MASTER’S THESIS M-664
HARMAN, Bryan Douglas. CONGRESS AND URBAN RENEWAL IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
The American University, M.A., 1964 Political Science, general
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan COPYRIGHT BY
BRYAN DOUGLAS HARMAN
1965 CONGRESS AND URBAN RENEWAL IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
by B'. Douglas Harman
A Thesis
Submitted to the
Faculty of the School of Government and Public Administration
in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree
of Master of Arts
Signatures of G^mmitte^; C hairman : j
C .O'- /
January, 1964
The American University Washington, D. C . LIBRARY 161964 i^ASHiNGTQN. a c SOS'Çy FOREWORD
This thesis developed from a general interest in
leadership in urban government and planning. It was felt
that a study of the operations of the District Committees in
urban renewal might serve to do two things. First, it could
serve possibly as an addition to the limited research on how
Congress governs the District of Columbia. Secondly, it might lead toward better understanding of the leadership
requirements in urban redevelopment. It seems that both of
these areas deserve considerable examination.
Several persons made this thesis possible, and the
author is very grateful for their assistance. Dr. Royce
Hanson of The American University gave substantial guidance
and encouragement in the formulation and development of the
thesis. The author is also indebted to the many persons
from the District Committees, the renewal agencies, and the
groups interested in renewal who gave their time in describing
the various aspects of renewal politics in the District. The
author must share with these people any merit which may
exist. The faults are the author's.
The author must also express his deepest appreciation
to his lovely wife for her endurance of the tribulations of
writing this thesis and for her very long hours before the
typewriter. TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. AN INTRODUCTION TO A STUDY OF RENEWAL
POLITICS ...... 1
Background Literature...... 1
District Committee literature...... 1
Renewal politics literature...... 4
District renewal literature...... 8
Renewal Concepts ...... 10
Research Problems...... 11
Preliminary Hypotheses ...... 12
Methodology...... l4
Organization ...... 15
II. THE PROBLEMS OF RENEWAL...... 17
Substantive Problems ...... ^ . . . 17
B a c k g r o u n d ...... l8
First renewal plans...... 19
Renewal finances ...... 19
Legal authority...... 21
Renewal concepts ...... 21
D e v e l o p e r s ...... 23
Contractor qualification ...... 24
Financial disputes ...... 25
R e l o c a t i o n ...... 25 Iv
CHAPTER - PAGE
Negotiated contracts ...... 28
Slum determination...... 29
Citizen participation...... 30
Commercial renewal a u t h o r i t y ...... 32
Organizational Problems...... 33
Renewal process...... 34-
Expressway location...... 35
Building locations...... 36
HHFA regulations ...... 36
Office of Urban Renewal...... 37
Renewal expectations...... 39
Consultants...... 40
Conflict over financing...... 4l
III. congressional ACTION ON RENEWAL...... 43
Period of Slight Congressional Interest...... 43
Lease-Purchase A c t ...... 43
Appropriation Subcommittees...... 44
Redevelopment Act amended...... 45
Section 13 B i l l s ...... 45
Period of Early Congressional Concern...... 47
Congressman Rabaut ...... 47
H e a r i n g s ...... 49
Bill dies...... 57
House study...... 58 V
CHAft’ER PAGE
Reprimand...... 58
Renewal powers...... 59
Senate action ...... 60
Period of Congressional Rejection of Reform . . 6l
House renewal s t u d y ...... 6l
Senate investigation...... 65
Commercial renewal...... 66
Renewal bills ...... 6 7
Period of Increased An t a g o n i s m s ...... 70
House investigation ...... 70
Commercial renewal...... 79
Renewal bills ...... 80
Conclusion...... 82
IV. CONGRESS AND THE RENEWAL AGENCIES ...... 83
The Renewal Agencies...... 83
Members of Congress and the Agencies...... 87
Congressional Staff and Renewal Agencies. . . . 94
General Committee Investigations...... 99
V. THE INTEREST GROUPS AND CONGRESS...... 107
Renewal Groups...... 107
Proponents...... 107
Opponents...... 114
Groups and Congress ...... 119
Proponents and C o n g r e s s ...... 119
Opponents and Congress...... 125 Vi
CHAPTER p a g e
VI. SUMMARY OF F I N D I N G S ...... 134
Reconsideration of Hypotheses ...... 134
Findings Analyzed with Other Studies...... 139
Suggestions for Further Research...... 144
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... l46 CHAPTER I
AN INTRODUCTION TO A STUDY OP RENEWAL POLITICS
There is a dearth of research on the role of Congress as a unit of government for the District of Columbia, In recent years, only two authors have given the District of
Columbia Committees of the House and Senate more than minuscule consideration. Even these two studies considered these Committees as parts of larger research projects.
There is, therefore, only limited scholarly examination on the subject of Congress' role as a governing body over the
District of Columbia. It seems proper that investigation into this area be undertaken. Since Congress' purview over the District is very broad, such a study should focus upon a specific area of Congressional concern. In recent years, one of the most publicized and controversial fields considered by the District Committees has been urban renewal. Since
1 9 5, 9 portions of Congress have assumed increasing interest in the substance and organization of renewal. It is the purpose of this paper to describe the role of Congress in the politics of renewal in the District of Columbia.
Martha Derthick, City Politics in Washington. D . Ç. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, I9 6 2); Royce Hanson, Capital, Metropolis, and Local Government: The Process of Governing Metropolitan Washington" (unpublished Ph.D. dis sertation, The American University, Washington, D. C ., 1 9 6 2), I . BACKGROUND LITERATURE
In order to undertake such a study, one must give careful consideration to the pertinent literature. Several general fields of research are relevant. Such literature includes that concerning the District Committees and staffs, the politics and administration of renewal, and the District's renewal program. The findings of the literature in these areas are vital in formulating further research design.
District Committee literature. Martha Derthick's
Citv Politics in Washington. D . Ç. is one of the two recent studies to consider the District Committees. Her work was not meant to be a finished treatise. Rather, it is a col lection of "raw and semi-interpreted data."^ She highlights many of the main characteristics of the Committees. The pre eminence of the House District Committee, the Southern domination, and the low general interest of members are elements which she considers.
The second work is Royce Hanson's "Capital, Metropolis, and Local Government," a study of the politics of the Wash ington metropolitan area. Again the District Committees are cast as a part of a larger setting. However, this disser tation analytically describes the operations of these
Committees, and it provides starting points for further
^Derthick, og_. cit.. p. ii 3 inquiry. Hanson hypothesizes that the Committees have failed as units of government because of their reluctance to delegate power. Other contributing factors are the rural interest domination, the irrelevancy of constituencies, the fragmented legislative scheme, and the absence of responsibility. Hanson concludes that Congress, as a unit of local government, is
"inept and cantankerous." The whole scheme is marked by vetoes and stalemates. This study provides many valuable points of departure for a more detailed consideration of this phase of Congressional action.
Various general works on Congress include limited materials on District Committee action and behavior. George
Galloway, for example, briefly discusses the District situation,
He complains of the amount of time, an estimated five thousand 2 hours, spent on District affairs each session. These limited comments are only the briefest of introductions to this subject. Several of the studies on Congressional behavior do contain materials relevant to one aspect of District Com mittees. This is the role of the staff members in District matters. Neither Derthick nor Hanson amplifies this phase of the District affairs. Ernest S. Griffith discusses staff expertise as a most critical aspect of Congressional operation.
^Hanson, 0£. cit.. p. 1 7 8.
%eorge B. Galloway, The Legislative Process in Congress (New York: Thomas Y . Crowell Company, 1953TT P» 2 0 6. The survival of Congress as a viable unit of government depends upon adequate staffingHowever, he does not con sider the political implications of staffing. Gladys Kammerer does study this aspect. She recognizes that political con- 2 sidérations are often primary in the staffing of committees.
Stephen K. Bailey, in Congress at W o rk, warned of the influence of entrenched staff members There is a substantial body of literature on matters of staffing committees, but there seems to be no mention of the staffing considerations of the
District Committees in particular. Also, these works appear to deal only slightly with the influence of key staff members on particular fields of legislation. The literature dealing directly upon the District Committees is limited in scope.
General works on Congress provide only cursory or indirect insights into the governing of the District. However, this body of literature is sufficient to develop further designs for research.
Renewal politics literature. Another body of literature relevant to a study of Congress and District renewal is that
Ernest S. Griffith, Congress: Its Contemporary Role (New York: New York University Press, 1956), p. 74. ^Gladys M. Kammerer, The Staffing of the Committees of Congress (Louisville, Kentucky: Bureau of Government Research, University of Kentucky, 19^9), P* 38. ^Stephen K . Bailey and Howard D. Samuel, Congress at Work (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1952), p. 9. 5 dealing with renewal administration and politics. Renewal is a relatively new field, and social scientists have only begun to examine the implications of this process. One of the central themes in much of this literature is that in the renewal process there must be a central figure which is able to control the diffusion of renewal powers. The renewal process has been considered from various vantages, and most authors seem to agree that this condition is requisite for a viable program, Robert Dahl's Who Governs? . a power structure study of New Haven, reaches this conclusion in its discussion of Mayor Richard Lee and his city's renewal program. New
Haven has had one of the most extensive renewal programs in the nation, and Dahl attributes this to the Mayor's ability to make renewal the central political issue. "What Lee did as mayor was to push redevelopment and renewal to the center of focus and to hold it there year after year."^ This maneuver made Mayor Lee the central figure, the catalytic agent. The two renewal administrators followed Lee's directions. Dahl estimated that half of the successful actions on renewal could be directly attributed to the Mayor 2 and his renewal staff. Thus, they limited the diffusion of renewal powers .
^Robert A. Dahl. Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1 9 6I), p. 126I
^Ibid.. p. 124. 6
A second study supporting this general thesis is the one by Harold Kaplan, "Urban Renewal in Newark, New Jersey."^ This paper also centered on the power structure of a successful renewal program. However, in Newark it was the Executive
Director of the Housing Authority, Louis Danzig, who was the central figure. The Director, through manipulations of the various politicians, was able to keep the program moving and to keep renewal powers in his office. By using the patronage of renewal, the Director satisfied each of the major political elements. Kaplan concluded that one of the reasons that this could be done was that Danzig was able to control the pluralistic political environment in most matters affecting renewal. Implicit in this is the hypothesis that when the renewal powers are spread and diffused among too many of the various political and administrative bodies, injury to the renewal program will result. A study of the Hyde Park-
Kenwood renewal project in Chicago is an example of the 2 diffusion which limits a renewal program. Rossi and Dentier point to an inadequate leadership structure as the cause of certain failures. The city government operated in a
Harold Kaplan, "Urban Renewal in Newark, New Jersey: The Power Structure of a 'Successful ' Program" (A paper delivered at the I96I Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, St. Louis, Missouri, September 6 -9, 1 9 6 1). ^Peter H. Rossi and Robert A. Dentier, The Politics of Urban Renewal (Glencoe: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1 9 6 1). 7 decentralized fashion that promoted conflict between the
various agencies and citizens groups interested in renewal.
Also, Mayor Kennelly was an especially weak mayor. The major
problem which Rossi and Dentier saw in Chicago was one of
leadership. The works by Dahl, Kaplan, Rossi and Dentier
are the major studies on renewal politics in specific cities.
There is a limited amount of literature comparatively
analyzing the political and administrative aspects of urban renewal. The chief commentator in this category is George
Duggar. He has directed several large-scale studies of
renewal structures, and he too confirms the idea that a
central figure is necessary for a renewal program. Mayor
Lee of New Haven is quoted by Duggar as saying that the only
communities with successful programs were those where the
chief executives were willing to take the risk of serving as
the catalyst. Duggar amplified this. "The equivalent of a
chief executive and of a 'catalyst' must exist in urban
renewal, and they must be made one, at least symbolically."^
Duggar also concluded that the form of government was not
necessarily the determinant as to whether or not this catalyst 2 developed.
Other general studies have also made this point.
^George Duggar, "Local Organization for Urban Renewal," Public Management. XXX (July, 1958), 158.
^Ibid.. p. 159. 8
Jerome Kaufman In The Communlty Renewal Program concluded that
a successful program requires the chief executive to act in a
"central role" in the preparation of the program.^ Kaufman
cites fragmented government as the major reason for renewal
difficulties and failures. The Federal City Council, a
Washington business organization, analyzed the Washington 2 renewal program and reached a similar conclusion. The first
of the primary ingredients for renewal was "Leadership from
City Hall," It stated that the elected leadership must place
its very offices upon the success of the program. The major
studies of renewal leadership support the thesis that a
central figure or a catalytic agent which controls diffusion
of renewal powers is required for an adequate renewal program.
The conclusions of this body of literature should provide a
basis for a study of renewal politics in Washington, D. C.
District renewal literature. The third and final
body of literature relevant to this study is that which
concerns the District's renewal program. There is no major
scholarly study of the renewal program and politics. The
Jerome L. Kaufman, The Community Renewal Program; The First Years (Chicago; The American Society of Planning Officials), p. 6 .
U n i t e d States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia, District of Columbia Urban Renewal Program. 8 7th Congress, 1st Session, on Federal City Council Urban Renewal Study, April 11, 1961 (Washington; Government Printing Office, I9 6I), p. 46. 9 various architectural journals have periodically reviewed the
Washington program. Both the American Institute of Architects
Journal and Architectural Forum of January, I963 devoted
articles to the program.^ However, these journals centered
their comments upon design features and progress. There are
a few studies purporting to be more broadly analytical. One O is the study by the Federal City Council prepared in 1 9 6 1.
However, this study was directed toward supporting certain
aims of the Council; and, therefore, it has certain limi
tations. The Derthick study on City Politics contains a 3 section on renewal. Her treatment is cursory, but some of
her conclusions deserve careful critical analysis. Hanson's
dissertation provides a clear analysis of organizational 4 diffusion within the program. Leadership, Hanson concludes,
is a major problem. A case study by Barbara Wurtzel focused
specifically upon the organization of renewal in the District. 5
I. M. Pei, "Urban Renewal in Southwest Washington," The J ournal of the American Institute of Architects (January, 1 9 6 3), p. 65; Architectural Forum: The Magazine of Building. "Southeast Washington: Finest Urban Renewal Effort in the Country" (January, 1 9 6 3), p. 8 5.
