with reference to the Metropolitan Area Problems Commission proposed by Senator Clark in S. 1431. These communications and our attachment are the matters you discussed with me this morning on the telephone. Inasmuch as we already have a limited supply of this material in our files we are unable to furnish sufficient copies for each member of the committee. I hope the two which are enclosed together with the one you have will meet your needs.
Mayor Richardson Dilworth, of Philadelphia, vice president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, will testify in support of S. 1431 on Friday, July 24. Inasmuch as Mayor Dilworth will also be appearing before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee on the President's veto of S. 57, the Urban Renewal and Housing bill, I would anticipate his availability in your hearing room by 11 o'clock. Very truly yours,
JOHN J. GUNTHER, General Counsel.
THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS,
Washington, D.C., March 17, 1959.
METROPOLITAN AREA PROBLEMS
DEAR MAYOR : Yesterday afternoon Senator Joseph S. Clark, former mayor of Philadelphia, introduced a bill, S. 1431, to establish a National Commission on Metropolitan Area Problems. Under the proposal an 18-member Commission would conduct a "systematic study on a nationwide basis on how to deal with metropolitan area problems” and report its findings to the President by February 1, 1961.
The membership of the Commission would be made up of six Representatives and six Senators, four from the majority and two from the minority party; six presidential appointees, two persons from the executive branch of government, two Governors (one of each party) and two mayors (one of each party).
The establishment of a Federal Commission on Metropolitan Area Problems is clearly consistent with the program and policies of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. At the 1958 annual conference in Miami Beach last September a resolution was adopted calling for a complete study and examination of the problems growing out of the Nation's increasing urbanization. Senator Clark's bill merits the support of those who would seek solutions to the problems of metropolitan areas. Therefore, I urge that you tell your delegation in the Senate and House of your interest in S. 1431.
So that you might have the fullest possible information on this very important proposal, I have had the statement Senator Clark made in the Senate upon intra duction of S. 1431 and the bill itself reproduced. This material is enclosed herewith. With best personal wishes always, I am Sincerely yours,
HARRY R. BETTERS, Erecutive Director.
[Congressional Record, Mar. 16, 1959)
(Statement of Senator Joseph S. Clark, of Pennsylvania, on the introduction of
S. 1431, to provide for the establishment of a Commission on Metropolitan
Mr. CLARK. A short time ago I sent to the desk, for appropriate reference, a bill to provide for the establishment of a Commission on Metropolitan Problems.
Sixty percent of all Americans live in metropolitan areas. That means more than 100 million individuals.
If Census Bureau forecasts are correct, the population of this country, now 175 million, will double within the lifetime of most people now living. There is every reason to believe that the percentage of those living in metropolitan areas will increase. Indeed, it is likely that by the year 2000 more than 300 million Americans will be living in such areas.
Already our cities and suburbs are expanding into the countryside at a rapid rate. Already they are merging with one another. Already one vast metropolitan area stretches along the Atlantic seaboard, embracing parts of 11 States and the District of Columbia.
Mr. President, 2 years ago the New York Times published an excellent series of articles analyzing the problems created by the explosive growth of metro politan areas. In that series it listed 24 standard metropolitan areas which in reality constitute a single metropolis reaching from Massachusetts to Virginia and including 27 million people.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that this list of eastern seaboard metropolitan areas, with their 1950 populations, printed in the New York Times of January 27, 1957, may appear in the Record at this point in my remarks: Lowell-Lawrence-Haverhill, Mass---
340, 906 Boston
2, 558, 581 Fall River-New Bedford, Mass--
278, 247 Providence, R.I..
775, 985 Worcester, Mass.-
332, 261 Springfield-Holyoke, Mass.
407, 255 Hartford, Conn..
358, 081 Waterbury, Conn..
154, 656 New Britain-Bristol, Conn.
146, 983 New Haven, Conn...
264, 622 Bridgeport, Conn.
258, 137 Stamford-Norwalk, Conn.-
196, 023 New York-northeast New Jersey
12, 911, 994 Trenton, N.J----
229, 781 Atlantic City, N.J..
132, 399 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pa..
437, 824 Philadelphia, Pa---
3, 671, 048 Reading, Pa.---
255, 740 Lancaster, Pac
234, 717 Harrisburg, Pa..
292, 241 York, Pa
202, 737 Wilmington, Del..
268, 387 Baltimore, Md.
1, 337, 373 Washington, D.C.
1, 464, 089
27, 510, 067 Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the New York Times article explains that an urban region is defined as an expanse in which two or more standard metropolitan areas overlap or adjoin. A standard metropolitan area consists of a county containing at least one city of 50,000 or more population, or several adjoining counties containing such cities.