^House, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Program, op.. cit.
derthick, op.. cit., p. 1 7 9.
^Hanson, pp. pit., p. 214. ^Barbara Wurtzel, "The Southwest Projects— A Case Study of Urban Renewal Organization in the District of Columbia" (unpublished case study. The American University, Washington, D . C ., 1 9 6I) . 10
Her principal recommendation was for the consolidation of diffused renewal authorities into a Department of Urban Re newal and Housing. She felt that "overlapping functions and wasteful duplication and delay" were the major problems facing renewal organization.^ Her analysis, however, does not con sider Congressional involvement in the renewal process.
These three bodies of literature are fundamental to examining Congress and renewal politics in the District of
Columbia. None of the literature is directed primarily to this particular aspect, but the total body of literature does provide a basis for developing further a research design.
II. RENEWAL CONCEPTS
It is necessary to clarify the meaning of renewal for there is substantial disagreement over what renewal is and what it is to do. In general terms, renewal can be either public or private regeneration of worn-out parts of the city.
It is a process which is meant to assure continuity of 2 development and rejuvenation of the city.
The conflict over public programs centers upon the purpose of renewal. One concept of the purpose is that it is to make the slums safe and decent for its occupants. The
^Ibid.. p. 6 5.
^Miles L. Colean, Renewing Our Cities (New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1953)1 P« 6, 11 antecedents of this concept stem from governmental policies to correct environment deficiencies ih order to prevent health and social injury. Proponents of this approach support re habilitation of existing slum dwellings and favor minimum relocation of occupants.
The second basic concept of the purpose of renewal favors total replanning of areas to fulfill a new economic and aesthetic purpose. Often it is felt that unless there are basic changes in the purpose of an area, that area will quickly slip back into its former plight. The advocates of this approach are generally more concerned with the physical and economic implications than with the social and health matters. As this thesis will indicate, both approaches have been tried in the District of Columbia. There is no resolution today of this conflict between these two concepts of renewal.
It should be pointed out that aside from this conflict, the program of government renewal, in itself, is questioned by some individuals. They maintain that the problems inherent in slum areas are not serious enough to warrant government intervention. This study will not attempt to resolve these conflicts, but it will try to Indicate how theme affect and influence a specific political environment.
Ill. RESEARCH PROBLEMS
The several bodies of literature guide in the development of the principal and subsidiary research problems. 12
The principal research problem is to describe and to analyze the role of Congress in the politics of renewal in the District
of Columbia. There are several subsidiary research problems.
The first one is to develop from available literature hypo
theses to guide an analysis of this role of Congress. The
second is to describe and to analyze the organizational and
substantive problems encountered in the development of renewal
in the District of Columbia. The third subsidiary research
problem is to describe the legislative action on the District's
renewal program. The fourth is to analyze and to evaluate the
relations between the District Committees and the renewal agencies. The fifth is to analyze and to appraise interest group accessibility and influence with the District Committees in renewal matters. The final subsidiary research problem is to evaluate the stated hypotheses in light of the findings of the research and to suggest further avenues of research.
IV. PRELIMINARY HYPOTHESES
Based upon the general literature concerning renewal and District government, the preliminary hypotheses can be set forth. These will be closely examined in view of the findings of the research. The first hypothesis is drawn from the general research on the politics of renewal. The findings of research which emphasized the importance of a catalytic agent should be compared with the situation existing in
Washington. It can be hypothesized that the diffusion of 13 renewal authority and responsibility among numerous city and
Federal governmental units encourages confusion, conflict,
and delay.
The second hypothesis is drawn from the general
resources concerning the District's renewal program. There
are a number of conflicts concerning the renewal program,
and these seem to be divided between those of a substantive
nature and those of an organizational nature. In this back ground, it is hypothesized that the major conflicts between
Congress and the renewal agencies stem from basic dis
agreement over the substantive nature and purpose of renewal.
Preliminary perusal of literature on Congress and
preliminary consideration of internal structure and organiza
tion of the District Committees lead to two other hypotheses.
The first of these concerns the involvement and responsi
bility of the members of Congress in renewal matters. It is
hypothesized that the control of Congress' renewal activities
concerning the District of Columbia rests in the hands of a
small number of Congressmen and Senators, The second of
these two hypotheses focuses on the positions of staff members
of Congress concerned with renewal. It can be hypothesized
that certain staff members of Congress assume major respon
sibility for directing Congress' actions on renewal.
The final preliminary hypothesis stems from the
relationships of Congressmen and Senators with local interests 14 groups. It is hypothesized that the members of the District
Committees rely upon a relatively few individuals and groups for guidance in renewal affairs. These five preliminary hypotheses will be analyzed in view of the findings of the research.
V . METHODOLOGY
The steps followed in directing this research are as follows: 1. The general bibliographical material was examined.
This provided a background in general renewal politics and administration and aided in establishing the preliminary scope of the study.
2. The various official reports and hearings of
Congress, renewal agency materials, and selected articles on the politics of the District of Columbia were utilized to provide the general historical setting of renewal politics.
3. Preliminary hypotheses concerning the general
scheme of renewal activities in Congress and the relation ships between interest groups and the District Committees were made.
. 4. The history and development of legislative acticn on renewal was closely examined through official records, newspaper accounts, and personal interviews. Each of these will be assimilated into an analytical account of the period of legislative concern for renewal. 15 5. Personal interviews, official documents, and records of hearings were used to develop the general pattern of relations between the renewal agencies and Congress.
6 . Personal interviews with executives of interest groups, members of Congress, and Congressional staff members were utilized to provide an account of the relations between
Congress and interest groups. Also, official correspondence files, interest group materials, and news articles were examined.
7. The findings of this research were compared with the statements of the preliminary hypotheses and with other research on this subject.
8. Upon the basis of the entire study, possible further research topics were developed.
VI. ORGANIZATION
The research is presented in a pattern designed to facilitate the general research design. This chapter serves as an introduction to the study. It considers the literature relevant to the subject, and it outlines the major research problems. The preliminary hypotheses for this study are presented. The focus for the following chapters is set.
Chapter II follows the development of renewal programs in the District from the perspective of the major substantive and organizational problems. The consideration of these two areas of problems serves as a general background. These 16 two also play critical roles in developing research in the
following chapters. The next chapter amplifies these problems in the context of Congressional action. Chapter III provides the basic history of legislative action and behavior on the
District's program, and it prepares for more specialized analysis.
The following two chapters focus upon two fundamental
sets of relations. Chapter IV develops the relations between
Congress and the renewal agencies. First, it explains the
positions of these agencies before Congress. Two patterns are developed. The first is between the members and the
agencies, and the second is between the Congressional staff members and the agencies. This chapter begins to establish
the extent and nature of Congressional interest in renewal.
Chapter V develops the relations between Congress and renewal
interest groups. It first describes both the proponents and
the opponents of renewal. The patterns of relationships
peculiar to each of these divisions and to the individual
groups is described and analyzed.
The final chapter reviews the findings of the pre
ceding chapters, and it reviews preliminary hypotheses upon
the basis of these findings, It also compares the findings
of this research with that of other studies of Washington
politics and of urban renewal. Finally, it attempts to
suggest areas for further research. CHAPTER II
THE PROBLEMS OP RENEWAL
An examination of the development of urban renewal in the District of Columbia indicates that most of the problems of renewal can be organized into two categories. The problems of renewal seem to be substantive and organizational in nature.
The substantive problems are those that ar5i.se when exercising or as a result of exercising renewal powers. They include the problems arising from the basic purposes of renewal.
The second category, organizational problems, includes con flicts arising between the governmental units invested with renewal authority. This chapter will relate these two categories of problems to the continuing conflict over the meaning and application of renewal in Washington.
I . SUBSTANTIVE PROBLEMS
Renewal in the District of Columbia has encountered many serious substantive problems. The most obvious effect of these has been to subject the basic elements of renewal to close scrutiny. Also, many of the specific substantive issues have been raised by opponents of renewal in calling for the alteration of the basic elements of the process.
The substantive problems involve such things as mass demolition, land acquisition and disposition, relocation, and 18 citizen participation. Renewal in the District has encountered debate on each of these substantive problems.
Background. The District of Columbia has been a pioneer in the field of renewal and redevelopment. In 1934, the Alley Dwelling Act established in the Alley Dwelling
Authority powers similar to those eventually exercised by renewal agencies. That program was limited by insufficient funds and by amendments to the original A c t . The movement to rid the Capital of slums was continued, howeverIn
1944, hearings were held on several bills to create an agency for slum clearance. Features of various bills were con solidated into S. 1426 which eventually became law. The main features of that law were proposed by the National
Capital Planning Commission (NCFC). In 194$, the Senate bill passed through both houses of Congress; and, in 1946, 2 the Redevelopment Act became law. The general purpose of the Act was "to provide for the replanning and rebuilding of slum, blighted, and other areas of the District of Columbia.
..." The Act created the Redevelopment Land Agency (RLA) as the executor of renewal projects.
^Earl Thomas Hanson, "Urban Redevelopment in the United States" (published abstract of a Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1952), p. 50.
^Public Law 5 9 2, 7 9th Congress, 60 Statute 790. 19 First renewal plans. By 194-7, the RLA had a Board of
Directors, and the NCPC had acquired funds for renewal planning in the District. The Planning Commission's 1948 plan called for the redevelopment of two areas, Marshall
Heights and Barry Farms. However, the appropriations for these projects had to pass through Congress, according to the
1945 Act, and bitter opposition to these plans resulted In the District of Columbia appropriation subcommittee blocking the required special appropriations. In fact. Section 6 0 9 of the 1949 Housing Act forbade the Housing and Home Finance
Agency (HHFA) from providing assistance to projects for which appropriations had been denied by Congress Thus, Congress halted the first attempt to use renewal authority.
Renewal finances. As the District of Columbia appropriations subcommittees of Congress blocked the first renewal projects proposed for the District, the full Congress passed an act which made it possible for the renewal agencies of the District to avoid going to the District of Columbia committees for specific project appropriations. The 1949
Housing Act established renewal on a national scale, and it also brought to life the District's renewal program.
Section 6 0 9 of the Housing Act added a new section to the 1945 Redevelopment Act. This new section. Section Twenty,
^Public Law 1 7 1, 8lst Congress, 63 Statute 4l3. 20 allowed for an alternative method of financing renewal through
Title I of the 19^9 Act. The Housing and Home Finance Agency administers Title I . The renewal agencies now had a means of financing their projects without having to seek appro priations from the District Committees.
In 1 9 5, 0 the District Commissioners requested and received administrative funds for the RLA. Until that year, the RLA operated on the private money of the members of the
Board of DirectorsAlso, the Planning Commission received a capital grant reservation of funds from HHFA for renewal projects; and, in the same year, it published its comprehensive plan for Washington. Upon the basis of this plan, the RLA received funds for preliminary studies in Southwest, South east, and Northwest Washington. In 1951, the RLA Board appointed John R . Searles, Jr., Executive Director. He soon began to develop a staff for the Agency. By the middle of
1 9 5, 1 the Planning Commission adopted boundaries for five projects in Southwest Washington.
Between 19^5 and 1951, the basic renewal powers were established and sufficient financial support for renewal was provided. By 1951, the renewal program In the District was ready to begin.
United States Congress, Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Documents. 1960-1 9 6I. Staff Report, Volume I, RLA Materials, 8?th Congress, 1st Session (Washington: Government Printing Office, January, 1 9 6 1), p. 7 6 4. 21
Legal authority. The first major substantive problem to confront the renewal agencies was that of establishing the legal authority to take land by eminent domain for renewal.
The RLA and HHFA decided that land acquisition should not proceed at a "normal pace" until the constitutionality of the renewal process had been established by the courts.^ In
December, 1952, two department store owners filed suit against the Land Agency, claiming that the land acquisitions were unconstitutional.
In 195, 4 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared that the renewal powers of the RLA were constitutional
The decision rendered by Associate Justice William 0. Douglas
In the Berman Case not only declared the Redevelopment Act constitutional, but it broadly défined the government's authority to zone for aesthetic purposes. Justice Douglas said in his decision, "If those who govern the District of
Columbia decide the Nation's Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment 2 that stands in the way," Thus, the renewal agencies had won their case, but the court proceedings had delayed full- scale land acquisition until nearly 1955, over two years.
Renewal concepts . One of the early problems was in deciding what the role of renewal should be in Southwest,
^Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Documents, o p . cit., p. 783*
German v , Parker. 348 U . S , 33 (1954). 22
The NCPC made Its preliminary surveys of Southwest; and, late in 1 9 5, 1 its plan was presented by its consultant, Elbert Peets,
The "Peets Plan" called for the preservation of the character of the area by rehabilitation. However, the RLA and HHFA did not favor this type of renewal. They claimed that the area was too deteriorated to be economically restored and that the whole area should be replanned for a new economic function.
The RLA hired several consultants to prepare such a plan. Two consultant architects, Louis Justement and
Chloethiel Smith, in their plan presented in May of 1952, called for major changes in Southwest. Their proposal went far beyond slum clearance to provide for a completely new ' - community. The architects saw renewal as the tool to make a
"well-balanced community for gracious living. . , The
RLA adopted this plan which called for mass demolition and programs of large-scale rebuilding and relocation.
The two basic approaches were presented. Late in
1 9 5, 2 NCPC developed a compromise plan which accepted the 2 principle of major replanning. Southwest's renewal program now took on a new dimension, the complete replanning of over four hundred acres of land near the heart of Washington.
^The Evening Star Washington, D , CjJ, September 17, 1 9 6 1, p. W-3.
^I. M, Pei, "Urban Renewal In Southwest Washington," American Institute of Architects Journal (January, 19b3), p. 66. 23 Developers. In 1953, the NCPC and the District of
Columbia Commissioners established the boundaries for a 446- acre project covering all of Southwest. The RLA received
HHFA survey funds for the area. The preliminary RLA plans for the area were criticized at a public hearing by the Board of Trade, Metropolitan Home Builders, and other organizations.