As defined by the Census Bureau, it includes also "contiguous counties if, according to certain criteria, they are essentially metropolitan in character and socially and economically integrated with the central city.”
An exception was made for New England, where the Census Bureau defines a metropolitan area in terms of towns and cities instead of counties.
Under these terms, the great eastern seaboard region is technically two urban regions, with the Boston-centered cluster of metropolitan areas, from Haverhill to Worcester, a separate urban region. But for all practical purposes, the eastern seaboard's 600-mile strip is regarded as a single region.
The article lists 17 other urban regions, with a total population in 1950 exceeding 32 million. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of these regions and their populations be printed in the Record at this point.
(The 17 other urban regions, in order of size, are:) Chicago, Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee.
6, 551, 234 Cleveland, Lorain-Elyria, Akron, Canton, Youngstown, WheelingSteubenville, Pittsburgh, Johnstown, Altoona--
5, 833, 593 Los Angeles, San Diego, San Bernardino-Riverside..
5, 376, 407 Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, Bay City----
3, 529, 136 San Francisco-Oakland, Sacramento, Stockton, San Jose..
3, 009, 204 Cincinnati, Hamilton-Middletown, Dayton, Springfield.
1, 620, 599 Seattle, Tacoma..
1,008, 868 Dallas, Fort Worth
976, 052 Houston, Galveston.
919, 767 Kansas City, St. Joseph-
649, 637 625, 981 589, 427 337, 192 280, 866 238, 089 230, 337
32, 686, 572 Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the populations of all these urban regions total 60,196,639, according to the 1950 census. The urban regions include 77 of the Nation's 174 standard metropolitan areas.
Since 1950 there has been an extraordinary-indeed, an almost explosive additional growth in the suburban regions which are a part of these urban and metropolitan areas, and, consequently, during the years since the 1950 census the populations of those urban regions have grown by an additional 10 million.
Already this explosive growth has created social, economic, and political problems which are getting out of hand. As President Eisenhower said in 1957 at Williamsburg, Va., "the needs of our cities are glaringly evident. Unless action is prompt and effective, urban problems will soon almost defy solution.”
Those, Mr. President, are words of truth; indeed, if anything, they are conservative. I should like to stress the need for prompt and effective action, as advocated by the President of the United States, before these problems do get so definitely out of hand that their successful solution may become impossible.
Let us consider the major metropolitan problems.
Perhaps the most serious is transportation. The question is, How can people be moved cheaply and quickly into, out of, and around our metropolitan areas? Millions of people must travel daily from their homes to their places of employment and back, and must move around their home areas for dozens of other proper purposes. While mass transit and suburban rail traffic wither on the vine, we are committed to a vast federally sponsored urban highway program, with costs running in at least one instance as high as $17 million a mile. Think of that, Mr. President, $17 million to build 1 mile of a highway on the Federal system through a congested urban area. Meanwhile, automobile and truck traffic congestion clogs our existing urban roads and threatens the slow economic strangulation of our cities.
Mr. President, those of us who live in the Greater Washington metropolitan area and who motor back and forth to work in the Capital during rush hours are keenly aware of what traffic strangulation can do to our personal convenience and to the business of the Government. We are keenly aware of the fact that Washington has no subway system and that its trolley system is quite inadequate to meet the needs of the community. We are also aware of the fact that the bus system, while a fine one, nevertheless, does not fully meet the needs of the people of this great area in their effort to go about their daily business, and to attend to those social and recreational activities which are a part of daily living.
We are all aware of the wide range of plans for inner loops and outer loops, and the need to provide even more space for the automobiles while the automobiles get bigger and seem sometimes to carry fewer and fewer passengers.
We know the railroads in this area carry very little of the daily suburban traffic load, and bring few people in and out of downtown Washington. We have here, under our noses, in our own Nation's Capital, a good example of the problems of traffic control and transportation and we can observe how inadequate transportation is slowly strangling the life of a great city.
Mr. President, I turn next to the major metropolitan problem of shelter. Thirteen million housing units which are unsafe or unsanitary are occupied by American families, most of them in metropolitan areas. Slums and blight spread faster than ambitious plans are able to remove them. Commercial and industrial slums are almost as serious as those in residential districts.
Only recently we approved what, in my judgment, is a very good housing bill. It includes massive Federal assistance for our metropolitan areas. So this is clearly another area where the Federal Government is already deeply involved.
I turn now to the subject of water. Water shortages are no longer only a western problem. “The day the taps run dry" is approaching for the industrial Northeast as well as for the Great Plains and Western States. Stream pollu