The plan was criticized for being unimaginative.
During this period, William Zeckendorf of Webb and
Knapp Construction of New York brought forward a plan for the entire area. He was the only contractor to present such a plan or even to show great interest in the area. Local con tractors indicated little interest in 1954. The Zeckendorf proposal was presented to the local groups and agencies.
It included an esplanade entrance to Southwest, a Plaza, a residential community, and a shopping center
In 1 9 5, 4 the RLA with NCPC and the District Commissioners made a "memorandum of understanding" with Webb and Knapp. It provided that the RLA would assist Webb and Knapp in studying the area, that the RLA would support the planned 10th Street
Mall, that Webb and Knapp would get 50 per cent of the land to develop, and that the RLA would negotiate with no other 2 contractor during this agreement.
^Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Documents. op . cit.. p. 80I.
^Ibld.. p. 3 2 1. 24
Contractor qualification. Not only had preliminary difficulties delayed renewal, but contractor difficulties plagued the first project area. Project 3. This project was a relatively small one, only eighty acres. The plan designated this area primarily as residential, in the form of high-rise apartments, two-story flats, and row houses.^
There was only limited Interest shown by contractors
In the disposal of Project B when the bids were requested in late 1 9 5. 2 The RLA chose Bush Construction of Norfolk,
Virginia, to be the major developer. Bush Construction planned for the project, but It had not begun construction by May 1955. The court case, renewal procedures, and un favorable money markets were given as reasons by the con tractor for the delay.
By early in 1955, Bush Construction was having dif ficulties with the HHFA because of numerous other jobs left incomplete. Bush Construction was forced to withdraw from the Southwest project because of its standing on other 2 Federal Housing Administration construction projects.
The RLA was left In 1955 without a developer for
Project B. New offers were received from several companies
^The Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, State of the Nation's Capital. A Report to Congress (Wash ington: Government of the District of Columbia, January, 1 9 5), 9 p. 7-6. ^Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Documents, o p . cit.., p. 793. 25 for the project. Scheuer and Stevens Construction of New
York was selected from those that applied.
Financial disputes. Scheuer and Stevens Construction received its first FHA mortgage insurance in 1957. However, the contractors were not satisfied with the terms, and negotiations for better terms lasted for nearly a year. In
1 9 5, 9 Capital Park Apartments were completed. This was the first construction completed in the Southwest renewal area.
Another dispute between Federal Housing Administration and the contractors over mortgage terms for the town houses 1 lasted several months. By i9 6 0, after eight years, parts of Project B were beginning to reach completion.
Relocation. Another major substantive problem of considerable significance is relocation. According to
Philip Doyle, Executive Director of the RLA, relocation is 2 the real test for renewal. Renewal must be able to relocate those persons evicted into standard housing, or renewal becomes merely an instrument to move blight from one area
United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia, District of Columbia Urban Renewal Program. Hearings, 8 7th Congress, 1st Session, on Federal City Council Urban Renewal Study, April 11, I961 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 19 6I), p. 46.
^Statement by Philip Doyle, Executive Director of RLA, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 9, 1963. 26 to another.
Relocation has been a major issue since the renewal
program began in the District, The director of relocation
during the execution of Southwest claimed that there were
few difficulties. James Banks said that there just happened
to be an adequate supply of private housing.^ Over five
thousand families were moved from Southwest. Only half of 2 these families received substantial aid in moving.
The relocation process was sharply criticized by ad
hoc citizens' groups composed of displaced persons. The
Washington Planning and Housing Association demanded that
all city relocation be placed under the RLA, Presently the
responsibility is spread between the RLA, the Welfare De
partment, and the National Capital Housing Authority. However,
the RLA has been the only District agency which assists the
relocation of persons it displaces . Most persons displaced
receive no aid. The former Director of NCPC opposed cen
tralization of relocation services in the RLA because of 3 possible delay to renewal programs.
1 Statement by James Banks, Assistant Commissioner for Relocation and Community Development, Urban Renewal Administration, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., May 12, 1 9 6 3. 2 Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Documents, o p , cit,. p. 1399.
^Derthick, op.. cit.. p. 210, 27 The projected renewal in Adams-Morgan and the prospects
of further large-scale relocation sparked further controversy over this subject. The renewal agencies must depend upon the private housing market because of the limited amount of public housing and because of the great number of persons ineligible for public housing. Congressman John Dowdy of the District Committee claimed that as of June, 1 9 6 3, there were over six thousand persons in the District who had been evicted by District projects and had been relocated in sub standard housing,^ The Washington Urban League challenged the RLA estimates of adequate private housing for displaced persons from the Adams-Morgan project. Even Doyle of RLA admitted that predicting housing supplies for low income
families was "murkey business," Relocation involves racial
issues since the majority of those relocated are Negro, and
RLA predictions are based upon such factors as the future 2 influence of the late President Kennedy's housing order.
The relocation problem is complicated by difficulty in moving businesses. In 1956, the Congress amended the
1 9 4 9Housing Act to provide for financing relocation. However,
United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia, Report of Proceedings. Hearing before Subcommittee No. 4, 88th Congress, 1st Session, June 14, 1963 (Washington: Government Printing Office and Federal Reporters, Inc., 1 9 6 3), P . 1093.
^The Washington Post. July l4, 1963, P . E-2, 28 the experiences In Washington, as well as In the entire
nation. Indicate high business mortality. Many businesses
collapse under strains of loss of clientele, inability to
find inexpensive space, and financial losses suffered while
moving.^ As a result, as many as a third to one-half of all
businesses forced to relocate collapse. In view of the
record, one can understand the efforts of small businesses
to prevent renewal. Relocation is one of the major sub
stantive problems facing renewal agencies.
Negotiated contracts. Ranking with relocation as a
controversial issue is the system of negotiated bidding.
The RLA has the authority to negotiate in private with
developers and to grant contracts without public bidding.
The disposition of Southwest's Town Center, a commercial
complex, was the most criticized negotiated contract. Under
the "memorandum of understanding," Webb and Knapp was to
have first opportunity to develop the area. Thus, in 1956,
they presented an offer for the Town Center. The RLA
appraisers valued the land at four dollars a square foot.
This was rejected, and $1,25 was offered by the contractor.
After negotiations, the price of $2,25 per square foot was
reached by January of 1958.
^William N. Kinnard, Jr., and Zenon S. Malinowski, The Impact of Dislocation from Urban Renewal Areas on Small Business (Storrs; University of Connecticut, I9 6 0), p. 2. 29 Early that year, the District Commissioners held a public hearing to announce the contract. At this hearing,
Morris B. Cafritz, a Washington builder, offered $3.00 a square foot.^ This was rejected as being "untimely." How ever, the offer by Cafritz did force renegotiations over the price of the land, and Webb and Knapp eventually agreed to pay $3.00. Considerable resentment against the negotiated contract practices of the RLA stem from this rejection of a local builder's bid for land. The rejection of this bid is frequently cited by opponents of renewal when calling for competitive bidding. Another irritant Is the Columbia
Plaza renewal project. This is a small renewal project of fifteen acres in Foggy Bottom. It is to consist of 2 businesses and high rent apartments. It is claimed that a commercial project of such value should be disposed of by competitive bidding.
Slum determination. On several occasions the RLA and
NCPC attempted to Institute renewal procedures In certain areas only to be thwarted by insufficient slum property. In
1955, George Washington University area received boundary
^House, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Program, o p. cit., p. 51- %'he Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Columbia Plaza (Washington: Government Printing Office, June, 1 9 6 1), p. 1. 30 delineation, and the RIA began studies of the proposed re newal project. However, the RLA had to inform HHFA in 1957
that insufficient blight existed for renewal operations.
That same year, the RLA began studies on the Foggy Bottom
area. This survey was delayed because of pending highway
planning. In 1958, the Land Agency declared that road con
struction had eliminated enough blight to disqualify the
area for renewal. At least 20 per cent of an area must be
considered blighted in order to qualify for renewal.
In 1959, the NCPC proposed another project in the
general Foggy Bottom area. This was the fifteen-acre
Columbia Plaza project. In 1962, the RLA began relocation
and demolition, and the RLA selected the redeveloper. This
project seems to reflect part of the problem involved in
determining the slum content of an area. The renewal agencies
failed to find sufficient blight in the larger Foggy Bottom
areas, but they could find blighted conditions in a small,
fifteen-acre section. This project seems to lend credence
to assertions that under vague renewal statutes, renewal
authorities can establish projects almost anywhere. The
RLA has had several conflicts with District departments over
the true conditions of the Columbia Plaza area.
Citizen participation. One of the major problems of
renewal is in making the process conform to some democratic practices. In 1958, a citizens' group and American University 31 received a demonstration grant from HHFA to employ "citizen action" in blight control in Adams-Morgan. The indecision concerning the roles of the various District agencies caused considerable delay in approving the grant. NCFC worked with the project; and, in 1 9 6O, it developed boundaries for the project area. The Board of Commissioners approved the boundaries and directed the RLA to request planning funds 1 from HHFA,
Adams-Morgan was unique for the emphasis placed upon citizens' groups in developing renewal plans. This Is in contrast to Southwest where citizens had no voice In renewal.
There remains considerable controversy over whether citizens can be brought into the process. Citizen participation In
Adams-Morgan, according to Lawrence Press of NCPC, was not a success. The innumerable conflicts and disagreements almost stymied the project. Press thought that some other formula 2 using citizen participation must be devised. Others contend that the peculiar political environment of Washington defeated the plan, not the plan itself.
After several years of block planning, the plan was still to be approved by the Commissioners. Also, It appears
The Redevelopment Land Agency, D . Ç. Redevelopment Land Agency 1962. Annual Report (Washington; Redevelopment Land Agency, September 2 8, 1 9 6 2), p. 7,
^Statement by Lawrence Press, NCPC Planner, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 29, 19&3. 32 that the Kalorama area will be dropped from any renewal pro
ject. The Kalorama Citizens vociferously opposed the renewal plan. Thus, it appears that the renewal agencies of the
District have yet to devise successfully renewal in the con text of democratic action.
Commercial renewal authority. The final substantive renewal problem Is partially a product of an organizational problem. This is the problem of lacking authority to under take renewal in commercial areas. All other jurisdictions in
the United States are granted this authority under Federal
renewal laws. The District is also under the 194-5 Redevelop ment Act and the Corporation Counsel's interpretation of
that law. The Corporation Counsel is independent of the Commis
sioners, and he is able to thwart city programs with impunity.
The Director of Downtown Progress, the organization seeking
renewal for downtown, stated that in most political situations,
the heads of a local government could direct the attorney
to draft an opinion justifying a certain course of action.
But the Corporation Counsel of the District operates from an
independent base.^ He interpreted the 1945 Act so as to 2 prohibit renewal in commercial areas.
^Statement by Knox Banner, Executive Director of Down town Progress, personal interview, Washington, D. C., July 29, 1 9 6 3. ^The Washington Post. September 17, 1961, P . A-2. 33 Thus, the renewal agencies lack the basic substantive power to exercise renewal in many areas of the District.
Legislation from Congress is required to remedy this
situation.
Summary. The District's renewal program has encoun tered many substantive problems. Many have been technical
and legal problems which have merely delayed the projects.
However, several substantive problems remain very contro
versial. These are; power to take land for renewal, relocation, negotiated bidding, slum designation, commercial renewal, and citizen participation. The conflict over various con
cepts of renewal is evident in these substantive problems.
II. ORGANIZATIONAL PRCBIEMS
Besides substantive problems, the District's renewal program has encountered numerous organizational conflicts,
The primary problem appears to be in the way the process is
spread between several agencies, departments, and Congress.
This section will primarily consider the dispersion of authority between RLA, NCPC, the Office of Urban Renewal
(OUR), the District departments, the Commissioners, and the
District Committees. The role of Congress in this scheme will be considered in each of the following chapters. 34 Renewal process. The 1945 Act and subsequent acts and orders have established a complex set of functional relation ships between the several agencies involved in renewal.
There are five stages of renewal projects ; project designation, survey and planning, project approval and financing, project execution, and project completion.
In project designation, all three of the primary renewal interests are involved. The RLA, NCPC, and the Com missioners make preliminary studies. However, NCPC must adopt the boundaries, and the Commissioners must approve them before the RLA can submit them to HHFA.
The RLA has most of the responsibility for survey and planning. It inspects the area and prepares land studies.
However, NCPC and the Commissioners must approve of pre liminary project budgets.
Project approval and financing includes a number of detailed steps involving the Commissioners, RLA, NCPC, and
HHFA. The loan grants are eventually provided if each of the participants follows the procedure. The three District bodies must cooperate in providing a satisfactory plan for
HHFA.
The execution of the project rests mainly with the
RLÀ. It acquires the land and negotiates with contractors.
The District Commissioners become involved only when public land rights are needed. Relocation rests with the RLA.
Site improvement and design rests primarily with the RLA also. 35 The application of non-cash grants must be coordinated with the District government.
The final step of project execution mainly involves the RLA and HHFA in submission of records and payment of debts.^ The renewal process involves four primary partici pants, but the number of participants increases on various phases of renewal. These relationships often foster conflicts which delay renewal.
Expressway location. Though both the NCPC and the
RLA had reached agreement on the major elements of the
Southwest plan, the location of. the projected Expressway through Southwest had not been decided upon by the Department of Highways. That Department had not even begun to make detailed studies for the Expressway by 1952. The RLA and
NCPC reached agreement on what they felt to be the best location for the road, but the Highway Department decisions on location and specifications often were not in agreement with the renewal agencies'. The time spent upon deciding where to place the Expressway delayed renewal by much more 2 than six months.
^Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Documents, op. cit.. p. 8 7 7.
Barbara Wurtzel, "The Southwest Projects--A Case Study of Urban Renewal Organization in the District of Columbia" (unpublished case study. The American University, Washington, D. C., 1 9 6 1), p. 2 6 . 36 Building locations. Another conflict developed In
1955 over the proposed location of the Air Museum, The
officials of the Smithsonian and the NCPC could not decide
if it should be placed along the proposed mall. Eventually,
this dispute was disposed of by the agencies involved.
Another major controversy developed over the placement
of Federal Office Buildings in the renewal area. There was
some Congressional support for building in the area. This
led to the special Lease Purchase Act of 1955*^ However,
this system of financing the construction of office buildings was suspended before it was utilized. The Executive Director
of RLA at that time, John Searles, claimed that the special
legislation concerning the Federal Office Buildings in the 2 area, and its repeal caused considerable delay for the RLA.
These and other project disagreements slowed the area's
renewal and brought the Southwest projects unfavorable
publicity.
HHFA regulations. The renewal agencies decided that an area of thirty acres of Project C was of such a nature that
it might be handled more expeditiously if it were a separate unit. Therefore, early in 1956, this small section was
^Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Documents, op. cit.. p. 8 0 7.
^ouse. Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Program, op. cit.. p. 53. 37 separated from the whole unit and It was designated Project
C-1.
In spite of the hopes for easy project execution,
Project C-1 ran into several difficulties. First, HHFA held up funds for the renewal project because of difficulties in sharing the planning costs with Project C . Second, HHFA requirements stipulated that the land held by the Redevelopment
Agency should not be taxed by the city. In 1958, the HHFA waived this restriction upon the condition that the District
Commissioners would request from Congress appropriate legislation. The legislation was introduced in the 85th,
86th, 8 7th, and 88th Congresses, but it has never been approved by the House District Committee.
Office of Urban Renewal. The 1954 Housing Act provided for Federally supported rehabilitation type of renewal,^ The law made it possible to receive Federal grants for conser vation and rehabilitation as well as for mass demolition. A
"workable program," a plan to fight slums on a city-wide basis, was required. In the District, the new law placed the responsibility for the "workable plan" upon the Commis sioners. Until this time, the role of the Commissioners was only perfunctory. They did not take an active part in renewal until after 1954.
^Public Law 94, 8 3rd Congress, 68 Statute 121. 38 This new responsibility was met by creation of a special renewal office. On May 31, 1955, the Commissioners created an Office of Urban Renewal (OUR) . It was placed under an Assistant Engineer Commissioner. This implies that the Engineer Commissioner Is the chief renewal officer In the
District Government.
The new organization, rather than making the renewal process more workable, only made Inter-agency conflict more probable. None of the District Commissioners are equipped to provide leadership for renewal, but the least equipped is the Engineer Commissioner. These Army officers are especially prone to be conservative and cautious. The Washington Post said editorially that "the office of the District Engineer
Commissioner is the last place in which Washington is likely to find effective leadership for its lagging urban renewal program."^ The Post went on to accuse former Engineer Com missioner Welling of attempting to sidetrack the renewal program several times. Most of the men under the Engineer
Commissioner, the Post said, "have had neither talent nor enthusiasm for their task." The new renewal office only further spread renewal authority, and it did it in such a
Board of Commissioners, Government of the District of Columbia, Organization Order N o . 109. Establishing the Position of Assistant Engineer Commissioner for Urban Renewal and the Office of Urban Renewal, May 31, 1955. (Mimeographed.)
^The Washington Post. July 29, i9 6 0, p. A-1 3. 39 way as to encourage conflict.
The stated purpose of OUR Is to develop plans for over
all renewal programs, to Integrate all operations of all
departments In renewal matters, and to present the views of
the Commissioners on renewal subjects. Until this time, only
the RLA and NCPC were active participants in the renewal
process. The new office entered the renewal process, but It
did so with few real powers.
Renewal expectations. In accordance with the 1954-
Act, the District Commissioners directed that such a "workable
plan" be prepared. Nathaniel S. Keith and James G. Rouse,
authorities in renewal and finance, were hired to make such
a plan. In 1955, they presented their proposal for the
District, a report entitled No Slums In Ten Y e a r s This
report made twenty-one suggestions about District renewal.
Many of these dealt with reorganization and methodology. The
most influential and most quoted conclusion of the study was
"that comprehensive renewal plans can be completed in ten
years." The report gave the impression that the District
could complete all renewal by about 1 9 6 5. The Commissioners
submitted this study and the first of the yearly reports to
HHPA. This renewal report tended to be too sanguine. Very
James W. Rouse and Nathaniel S. Keith, No Slums in Ten Years. Report to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia (Washington: District of Columbia Government, 1955) . 40 soon It became evident that No Slums in Ten Years was grossly unrealistic In view of Washington's complex political and administrative environment.
Consultants. Until 1958, it was thought the Corps of
Engineers would be able to redevelop the waterfront area of
Southwest, but such a plan did not develop. In i9 6 0.
Congress, at the requests of the renewal officials, gave the
Commissioners the authority to transfer the waterfront area to the RLA for redevelopment.^ The Federal City Council,
In i9 6 0, presented a redevelopment plan by Chloethiel Smith for the area. The plan was to extend the bulkhead to provide greater space for commercial use.
In 1 9 6 1, a non-profit corporation, the Washington
Channel Waterfront, Inc., was formed to serve as consultant to the RLA. The officers of the organization represented 2 persons of prominence in business, government, and education.
In 1 9 6 2, the organization was retained by the RLA as consultant.
The architects hired by the Waterfront, Inc., to do the planning of the channel area were from the firm of Chloethiel
^Public Law 7 3 6, 86th Congress, 74 Statute 8 7 1.
^United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal in the District of Columbia. Hearings on Washington Channel Water- front, 88th Congress, 1st Session, March 18 and 2 5, 196 3 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1 9 6 3), P . 4. 41
Smith. Mrs. Smith designed plans In the waterfront area for the Federal City Council, the Washington Channel Waterfront, and*some private developers.^ The relationship between the
RLA and Waterfront, Inc., was closely questioned in the 196 3 hearings. The House also accused Mrs. Smith of conflicts of
Interest in her work on the waterfront. In July of 1 9 6 3,
after the hearings, the RLA decided not to renew the contract 2 with the Waterfront, Inc. The role of consultants in re
newal in the District remains a question.
Conflict over financing. The RLA and the District
Commissioners must mutually develop the financial plans to
be submitted to HHFA, The two bodies do not always agree on
financial aspects of renewal. One disagreement occurred in
1 9 6 3. General Frederick Clarke, the Engineer Commissioner,
stated that either Adams-Morgan or Northwest might have to
be dumped because of insufficient funds. Doyle of RLA dis
agreed, stating that there would be sufficient non-cash
grant-in-aids from public works programs. However, the
Engineer Commissioner heads public works in the District, and
he felt that the projects Doyle depended upon could not be
completed in time.^ This disagreement is typical of the
llbid.. p. 48.
^ h e Washington Post. July 25, 1963, P . B-1.
3rhe Washington Post. March 21, 1 9 6 3, p. B-1. 42 frequent problems arising between the various parties Interested in renewal over the complex non-cash grant-in-aids.
Summary. Organizational and substantive problems have plagued the District's renewal project. The organizational problems are relatively easy to explain. The renewal process is divided among three major renewal agencies, each with dif ferent interests and purposes. The dispersion of renewal authority does not stop with the three agencies, but it also includes numerous other national and local bodies which must consent to renewal plans. The substantive problems are more complex. These stem from very basic disagreements over the definition and application of urban renewal. Some oppose all renewal steps heading to physical replanning, rather redeveloping and rehabilitating the existing stock of housing. Others oppose using any governmental powers In such a way as to interfere with private businesses' freedom. Each of the basic philosophies of renewal influence the debate over the sub stantive problems. The following chapters will reflect how the clash over these substantive Issues has been reflected in District politics. CHAPTER III
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON RENEWAL
Analysis of Congressional action on the District's renewal program indicated two developments. First, it re flected several periods in which Congress moved from dis interest to antagonism. These periods indicated a mounting concern for and reaction against the renewal program by the members influential in District affairs. Second, the history of Congressional action indicated that there is con siderable conflict over what renewal is and what it is to do.
In this scheme of politics, no one definition is ever agreed upon. As this chapter will indicate, this factor plays a dominant role in the history of Congressional action.
1. PERIOD OP SLIGHT CONGRESSIONAL
INTEREST (1 9 5- 31 9 5) 9
During the early years of the District's renewal program. Congress took practically no notice of the program.
Nearly all bills considered were initiated by the renewal agencies, not Congress. Congressman Louis Rabaut of Michigan was the only member to indicate any personal interest in the program.
Lease-Purchase A c t . The 84th Congress passed the first legislation specifically and solely concerning the District's 44 renewal. This was the Lease-Purchase Act, which was designed to allow the General Services Administration to build offices in Southwest without direct appropriations. The Webb and
Knapp plan for Southwest envisaged Federal Office Buildings, and this Act was intended to provide indirect financing of these offices. Congressman James Auchincloss and Senator
Stuart Symington actively supported the Lease-Purchase Act
However, Congress abandoned this type of financing by 1958, before any building could be begun under the Lease-Purchase
Act.
Appropriât ions Subcommittees. During this period the
House Appropriations Subcommittee on the District indicated a slight interest in renewal. The District appropriations subcommittees have little direct influence over renewal pro grams. The only appropriations passing through them are those 2 for the District's Office of Urban Renewal. However, the subcommittee chairman can wield influence over the program if he happens to take an interest in renewal. Congressman
Louis Rabaut of Michigan was an example of such a case.
^United States Congress, Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Documents. 19 6O-1 9 6I. Staff Report, Volume 1, RLA Materials, 8 7th Congress, 1st Session (Washington: Government Printing Office, January, 1 9 6 1), p. 8 0 8. 2 Statement by E. C . Silsby, Staff Member on the House Committee on Appropriations, personal interview, Washington, D. C., July 3 1, 1 9 6 3. 45 However, during this period he only occasionally questioned witnesses from the District Government about renewal. In
1 9 5, 6 he asked an Assistant Engineer Commissioner when they planned to get started on renewal in Southwest. The Con gressman expressed his concern over the "drain" caused by land lying undeveloped.^
Redevelopment Act amended. The 8 5th Congress passed 2 a bill amending the 1945 Redevelopment Act. The bill was prepared by the RLA, and it was intended to clarify the existing Act. The Act directed the RLA to provide priorities to businesses displaced from renewal areas. Certain terms of the original Act were defined, and specific procedures were elaborated upon. In neither House of Congress were there 4 hearings held, and the bill passed on consent calendar.
Section 13 bills. During the 8 5th Congress, Senator
Alan Bible of Nevada, as Chairman of the Senate District
U n i t e d States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, District of Columbia Appropriations. 1 9 5. 6 Hearings before the Subcommittee, 84th Congress, 1st Session (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1955), P . 4l. ^Public Law 854, 8 5th Congress, J2 Statute 1103. ^Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Documents. o p . cit., p. 20. ^United States Congress, House of Representatives, Calendar. 8 5th Congress (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1 9 5), 9 p. 1 7 9. 46 Committee, introduced S. 4250 for the District Commissioners.^
This bill was designed to exempt from District taxation land held by the RLA. This legislation was made necessary by a
HHFA ruling that land held by a redevelopment agency could not be taxed by the local government. The HHFA did allow the projects to continue under the condition that the Commissioners 2 would press for corrective legislation. The bill was re ferred to subcommittee and was not reported out. An identical bill was passed by the Senate District Committee and by the
Senate in the following Congress, Senator J. Glenn Beall of
Maryland called the bill an absolute "mustHowever, the
House District Committee took no action.^ In the 8 7th
Congress, a similar bill was introduced, but it was not 5 reported from the Senate subcommittee.
^•^VifAed States Congress, Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, Calendar. 8 5th Congress (Washington: Government Printing Office, September 2, 1958), p. 4250.
^United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia, District of Columbia Urban Renewal Program. Hearing, 8 7th Congress, 1st Session, on Federal City Council Urban Renewal Study, April 11. 1 9 61 (Washington; Government Printing Office, 1 9 6 1) , p. 54. 3 The Washington Post. April 1 6, 1959, p . C-8.
^United States Congress, Senate, Calendar. 86th Congress (Washington: Government Printing Office, i9 6 0), p. 33. ^United States Congress, Senate, Calendar. 8 7th Congress (Washington: Government Printing Office, October 24, 1 9 6 2), p. 2 5. 47 Summary. Congress took almost no Interest in the
District's renewal until after the 8 5th Congress, Only a
few bills were even introduced, and most of these were written
by the renewal agencies. However, a first sign of discontent
was voiced by Rabaut. His concern about the slowness of the
Southwest renewal project helped to serve to initiate
Congressional scrutiny of the entire District renewal program.
11. THE PERI CD OP EARLY CONGRESSIONAL
CONCERN (1 9 5- 91 9 6 0)
In 1 9 5, 9 the tone of Congress began to change. The
member who sparked this interest was Louis Rabaut in his
presentation of a bill to alter the powers and organization
of the renewal process. Why did he at this time so scrutinize
the program? This section will indicate that a number of
factors were mentioned by Rabaut as causing this interest.
However, the dominant factor seems to be the attack by the
local business community upon the renewal agencies' use of
a New York developer. Only the year before a local builder
was turned down in his high bid for choice land in Southwest,
and this seems to be a major cause of the early Congressional
concern.
Congressman Rabaut. On August 17, 1959, Congressman
Rabaut introduced H.R. 8 6 9 7, referred to-a® the Rabaut 48 BillAccording to William Press, Executive Director of the
Board of Trade, he and several businessmen first suggested such a bill to Rabaut. They were very disturbed by the administration of the renewal program and the use of New 2 York developers.
Rabaut's bill would do several things. First, it took the NCPC from the renewal process. Second, it provided that the Commissioners should not approve further renewal projects until seventy per cent of the Southwest project was completed,
Third, land disposition was to be accomplished by public sales to the highest bidder. The bill not only struck at organizational problems, but it also altered basic sub stantive features, such as negotiated contracting.
When questioned about the reasons for introducing such a bill, Rabaut said, "Do you want the whole city looking like the Southwest area looks now?" He stated that his bill was prompted by the economic losses resulting from the Southwest 3 renewal area "laying fallow." According to John Crocker of
OUR, Rabaut thought all renewal was unconstitutional and that
United States Congress, House of Representatives, A B i l l . HR 8697. 86th Congress, 1st Session (Washington: Government Printing Office, August 17, 1959).
^Statement by William Press, Executive Director of the Board of Trade, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., August 6, 1 9 6 3.
^ h e Washington Post. August 27, 1959, P . B-1. 49 It should be stopped. John Searles of the RLA called the bill "capricious." He also said that the bill would 2 "obviously screw up the works rather grandly." Later, after hearings on the bill were announced, Searles called the pending investigation "routine." Rabaut responded by saying that the investigation was "very definitely not routine.
Hearings. In April, i9 6 0. Subcommittee Number Two of the House District Committee, with Thomas Abernethy of
Mississippi as chairman, opened the first of three hearings devoted to the Rabaut Bill. The first witness was Congress man Rabaut, and he elaborated upon his objections to the renewal program. His statement emphasized the apparent deleterious effect of the Southwest renewal upon the economy of the District. "The longer we go without new buildings 4 in Southwest Washington, the greater the loss in revenues."
The delays, he felt, were unreasonable. He stated that delay was caused by renewal authority being divided
^Statement by John Crocker, Director of the Office of Urban Renewal, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 15, 1963. %?he Washington Post. August 2 8, 1959, P . B-1.
^The Washington Post. December 20, 1959, p. B-1.
^United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal in the District of Columbia. Hearings on H.R, 8697, 8 6th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington; Government Printing Office, April 2 6 , i9 6 0), p. 1 . 50 between the NCPC, RLA, and the District Commissioners, His solution was to place renewal authority in the hands of the
RLA and the Commissioners, leaving the NCPC out of the process.
Congressman Rabaut also objected to the substantive renewal process of negotiated contracts. Rabaut stated that
"the present law permits that Agency to proceed on the basis
of negotiation and does not require public offerings of the
land involved. I simply do not think that this is proper."^
He cited the Webb and Knapp memorandum and the Town Center
land disposition as being examples of the impropriety in
the system. He stated that "at'the present rate of progress,
it will be 40 years before the RLA shall have brought South- west Washington to completion." He mentioned the several
renewal projects pending at that time. The Congressman went
on to say, "The Redevelopment Land Agency must prove Itself
in Southwest Washington, complete that plan and put that area O back on its feet before moving into other areas."
During the hearing. Congressman Rabaut expressed con
cern about the problem of relocation. In fact, Rabaut, when
asked how he became Interested in renewal, said that complaints
of persons being dislocated first caused him to become con
cerned. He cited one case of an elderly landlord who lost
her only means of support through renewal. He also mentioned 4 complaints from the many businesses being forced to move.
^Ibid., p. 3. % b i d .
^Ibid. ^Ibid.. p. 5. 51 The Congressman complained that these people were not being relocated in Southwest.
I never saw In my life such a violation of eminent domain. Where are the people that lived down here — what were their rentals, about $75 to $ 9 0 a month, maybe. Now what are they putting up? They are putting up places, $250 a month. Is it Just to give a new crowd the place? Where is the sac redness of the home?i
Thus, Rabaut strongly objected to basic elements of renewal.
The second witness was William T . Hannan, representing the Urban Renewal Committee of the Board of Trade.^ He listed in his testimony several objections to the renewal 3 procedures practiced by the RLA. He complained that "damage is done to the property" being considered for renewal.
"Business stops." He claimed that "accelerated depreciation 4 commences." Wild speculation on land followed, Hannan asserted. Hannan complained that NCPC allowed "an enter prising New Yorker," William Zeckendorf, to do the planning
^Ibid.
Hannan, a lawyer, had been a Vice President and an Associate Counsel of the Town Center, Inc., a real estate corporation headed by M. Cafritz. Cafritz was the Washington builder who unsuccessfully bid on the Town Center in 1959. The Evening Star /Washington, D . C ^ , March 10, 1959, P . B-1.
^William Press, Director of the Board of Trade, stated that members of the Board were very dissatisfied with the re newal program by 1959. The delays, the dislocation of businesses, and the out-of-town developers were all reasons for this feeling. Statement by William Press, personal interview, Washington, D . C ., August 6, I9 6 3. ^House, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal in the District of Columbia. Hearings on H.R. 8697, OP. cit., p. 6. 52 for Southwest, This planning legally should have been done by NCPC, Hannan stated
Catholic Church. The third witness was Rev. Robert G.
Howes, a Catholic priest and a graduate student of city planning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He had prepared a study of urban renewal in the District entitled
Crisis Downtown, and his testimoney was primarily from that 2 study. He favored the Rabaut Bill. He stated that the
Church was primarily interested in "human aspects of re newal, " and he listed four primary objections to the District's renewal program.
First, public participation requirements of the "workable program do not seem to extend to the accommodation of civic dissent.
Second, plans originally designed to meet housing needs are changed in the process of renewal to spell out greater densities, higher rents, and, presumably, increased profits.
Third, relocation, despite bulky reports and plans, is not in reality living up to the substantive re quirements of the "workable program."
Fourth, the interest of the private entrepreneur weighs heavier than the interest of the community as a whole, more so even than the interest of the citizens displaced from the project area.3
^Ibid.. p. 11.
% e v . Robert Howes, Crisis Downtown: A Church Eve- View of Urban Renewal (Washington: National Conference of Catholic Charities, 1959), p. 1. ? House, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal in the District of Columbia. Hearings on H.R. 8697, O P . cit., p. 1 7 . 53 Rev. Howes' testimony elaborated upon each of these points, but his primary concern was with relocation. He claimed that relocation practices were poorly performed. The result was that "two ghettoes" were formed, "one for the rich and nearly rich, and one for the very poor
Second hearing. On May 4, i960, the second hearing on Congressman Rabaut 's Bill was held. One of the citizens to complain of renewal practices was Harry Barbour, He stated that he had been head of the public housing program in Richmond, California during World War II. Mr, Barbour 2 favored the legislation. He criticized the renewal program for failing to house the displaced persons in the project area. "Congress, when it passed the Housing Act of 1949, fully intended that displaced families should be provided with housing in the new projectsThe "visions of grandeurs" of the renewal officials had altered the meaning of the Housing Act.
Kingdon Gould, Jr., an attorney, parking lot owner, and land investor, was the next witness. He owned land in the Columbia Plaza project area, and he favored the legislation.
^Ibid.. p. 1 8.
^Barbour was hired in 1963 by the House District C ommittee as consultant on renewal.
^House, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal in the District of Columbia. Hearings on H.R. 8697, o p . cit., p. 36 . 54 The designation of Columbia Plaza as an RLA area would constitute a perversion of the legislative intent behind the Redevelopment Land Agency Act, a fraud upon the citizens of the United States and the taxpayers of the District of Columbia, and a devastating blow to our personal financial interests
He claimed that "the area is not blighted," not even "by the wildest stretch of the imagination." Gould stated that if they could get the RLA "off our neck," they could begin development of the area with "splendid" apartment houses
The Hon. Robert McLaughlin, District Commissioner, was the first witness to oppose the legislation. He reviewed each section of the Bill, stating the objections of the Board of Commissioners. He objected to the removal of the Planning
Commission from the renewal process and to the redefinition of blighted area. The Commissioner also disapproved of the seventy per cent requirement. During the hearing, Searles,
Director of the RLA, stated that the District's renewal progress was favorable in light of national progress.
Chairman Abernethy replied to this comment that "if it be true that the development here is ahead of that in many other cities, which you say it is, then there is certainly a lot of
^Ibid.. p. 3 8.
% o u l d eventually became one of the primary stock holders in the company the RLA selected to develop Columbia Plaza. United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia, Report of Proceedings, Hearings held before Subcommittee No. 4, o8th Congress, 1st Session (Washington: Federal Reporters, Inc., April 9, 1 9 6 3), p. 3 4 9. 55 foot dragging going on in other cities."^
The Rabaut Bill would, according to McLaughlin, "have
the effect of halting for several years urban renewal
activities." He criticized the competitive bidding section,
stating that it is often necessary to base contracts upon
things other than the low bid. "it is frequently desirable
that such land be disposed of on a negotiated basis in order 2 to permit the development of a certain desirable project."
When further questioned by Abernethy, Commissioner McLaughlin
did admit that the Board was not "happy" with the progress of
renewal after eight years of a program.
Third hearing. On the third and final day of testi
mony, Searles stated that the Agency opposed the bill because
"it would, in effect, stop the District's urban renewal
program. There is no provision in the bill which would 3 eliminate any delay in the urban renewal process," The
seventy per cent section would delay the program four years, according to Searles. The Executive Director also criticized
the bill's removal of NCPC from renewal. "This would be 4 like removing the police department from crime prevention."
House, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal in the District of Columbia. Hearings on H.R. 8697, o p . cit.. p . 4-7 .
^Ibid.. p. 45. ^Ibid.. p. 56. ^Ibid. 56
Congressman Foley from Maryland questioned Searles extensively on several points. The Congressman was especially
Interested in the negotiated contract practice which gave the position of primary developer in Southwest to Webb and Knapp, a New York firm. The Congressman also questioned about the procedures leading up to the memorandum with Webb and Knapp and to the bidding by Cafritz on the Town Center. Foley claimed that the "public hearing" at which the RLA awarded the Webb and Knapp contract was merely to make an announce ment, not to allow a regular hearing.^
Several organizations presented statements on their positions concerning the Bill, A representative for the
Citizens' Rights Council, an organization of persons who had been evicted or were about to be evicted from the Southwest 2 area, spoke for the proposed legislation. The vice president of the American Women's Council favored the Bill because of the alleged "constitutional Invasions" of renewal. The final four witnesses opposed the Bill. These witnesses represented the National Council of Women, the Community Council of Adams -
Morgan Demonstration Project, the League of Women Voters, and the Washington Housing Association.
The hearings on the Rabaut Bill indicated substantial dissatisfaction in the local community concerning renewal.
The major business organization of the area, the Catholic
4 bid., p. 64. ^Ibid.. p. 6 9 . 57 Church, and a number of citizens groups supported restricting the program.
Bill dies. On June 17, i9 6 0, the Bill, with amendments, was reported out by the House District Committee with the recom mendation that it pass . The Bill was fundamentally the same as it was when Congressman Rabaut introduced it. The major change was to require only 50 per cent completion in South west, instead of 70 per cent. The purpose of the Bill, according to the House Report, was to eliminate the "cumber some mechanics" which have caused the delays.^
The Bill came before the House in the closing days of O the session, and it passed by a vote of 348 to 35» There was limited debate on the Bill with the major question con cerning possible precedents which the Bill might establish for the national renewal programs. The Bill was referred to the
Senate District Committee. It was not reported out of
Senator Beall's subcommittee. By August I8, The Washington
Post indicated that the Bill was "all but buried" for that 3 session. This was the last time Rabaut was involved in the
^United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia, Report Number 1911 (on H.R. 8 6 9 7), 8 6th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington: Government Printing Office, June 1 7, i9 6 0), p. 1.
United States Congress, Senate, Calendar (Final Edition) . 8 6th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington: Government Printing Office, September 13, i9 6 0), p. 70.
^The Washington Post. August I8, i9 6 0, p. B-3. 58 renewal debate for he died the next year.
House study. A study of renewal was initiated in the closing moments of the 86th Congress. G. Yates Cook,
Executive Director of the Federal City Council, wishing to stem some of the criticism of renewal, called Congressman
Joel Broyhill and asked him to introduce a motion requesting the Federal City Council to undertake a study of renewal
The motion passed, and Chairman John McMillan, on September 6, i9 6 0, sent the Council the formal request.^ The study was presented in the 8 7th Congress.
A reprimand. The renewal program received a reprimand from Congress for apparently disregarding a request from the
House. At the request of the District Commissioners, Senator
Alan Bible, Chairman of the District Committee, introduced
S. 3648, a bill to give the Commission the authority to transfer waterfront property to the RLA. The Senate passed the bill with minor amendments on June 2 8, i9 6 0. The House
^Cook, Executive Director of the Federal City Council, stated that one day while he was "enjoying the sun at Ocean City," he began to think about the many renewal problems. He thought that a study of renewal by the Council might help answer some of the criticism and might prove valuable. He immediately called long distance to Mr. Broyill, Congressman from Virginia, and requested that the Congressman introduce a motion to request such a study from the Council. Congressman Broyhill made the motion, and it was approved. Statement by G . Yates Cook, Personal interview, Washington, D. C ., August 6, 1 9 6 3. ^ouse. Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Program. o p . cit., p. 12. 59 District Committee added an amendment to the bill. Section
Pour, part b.^ In the amendment, the House directed the RLA to relocate those businesses displaced by a Joint Resolution of the previous Congress. According to Martin Perris,
Assistant Counsel of the Senate District Committee, this amendment was a much deserved reprimand for Searles' disregard of the Congressional request that certain businesses be re- P located. The House Report, with the Joint Resolution of the
8 5th Congress, had requested that the RLA provide relocation services, but, according to Ferris, Searles ignored this request. Ferris contended that this was not the only time that Searles had acted contrary to the desires of Congress. 3 The Senate passed the Act with this added House amendment.
Renewal powers. Senator Bible introduced, for the
Commissioners and the RLA, S. 3 6 8 8, a bill to expand renewal authority by allowing renewal in commercial areas and by 4 allowing construction over 9th Street in Southwest. Senator
United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia, Report Number 208l. 8 6th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington: Government Printing Office, July 2, 1 9 6O), p. 2.
^Statement by Martin Ferris, Assistant Counsel of the Senate District Committee, personal interview, Washington, D . C ., June 6 , 1 9 6 3. ^Public Law 7 3 6, 86th Congress, 74 Statute 8 7 1. ^United States Congress, Senate, Senate Bills 1959-60 (Washington: Government Printing Office, I960), p. 3537. 60
J . Glenn Beall of Maryland reported it favorably out of sub committee, and the bill was passed by the Senate, Congressman
John Dowdy of Texas held hearings on the proposed legislation.
The Washington Post reported that Dowdy was ready to approve the bill. However, witnesses from Northwest neighborhoods protested the added powers, and Dowdy decided to delay action indefinitelyThe Chairman of the RLA, Andrew Parker, and the Executive Director, Searles, saw several Congressmen, expressing the view that added power to build over 9th Street was absolutely necessary if a major Southwest project was to be 2 completed. The District Committee eventually did report out an amended bill which deleted all but the section dealing with 3 9th Street. The Senate approved the Bill.
Senate action. As the Senate District Committee "buried" the Rabaut Bill, Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana Initiated a motion directing the Senate Committee to investigate urban renewal. Senator Hartke had already inquired into the delays 4 in execution of Southwest. At his request, the staff sent a letter in July to the RLA asking for their views on
^The Washington Post. August 30, I960, p. B-1.
^The Evening Star /Washington, D. C ^ , August 30, i 9 6 0, p. B - 1.
^Senate, Calendar (Final Edition) . I96O, 0£. cit., p. 51.
\ h e Evening Star /Washington, D. &/, August I8, I9 6O, p. B-1. 61 expediting the project. In a letter of September 9, i9 6 0,
Chester Smith formally notified the RLA of the pending hearing 1 and investigation into renewal. However, this investigation was dropped in the next Congress.
Summary. During the 86th Congress, renewal became an issue before the District Committees. The local business com munity through Rabaut stimulated moves to restrict renewal.
The next year another business organization attempts to suggest another type of reform.
III. PERIOD OP CONGRESSIONAL REJECTION
OF REFORM (I9 6I-I9 6 2)
A second business group, the Federal City Council, in
1961 attempted to reform renewal. However, unlike the
Rabaut Bill provisions, their bill broadened renewal powers.
In this period, the House District Committee rejected this bill and its concept of broad replanning powers of renewal.
House renewal study. The Federal City Council presented their study of renewal to the House District Committee. The
Urban Renewal Committee, headed by Samuel Kauffmann, President of The Evening Star, directed the study. The Committee also included Philip Graham of The Washington Post. The Council hired a staff of three men experienced in renewal and housing.
^Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Documents, on. cit., p. 6. 62 The committee and the staff reviewed the entire renewal process and interviewed many persons connected with renewal.
The study was an attempt to save renewal from its many critics and to expand renewal authority to commercial areas.
The study concluded that ineffective administrative or ganization caused most of the delays. The Council recommended the creation of a consolidated renewal and housing agency under the Commissioners. The NCPC would not have a major role in renewal under this plan. The actual study does not support the contention that poor administration caused all delay. The study cited many circumstances beyond the control of any agency. One example is found in financial problems.
The study "strongly" recommended against the use of competitive bidding. It also called for the revision of the Act of 194-5 to conform with national legislation which had expanded renewal powers. The major updating would authorize renewal for commercial areas. The study called for a major expansion of renewal authority.
The study was presented to the entire District Com mittee with Chairman McMillan presiding. Kauffmann, Chairman of the Urban Renewal Committee, presented the study and answered most of the Congressmen's questions. The goal of
the study, according to Kauffmann, was "to find the best way to expedite the progress of the District of Columbia urban renewal program, ..." He summarized the delaying factors 63 in the past, and he explained the recommendations.
Several Congressmen indicated concern during the hearing
over one recommendation in the study which proposed that the
District Government have the authority to transfer to the
RLA both District and Federal land within renewal areas.
Congressman Howard Smith thought that this was treading on
"some very sensitive toes
In the hearing, Kauffmann elaborated upon the Council's concern for renewal.
We do not want to pull your good taxpayers back from the State of Virginia'into the District, Judge, but, by gosh, we would like to retain a few of us remaining taxpayers in the District, who are assuming a larger and larger proportion of the burden every year.2
The tax situation, according to Kauffmann, could be ameliorated
Congressmen from the Washington area were interested
in the report. Joel Broyhill, Republican from Virginia, asked
about the priority given to business dislocated by renewal.
Charles Mathias, Republican from Maryland, questioned Kauffmann
about the relocation of families displaced by renewal.
Chairman McMillan assigned the Council's report and proposed
legislation to Smith's subcommittee. Subcommittee Number One.
Congressman Smith took considerable interest in the
bill because Kauffmann was a personal friend. According to
Hayden Garber, Chief Counsel of the House District Committee,
^I bid.. p. 6 7 .
% b i d .. p. 7 2. 64 the Congressman spent more time on this bill than he probably had ever spent on any other bill.^ The Council, represented by Yates Cook, and the Office of Urban Renewal, represented by John Crocker, met with Smith in attempts to develop acceptable legislation. However, early in these conferences, it became evident that Smith objected to many substantive aspects af renewal. At each of the meetings. Smith was accompanied by the Chief Counsel, who also did not favor renewal. Eventually, Smith flatly stated to the proponents of the bill that they had better stop trying to pressure him into reporting out the Council's bill. He threatened to write legislation which would "kill renewal." However, according to Crocker, Yates Cook continued to attempt to mobilize persons to intercede for the bill, and Smith became 2 quite angry.
Smith's subcommittee did not report out the Council's bill. However, a revision of the Council's bill was written.
The major element of it was the reorganization of the RLA into a department of the District Government. This bill put renewal directly under the Commissioners. The Washington
Post stated that the new bill was written "contrary to virtually
Statement by Hayden Garber, Chief Counsel of the House Committee on the District of Columbia, personal inter view, Washington, D . C ., July 19, 1963»
^Statement by John Crocker, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 15, 1963. 65 all of the advice available. . . This bill probably
satisfied neither the proponents of renewal nor its opponents. P No bill was reported from the District Committee. The attempt
of the Federal City Council to save renewal from its critics
and to expand renewal authority was defeated by Smith and Garber,
Senate investigation. The Senators of the District
Committee killed the proposed Senate investigation of renewal
early in the 87th Congress. No Senator would consent to hold
hearings on the subject. The Senate District Committee staff,
headed by Chester Smith, was very anxious to hold hearings.
There were, according to Smith, many very suspicious and
highly questionable dealings of the RLA and of Searles which
should have been considered. He felt that they could have
put Searles on the "hot seat." Smith stated that no Senator
was willing to spend the time necessary for an investigation
on a District matterHowever, the staff did assemble and
Editorial in The Washington Post. September 13, 1 9 6 1, p. A -2 3. ^Cook stated that the Council's bill failed because it attempted to do too much. It was a "politically unwise move. He said that they should have made about two or three recommendations, rather than twenty-five. The size of the study and the number of suggestions weakened the Council's position. Statement by 0. Y . Cook, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 31, 1 9 6 3.
^Statement by Chester Smith, Staff Director of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, personal inter view, Washington, D. C ., July 3 1, I9 6 3. 66 did publish a number of documents on renewal
Commercial renewal. The rejection of the Council's renewal bill also meant the denial of commercial renewal powers. The Council asked William Press, Executive Director of the Board of Trade, to help obtain the approval of the commercial section. Press spoke to Congressman Smith,
Garber, and Congressman McMillan. He encouraged them to allow that section to be reported out in the form of H.R.
1 3 1 6 3, Congressman James Auchincloss ' bill. According to
Knox Banner, Executive Director of Downtown Progress, advocates of downtown renewal had also secured the support of the 2 Speaker of the House. The bill passed the House on September
24, 1 9 6 2,
The bill ran into unexpected problems in the Senate
District Committee. Senator J. Glenn Beall's subcommittee held a hearing on the bill on September 2 7. Since it was near the end of the 87th Congress, the Chairman asked that the witnesses simply submit their full statements for the record and summarize their statements. At that moment.
Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon walked In and demanded that the witnesses be allowed time enough to read their full statements.
^Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Documents, op. cit., p. 6. 2 statement by Knox Banner, Executive Director of Down town Progress, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 2 9, 1 9 6 3. 67 Harry Barbour and Mrs. Sarah E, Ellis of Cy Ellis Raw Bar wanted to speak in opposition to the bill, while the District
Commissioners and businessmen favored it. In subcommittee executive session, Morse voted down a move to report out the bill, saying that he did not want to be rushed.^ William
Press, of the Board of Trade, and other businessmen talked to
Senator Morse before the executive session, and they thought that they had convinced him of the merits of the bill.
They apparently were wrong.
Renewal bills, In this Congress, about thirteen bills on renewal procedures, projects, and standards were intro duced. This was in contrast to past Congresses when generally 2 only three or four bills were introduced. Though several
Congressmen and Senators presented legislation pertaining to renewal, most of the bills were written by George Frain, a legislative assistant to several Congressmen. In 1 9 6I,
Frain worked primarily for Congressman Carroll Kearns, a
Republican from Pennsylvania. He also assisted Congressmen
^Statement by Chester Smith, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 31, 1963.
^Bills in the 84th Congress; H.R. 8805, H.R. 9214, S. 1 2 9O; Bills in the 8 5th Congress: H.R. 13406, S. 4154, S. 4 2 5O; Bills in the 8 6th Congress: S. 3 6 8 8, S. 1370, S. 3648, H.R. 12748, H.R. 8697; 8 7th Congress: H.R. 1 3 1 6 3, H.R. 4 2 5, 2 S. 1 6 8 1, H.R. 8 0 1, 1 H.R. 7 7 3 2. H.J.Res. 532, S. 779, H.R. 6 1 3 4, H.R. 9 1 0, 0 H.R. 8 9 7, 9 H.R. 10494, H.R. 10177, H.R. 1 1 2 9; 8 88th Congress (to July 31, 1963)î S, 6 2 8, S. 995, H.R. 7 5 2 0, H.J.Res. 461, H.R. 59, H.R. 6 7 9, H.R. 7318, H.R. 7 1 6 8, H.R. 7 3 1 9, H.R. 6 3 5 1, H.R. 6452. 68 John Kyi, a Republican from Iowa, Prank Thompson, a Democrat from New Jersey, William Wldnall, a Republican from New 1 Jersey, and Harris McDowell, a Democrat from Delaware,
In the 8 7th Congress, four bills were Introduced which limited the RLA in respect to the types and the conditions of houses which could be demolished for renewal. Three of the bills were Introduced by Congressman Kearns and the other bill by Senator Strom Thurmond, a Democrat from South
Carolina. H.J.Res. 532 in a whereas clause cited Adams-
Morgan renewal project as an example of “inappropriate use" of renewal money and as an example of "citizen dissatisfaction."
It also directed the RLA to assist in restoration of houses whenever possible. H.R. 4252, another bill Introduced by
Congressman Kearns, directed the RLA to help rehabilitate substandard houses when they are of a "historic or general significance." H.R. 6134, a bill Introduced by Kearns on
April 10, 1 9 6 1, and S. 1681, a bill Introduced by Thurmond on April 20, 1 9 6 1, were Identical. They not only Included provisions on rehabilitating houses and keeping such houses out of renewal projects, but they also directed the District
Committees to Investigate eleven practices of renewal agencies.
Three bills were designed to allow property owners to deduct a portion of the expenses of repair, maintenance, and
^Statement by George Praln, Legislative Assistant to Congressman Kyi, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 3 1, 1 9 6 3. 69 alterations from their taxes. H.R. 9100, introduced by Kyi,
H.J.Res, 5 3 2, introduced by Kearns, and H.R. 8 9 7, 9 introduced by Multer, had such tax provisions. Another two bills would establish special councils to preserve historic buildings of the District. These were Kearns' H.R. 10494 and Wldnall's
H.R. 1 0 1 7. 7 Kearns and Matthews introduced bills to amend the
1945 Redevelopment Act to provide for restoration of the home of John Philip Sousa. These bills were H.R. 8OII and H.R. 7732. Congressman Richard Lankford of Maryland Introduced a bill, H.R. 1 1 2 9, 8 entitled "The District of Columbia Urban
Renewal and Relocation Act of I9 6 2." It was an extensive
bill of forty-two pages, and It made major changes In renewal
procedures. In Section Five, It provided that "when an urban
renewal project Is fifty per centum completed, the Planning
Commission can proceed with plans for an additional project."
In this respect, the bill was similar to the Rabaut Bill of
the 86th Congress. Section Four stated that the District
Committees were to have "reasonable supervision" over renewal 2 programs " Another significant change came In Section Seven which directed that land be offered for sale by competitive 3 bidding.
^United States Congress, House of Representatives, Bills, 8 7th Congress (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1 9 6 2), p. 2 2. ^Ibld.. p. 8. % b l d .. p. 2 8. 70 Summary. During this period, the House District Com mittee rejected the Federal City Council's attempt to reform renewal. Thus, the debate over the purpose and function of renewal was left unresolved. While this was happening, the
Senate District Committee eschewed any Involvement In this debate.
IV. PERIOD OP INCREASED ANTAGONISMS
(JANUARY, 1963 THROUGH JULY, I9 6 3)
The debate over the purposes and functions of renewal seemed to pause. However, a new period of Increased antag onisms began with the 88th Congress. Congressman Dowdy led a broad and extensive Investigation Into all phases of re newal. Underlying these hearings was the purpose of halting the District's renewal program.
House Investigation. In 1 9 6 3, Congressman McMillan decided that the entire renewal program should be studied by the Committee. He directed Dowdy of Texas to review renewal
In the District. This was the first House Investigation of the entire program for the previous hearings centered around specific bills. The Dowdy Investigation developed Into a major one, admittedly directed toward halting all renewal. If possible.
On March 18, 1963, Dowdy opened the hearings. The first two hearings were devoted to the Waterfront plans. 71 Philip Doyle of RLA and David Orem of Washington Channel
Waterfront, Inc., explained the Waterfront plan. The first series of questions asked by the Committee members and by the staff centered around the parking provisions of the plan.
Barbour, the special consultant to the Committee, complained about the plan keeping cars from the waterfront. He said that they were building a wall "like the East German wall."
Barbour also accused the plan of having less parking In the
Waterfront area than before renewal.^
Another series of questions centered around the remodeling and expanding done by the Flagship Restaurant after
Its facilities were condemned. These changes occurred on month-to-month leases since 1 9 6 1. A former restaurant owner complained that the RLA was charging Flagship only a fraction of the value of their space.
In the second hearing on the Waterfront plan, Garber questioned Mrs. Chloethlel Smith, an architect for Waterfront,
Inc., about her past employment on Waterfront contracts. He established that she had also done work for the Flagship
Restaurant, the Federal City Council, and developers In the
Waterfront. Eventually, Congressman Sisk of California directly stated that they were concerned about possible conflicts of Interest. Doyle was also questioned concerning
House, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal In the District of Columbia. Hearings on . . . Water front, o£. cit., p. 22. 72 conflicts of interest by Mrs. Smith. He stated that he was
satisfied that none existedBarbour, the Subcommittee's
special consultant, questioned Doyle about objections to
Waterfront that Barbour had made as a witness at a hearing
In 1 9 6 2. Barbour repeated his objections to the role of 2 consultants and to the salary of the Executive Director.
District Commissioner Tobrlner was asked by Garber
about his role on the Board of Trustees of Washington Channel
Waterfront, Inc. The Commissioner admitted that he neither
had attended many meetings nor had much knowledge of Its
activities. Congressman John Bell Williams of Mississippi
charged that the role of consultant was a means of getting 3 "bureaucratic jobs." He said that there was nothing pre
venting consultants from using this position as a means of
gaining patronage. There were also some further questions k about the Flagship Restaurant.
The next hearing focused on the land acquisition and
disposition of the Columbia Plaza renewal project. Dowdy
asked about certain land exchanges. For example, the District
^Ibld.. p. 5 6. ^Ibld.. p. 148.
^Ibld.. p. 1 1 5. ^The RLA dropped the Channel Waterfront, Inc., as con sultants four months after the hearings on Waterfront. Doyle denied that the "sharp criticism" of the consultants by the House District Committee was responsible. Willard Clopton, The Washington Post. July 25, 1 9 6 3, p. B-1. 73 Government donated certain land to the RLA, but the District
Government had to purchase land from the RLA for highways at
prices In excess of those paid by private developers. Barbour
questioned Doyle about the activity of Searles, the former
Executive Director. Implicit In these questions was the
charge of collusion between Searles, the land appraisers,
and the developers.
Mr. Barbour; Is It the practice of the RLA to notify potential redevelopers of the name of the Individuals whom they plan to use as appraisers In advance of acquisition of land In a project area?
Mr, Doyle: I do not think It Is the policy, and I do not know whether It was the policy or not Mr. Searles elected to do so.l
At the next hearing, Mr. Dowdy questioned about the
system of non-cash grant-In-alds to the District. He explained
his objections.
What I was talking about Is you are getting double- barreled Federal participation, the 90 percent Instead of the 66 2/ 3 , and yet they also have the 66 2/3 on what Is left after they pay 90 percent of the other.^
Several other witnesses from the District Government briefly
testified on Columbia Plaza.
\jnlted States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia, Report of Proceedings. Hearing held before Subcommittee No. 4, 88th Congress, 1st Session, April 1, 19 6 3 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1 9 6 3), p. 2 9 7. %nlted States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia, Report of Proceedings. Hearing before Subcommittee No. 4, 88th Congress, 1st Session, April 9, 19 6 3 (Washington: Federal Reporters, Inc., 1 9 6 3), p. 3 7 0. 74 Columbia Plaza again became the main subject of con sideration on May 9, 1 9 6 3. General Frederick Clarke, the
District Engineer Commissioner, was the chief witness. He claimed that the District did not lose money In the Columbia
Plaza land disposition. He said that less money would have been paid for the land under competitive bidding. Concerning the District Government's purchase of land for highways.
General Clarke stated that "it Is basically a question of which pocket you are going to take the money out of to pay the costs.However, Garber accused the District Government of subsidizing the project to the extent of two million dollars through the system of purchasing the land.
Congressman B. F . Sisk again brought the underlying issue Into the open. He said that It seemed that "collusion" existed between the city and the Investors. Chairman Dowdy also made this point.
Mr. Dowdy; All through the files of these various organizations. It Is shown that Columbia Plaza Corporation was Intended to be the redeveloper even before this thing was declared a redevelopment area.
Gen. Clarke; Sir, I realize that there had been many discussions.
Mr. Dowdy: I do not think there is any question about I t . 2
^House, Committee on the District of Columbia, Report of Proceedings. op. cit., April 1, I9 6 3, p. 428
^Ibld.. p. 460. 75 Finally, Sisk said that such Implications were giving the
whole renewal program a "black eye,"
The format and the subject of the hearings changed at
the next hearing. A number of citizens with complaints
about renewal In Adams-Morgan went before the subcommittee.
The major critic was E. Fulton Brylawskl, a property owner
In Adams-Morgan. He objected to public housing and complained
that RLA and NCPC were Incompetent to restore houses. The
only defender of renewal was Donald Gartenhaus, Chairman of
the Adams-Morgan Planning Committee, However, he was accused
by Congressman George Huddleston of having conflict of Interest
because he also owned 15 per cent of a Adams-Morgan re
development corporation.
Shortly after the first Adams-Morgan hearing. The
Washington Post made editorial "animadversions" on the conduct
of the House subcommittee. The editorial censured the sub
committee for, on one hand, questioning Doyle on "minutiae," while, on the other hand, welcoming citizen witnesses to put 2 hearsay testimony In the record.
Doyle was the major witness on June l4. Though Adams-
Morgan was discussed, general renewal procedures were sub
jected to scrutiny. Congressman Dowdy and Philip Doyle
disagreed whether "duress" was Involved when land was taken
^The Washington Post. May l8, I9 6 3 , P* B-1.
^Editorial In The Washington Post. May 23, 1 9 6 3, p. A -22. 76 from private owners. Also, Dowdy questioned the renewal agencies' discretion to include or exclude land within re newal areas. The renewal plans to move Industries from residential areas and to eliminate large tenements met with criticism from the committee. Dowdy said that It was unwise to force business to face collapse at a time when there was a shortage of jobs.
The subcommittee questioned about the relocation of people. Dowdy asserted that It was not progress "to throw people out with no place to live." The Congressman doubted If those to be displaced would be able to be rehoused In light of estimated shortages. The Chairman suggested that It might be better to concentrate on low income housing rather than
"luxury apartments" for the "luxury people
The most popular criticism, at least with the majority of the audience, was voiced by Congressman George Huddleston of Alabama.
I think one major defect In all plans of this type Is that the planners attempt to treat human beings as commodities, and human beings cannot be treated as commodities. 2 (Applause from the audience.)
1 United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia. Report of Proceedings. Hearing held before Subcommittee No. 4, 88th Congress, 1st Session, June l4, 1963 (Washington: Federal Reporters, Inc., 1 9 6 3), p. 1 0 7 2.
^Ibld.. p. 1104. 77 Reuben Clark, President of the Washington Planning and
Housing Association, testified on behalf of renewal. However, the Chief Counsel accused the Housing Association of staging a bus tour through Adams-Morgan In which non-resident children were hired to play In the streets for the benefit of the tour. Pictures of these children, according to Garber, were taken by tour members. The Chief Counsel labeled this as a
"plot" to cast renewal In a favorable light.^
On July 1 9, the hearings resumed. The District's chief housing Inspector claimed that his studies Indicated that there were fewer houses In Adams-Morgan with structural defects than the RLA had estimated. At the same hearings, Doyle made an
Introductory statement which Immediately drew a response from the subcommittee chairman. Doyle said that he hoped that they would not engage In "tedious argument as to what Is meant by the language" of the 19^5 Act. He went on to say that Congress meant to leave to the administrators of the program the de cision as to whether blight existed. Following the statement.
Dowdy thanked Doyle for the "lecture."
The final hearing In July centered around a General
Accounting Office report on renewal In Cleveland, Ohio.
Representatives of the Office summarized the report. They found that In the mass demolition project that there had been considerable exaggerations of the extent of substandard
^Ibld.. p. 1 2 3 6. 78 buildings In Cleveland. They stated that mass demolition was
the most expensive form of renewal
Dowdy questioned the witnesses from the General
Accounting Office on renewal standards, and he concluded that under renewal criteria, the National Cemetery might be up
rooted for "luxury apartments" and the Capitol and the White
House might be razed to provide adequate street patterns. 2 The witnesses admitted that this was possible. Dowdy went
on to say that it might be well If James Weaver, Administrator
of HHPA, and William Slayton, head of Urban Renewal Adminis
tration, appeared before the committee "to explain some of 3 these things."
This Investigation of renewal, directed by Dowdy and
Garber, was designed to halt renewal. Thomas Owens, a staff
Investigator, after the first hearings, said that they felt that they could prove sufficient collusion to stop all renewal 4 In the District. After several years of Congressional
Interest In the District's renewal, the conflict had reached the point where a House District subcommittee was attempting to end all renewal.
^ h e Washington Post, July 27, 1963, P . B-1.
^I bld .
3%bld.
^Statement by Thomas Owens, Staff Investigator with House District Committee, personal Interview, Washington, D. C., May 16, 1 9 6 3. 79 Commercial renewal. The only Senate action centered around a commercial renewal bill. At the request of the
District Commissioners, Senator Bible Introduced S. 6 2 8, a bill to allow renewal In commercial areas. Downtown Progress and RLA worked with Senator Thomas McIntyre, who was respon sible for the blll.^ The bill was Introduced In January, and It was reported out on June 24, 1 9 6 3. However, George
Praln gave Senator Jack Miller from Iowa several suggested amendments to the bill, and the Senator requested that final consideration of the bill be delayed. Minor Barnes, Legis lative Assistant to Senator Miller, developed amendments to 2 8. 628 from Praln'8 suggestions. On July I6 , I9 6 3, the bill came before the floor for action, and there was a debate about renewal. McIntyre presented and explained the bill with the help of Senator Beall.
Miller of Iowa and Frank Lausche of Ohio discussed the renewal program In Cleveland, In which, according to a recent
General Accounting Office report, there was demolition of large numbers of "sound buildings." Senator Morse, a member
^Statement by Knox Banner, personal Interview, Washington, D. C ., July 28, 1 9 6 3.
^statement by Minor Barnes, Legislative Assistant to Senator Miller, personal Interview, Washington, D. C ., July 1 7, 1 9 6 3. ^The Comptroller General of the United States, Pre mature Approval of Large Scale Demolition for Erlevlew Urban Renewal Project 1, Cleveland. Ohio. Report to the Congress (Washington: Government Printing Office, June, 1 9 6 3). 80 of the subcommittee handling renewal, asserted support for the bill. He pointed out that Senator Beall, who most nearly resembled a representative from the District, supported the bill. Also, he said that since the businessmen wanted the bill and since they would be affected by It, the Senate should not deny them their bill. Finally, in response to
Lausche, Morse said that District legislation was not the proper vehicle for Investigation of a national program.^
Senator Miller presented his amendment to the bill.
It was designed, according to the Senator, to prevent the demolition of sound buildings. The amendment altered the definition of substandard building to one which cannot be 2 "economically Improved." The amendment was defeated, and
S. 628 was passed by the Senate by a voice vote. The bill was referred to Subcommittee Number Pour of the House District
Committee, where It remained as of July 31, 1 9 6 3.
Renewal bills. Even before the end of the first Session of the 88th Congress, there were numerous bills Introduced on renewal In the District. As In the previous Congress, most of the legislation emanated from George Praln.
Three bills, each Introduced by Kyi, were directed to changing standards for urban renewal. H.R. 7319 required
^United States Congress, Congressional Reco^ (Wash ington: Government Printing Office, July 16, 1963), p. 11993
^Ibld. 81
that 30 per cent In a square block be determined to be slum
before renewal authority could be used. Another bill, H.R,
7 1 6 8, required that no building In "good or restorable"
condition be Included In renewal projects. H.R. 7 3 1 8 had
provisions similar to those of the above two bills.
Kyi also Introduced a bill, H.R. 7520, to have the
District Commissioners assume renewal functions of the NCPC
and all the functions of the RLA. This bill also Included
changes In renewal standards.
Wldnall and Kyi introduced bills, H.R. 7145 and
H.R. 7 168, respectively, to disallow Federal contributions
being used as grants to receive non-cash grant-In-alds.
Three bills were Introduced which were to change the system
of taxing In order to encourage Investment In older dwellings.
These were Kyi's H.J.Res. 46l and H.R. 59 and Multer's
H.R. 6 7 9. Broyhlll of Virginia Introduced H.R. 6 3 5 1, a bill
to Increase relocation services to displaced businesses and
families. Broyhlll also Introduced H.R. 6452, a bill to
amend Section 13 of the 1945 Act to free the RLA from city
property taxes.
At the request of the Commissioners, McMillan Intro duced a bill to allow renewal In commercial areas. This was
H.R. 3189. None of these bills were reported from the House
District Committee as of July 31, 1963. The Senate had passed S. 995, a bill to permit the closing of streets and 82 alleys without separate hearings. It was referred to the
House District Committee,
V. CONCLUSION
Congress passed through several phases in its attitude toward renewal. It passed from slight Interest in its early stages to extensive antagonism by 1 9 6 3. The Interjection of the business community Into renewal politics helped to Initiate examinations of renewal by Congress. As Congress studied renewal, serious differences In views of the role of renewal became evident. The RLA defended mass demolition and re planning while Congressman Dowdy attacked all forms of social planning. The next chapter will more closely examine the effects of this development upon the relations of Congress and the renewal agencies. CHAPTER IV
CONGRESS AND THE RENEWAL AGENCIES
The legislative record of Congress Indicates both opposition to the concept of renewal used as basic replanning and to renewal powers In general. This chapter will focus upon a basic part of this record, the relations between the renewal agencies and the District Committees. The Congressional actions In renewal have been determined by several members of
Congress and by a few staff members. In this scheme the dominant Influence is the House District Committee, a body which
Is hostile to renewal. Chapter IV attempts to explain the
Internal organization, tactics, and motivation of Congress In dealing with renewal agencies.
I. THE RENEWAL AGENCIES
There are three renewal bodies, and each of these Is
Involved with the Congressional politics of urban renewal.
Also Involved Is the President's Advisor on District Affairs.
Certain District Departments are sometimes brought Into renewal
Investigations.
The primary responsibility for renewal In the District 1 rests with the RLA, the executor of renewal projects. The
^United States Congress, Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, Urban Renewal Documents. I960-1961. Staff 84
Agency is not directly responsible to the District Committees for appropriations or for plan approval.^ It receives its project funds through the Urban Renewal Administration of
HHPA. The central figure in relations between Congress and the RLA Is the Executive Director, The first Director, according to many persons In Congress, caused considerable distrust and Irritation In Congress, and the second Director 2 Inherited many of these feelings. The RLA has not had friendly relations with the District Committees. The relations between RLA and Congress, especially the House Committee, since 1959 have been hostile. The agency appears to have few friends on the Committees, The only apparent friend on the
House Committee seems to be Congressman Sisk, who sometimes defends the RLA because of a renewal program In his district
Report, Volume I, RLA Materials, 8 7th Congress, 1st Session (Washington: Government Printing Office, January, 1 9 6 1), p. 8 7 7. ^Philip Doyle stated that It might be better If the House Committee did have responsibility for approval of renewal plans. He said that such a situation could not be any worse than the present relationship where the renewal program Is continuously criticized and threatened by Investigations. Statement by Philip Doyle, personal interview, Washington, D. C., July 9y 1 9 6 3. %here Is still today much resentment of the aggressive methods used by John Searles, However, It must also be recog nized that Searles Initiated and developed what remains one of the largest renewal projects In the United States. According to the editors of Architectural Forum. Southwest Washington Is the "finest urban renewal effort In the Country." Architec tural Forum: The Magazine of Building (January, I9 6 3), p. 8 5. 85 In California.^
Renewal agencies generally have considerable political leverage in contracts and land disposition. However, It seems obvious that the RLA has failed to utilize Its powers to cultivate friends in Congress. One explanation might be found In the RLA's use of New York developers In the large
Southwest renewal project. This precluded use of Its greatest potential supporter, the local business community. The local businessmen could have been the RLA's nexus with Congress.
Thus, potential Congressional support seemingly was lost.
The second renewal agency, NCPC, makes the Initial surveys of prospective renewal areas, and it adopts the boundaries of the renewal projects. NCPC also certifies renewal plans. The NCPC Is mainly a planning body, and It generally does not actively participate In Implementing renewal programs. The District Committees have not held
NCPC responsible for renewal action.
The third governmental unit involved la the Office of
Urban Renewal of the District Government. The primary respon sibility of the Office Is to develop each year a "Workable p Program" for all redevelopment In the District. The Office
United States Congress, House of Representatives, Com mittee on the District of Columbia, Report of Proceedings. Hearing held before Subcommittee No. 4, 80th Congress, 1st Session, May 9, 1963 (Washington: Federal Reporters, Inc., 1 9 6 3), p. 4 5 2. ^ h e 1 9 4 9Housing Act, as amended, requires that each community with a renewal program design a comprehensive plan for the elimination of blight. The program Is to Include 86
attempts to coordinate all units involved in renewal.^ The
District Committees do consider the Commissioners partially
responsible for renewal. Other District Government Departments may also play vital roles In renewal, especially In such
areas as highways, welfare, and housing.
The President's Advisor for National Capital Affairs,
Charles Horsky, occasionally operates In renewal politics.
The position was created in 1 9 6 2, and Horsky claims to have
devoted little time to renewal matters. The major renewal
matter In which he has taken Interest Is the Downtown Progress
bill which President Kennedy favored. The President's Advisor
has seen the leadership of each of the District Committees 2 concerning that program. However, other parties Involved with renewal charge that the late President Kennedy allocated
local codes, ordinances, neighborhood analyses, citizen participation, and administration organization. The Office of Urban Renewal, Workable Program. 1962 (Washington: District of Columbia Government, I9 6 2), p. 3 .
^The Office Is headed by an Assistant Engineer Commissioner for Urban Renewal. However, technically the Office Is not supposed to be directly under the Engineer Commissioner. The Washington Post has criticized the "leadership" of the military officials In the renewal program. It accused former Engineer Commissioner Welling of attempting "to sidetrack the renewal program." Editorial In The Washington Post. July 2 9, i9 6 0, p. A-l4. 2 Statement by Charles Horsky, personal Interview, Washington, D. C., July 15, 1 9 6 3. 87 none of his legislative influence behind the billThus,
there are a number of governmental units and offices with
varying Interests In the renewal program In the District.
II. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE AGENCIES
The control of Congress' action on the District's
renewal rests with a small number of Congressmen and Senators.
This can be explained by the low Interest In District renewal, the special circumstances In which members become Interested, and the Committee structure. In general, few Congressmen and
Senators have been Interested enough In renewal to become
personally Involved. Congressman Dowdy and Chester Smith
each stated that practically no Congressman or Senator has 2 had Interest In the program. Lawrence Press of NCPC stated that whenever a member of Congress did take notice of the renewal program It was generally on a project-by-project basis
If a specific renewal project happened to affect something or
someone close to the Congressman or Senator, they might call upon the agencies. According to Press, there seemed to be
^Mr. Reuben Clark, President of the Washington Planning and Housing Association, stated that the late President Kennedy exerted no pressure In favor of the renewal program. The Kennedy Administration, he stated, wasted no Influence on something so politically unprofitable. Statement by Reuben Clark, personal Interview, Washington, D. C ., July 24, 1963. ^Statements by Hon. John Dowdy and Chester Smith, personal Interviews, Washington, D. C ., July 19, 1963 and July 1 7, 1 9 6 3, respectively. 88
no general interest In renewal other than by the House sub
committee currently investigating renewal,^ The one exception was pointed out by Crocker of OUR. He said that Rabaut, who
thought that all renewal was unconstitutional, took a general 2 and great interest In renewal.
There appears to be three general categories of the
few members of Congress who have become connected with re
newal politics. First, there are the leaders of the District
Committees. Second, there are the members who are Involved
because of constituent Interests. Finally, there are the
Congressmen for whom George Fraln has worked. These categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Doyle said that he must occasionally contact the
leadership of the District Committees. These communications are between Doyle and the two Chairmen, the subcommittee 3 chairmen, and the ranking members. For example, Doyle personally took Senator McIntyre, Chairman of the Senate
District Subcommittee on Business and Commerce, on a tour of the downtown area to explain the purposes of the commercial
^Statement by Lawrence Press, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 29, 1 9 6 3.
^Statement by John Crocker, personal Interview, Washington, D. C ., July 15, I9 6 3.
^Statement by Philip Doyle, personal Interview, Washington, D. C ., July 9, 1963. 89 renewal bill.
The second category of agency contacts comes when members of Congress have a constituent concerned with renewal.
Doyle stated that the RLA frequently had calls and letters from
Congressmen and Senators who were inquiring for constituents.
The Executive Director said that the members of Congress seldom attempted to force any changes In RLA policies or pro cedures. Generally, the Agency would only have to explain 2 Its policies and programs to the Interested parties. Lawrence
Press, from NCPC, stated that Congressman Gross' letters for
Joseph Honlck were one of the few examples of personal Interest
In NCPC's role In renewal. Most Inquiries of this nature 3 demand no changes In the renewal program.
Various Congressmen and Senators have, however, approached the renewal agencies to do special favors. Chairman McMillan has Intervened for parking and liquor Interests. He became
Involved In the awarding of a liquor license for the South west Town Center to Mr. Slavltt, a local liquor dealer. The
Executive Director of the RLA, Searles, said that "McMillan's
Interest" In Slavltt was made known in phone calls, meetings
^Statement by John Rltten, Legislative Assistant to Senator McIntyre, personal Interview, Washington, D. C ., July 31, 1 9 6 3. ^Statement by Philip Doyle, personal Interview, Washington, D. C ., July 9, 19^3. ^Statement by Lawrence Press, personal Interview, Washington, D. C ., July 29, 19^3. 90 and "sociable-lunches." Thé Congressman asked that "every
consideration be given to him," Searles reported. Slavltt
did receive the liquor license. McMillan has Intervened
on other matters. Mary Small of NCPC stated that the only
time that the Congressman from South Carolina has ever con
tacted NCPC was when the Commission proposed a parking survey.
The Chairman of the House District Committee vigorously opposed 2 the survey.
There are examples of similar Interventions. Con
gressman Rabaut, while Chairman of the House appropriations
subcommittee, aided various groups. Rabaut and Speaker
McCormack, both Catholics, requested that the RLA drop plans
to locate a wholesale market near St. Dominic's Church In 3 Southwest. The RLA attempted to continue the plan; but,
eventually, the wholesale merchants refused to accept the
location. In another case, Rabaut interceded for a wrecking
company to have a special burning permit granted. Under
"charges of political pressure from Capitol Hill," the RLA
adjusted the contract to allow for the change in operating If conditions. These are Instances of Intervention by members
^The Washington Post. August 3, 196l, p. B-2.
^Statement by Miss Mary Small, Director of Public Relations of NCPC, personal Interview, Washington, D. C ., May 17, 1 9 6 3. ^ h e Washington Post. April 1 5, 1959, P . C-I6 . ^ h e Evening Star /Washington, D . zj, August 3, 1 9 6 1, D . B -1. 91 of Congress which were reported.
Each of the Washington area Congressmen, as the previous chapter indicated, have taken an Interest In the District's renewal. Mathias has contacted the RLA several times about the Waterfront renewal program, and he wrote several letters to the RLA asking about parking priorities In that area.
Doyle of RLA came to Mathias ' office to explain the Waterfront parking situation.^
The final category of members of Congress having relations with the renewal agencies Is made up of the several
Congressmen who have employed George Praln. The legislation
Introduced by these Congressmen and the activities of these
Congressmen with Interest groups have been considered In
other chapters. Fraln had assisted Frank Thompson of New
Jersey, but, according to Crocker of OUR, he was fired because
of his renewal activities. He had sent a request for certain
confidential renewal Information using Thompson's name.
However, Fraln directed that this material be sent to his own home, not to the Congressman's office. Each of the agencies detected that something Improper was being done by Fraln. The
three renewal agencies confronted Thompson with the requests 2 for renewal Information. Fraln was fired as a result.
^Statement by Leo Tonkins, Legislative Assistant to Congressman Mathias, personal Interview, Washington, D. C ., July 15, 1 9 6 3. ^Statement by John Crocker, personal Interview, Washington, D. C ., July 15, 1963* 92 The activities of George Praln working through these several Congressmen has caused the renewal agencies considerable trouble. The Washington Post estimated that Praln had per sonally delayed renewal In Adams-Morgan by a year or two.^
Doyle wrote to Congressman Wldnall complaining of the in fluence of Praln In renewal matters. The Executive Director of the RLA claimed that the Congressman would see the value 2 of the program If Fraln were not on his staff. Fraln throught that the letter was Just another example of the RLA's personal 3 dislike of him. Apparently the letter did not alter Fraln's position on Wldnall's staff.
The Staff Director of the Senate District Committee,
Chester Smith, said that Fraln was kept of these Congressmen to provide them with publicity. He pointed out that most
Congressmen have little or no Influence In their first years
In Congress, and a person who Is able to give them publicity
Is of great value. However, he also said that Fraln's many li activities do occasionally get his employers Into trouble.
Thus, George Praln, acting as a legislative aide. Is able to
^The Washington Post. August 25, 1963, P . E-2. p P. Doyle, personal letter to Congressman Wldnall, Washington, D. C ., July 15, 1963. •a Statement by George Praln, personal Interview, Wash ington, D. C ., July 31, 1 9 6 3.
^Statement by Chester Smith, personal Interview, Washington, D. C ., July I7 , I963. 93 provide a service to Congressmen while aiding his own interests in Adams-Morgan. ^
The activity of members of Congress is limited, first, by general disinterest and, second, by the few circumstances which might cause some interest. Another factor is the com mittee system. Generally, the only members to take a major interest have been the chairmen of the subcommittees which are responsible for renewal. In the Senate District Committee, the subcommittee chairman is about the only one to ever par ticipate. The larger subcommittees in the House do draw more members into the field. However, there is a significant difference between the subc'mmittee systems.
The system of numbered subcommittees in the House allows the Chairman to assign any topic to any chairman.
This assures the Chairman, according to Congressman Sisk's
Legislative Assistant, tight control over the disposition of 2 all issues. Renewal matters have been delegated to sub committees One, Two, and Four, each headed by a Southerner.
Thus, renewal can always be delegated to a subcommittee chairman who views renewal the same way as Congressman
Prain owns property in the Adams-Morgan renewal projects. Jerry Doolittle, "Law Mills Grind for Unsung Old Pro," The Washington Post. August 25, 1963, p . E-2.
^Statement by Jackson T. Carle, Administrative Assistant to Congressman Sisk, personal interview, Washington, D . C ., August 1, 1963. 94
McMillan. In the Senate District Committee, all renewal matters go to the subcommittee on Business and Commerce.
Summary. On the basis of the past record of Congress on renewal, it is possible to estimate the numbers of members who take an interest in renewal. There are the two Chairmen, perhaps the two ranking members, the two subcommittee chair men, the three area members, the three employers of George
Prain, and, perhaps, three other members. In Congress, there are certainly less than twenty members who have any interest in the District's renewal. The committee system places the means of controlling legislative action in the hands of several of these men.
III. CONGRESSIONAL STAFF AND RENEWAL AGENCIES
Renewal activities are not only controlled by a small number of members of Congress, but also by certain staff members who have assumed major responsibility in directing renewal investigations in Congress. The House District Com mittee staff has had considerable experience in dealing with the renewal agencies. The House staff has conducted three major sets of hearings on renewal, while the Senate has held none. The central figure on the House staff in renewal is
Hayden Garber, the Chief Counsel. He has directed each of the hearings and investigations into renewal. Garber fre quently calls on the agencies in gathering materials for the 95 hearings, and he also directs the activities of the special investigators.
There have been complaints about the tactics used by
Garber. According to one renewal official, the staff of the
House Committee frequently takes confidential files on pro posed renewal projects from the agencies. These filés are kept secret as long as possible in order to prevent land speculation. The House Committee has criticized renewal because of land speculation which sometimes results. However, the information from these files, once in the hands of the staff, usually finds its way to the land owners potentially affected. This occurs nearly every time a confidential file is taken by Garber and the staff. The agencies have re peatedly emphasized the necessity for secrecy, but these requests have apparently been ignored. An example of this was cited by The Washington Post. It was reported that Harry
Barbour, before being a member of the House staff, had been given information which had been subpoened by the House
District Committee. He used this alleged information at a hearing to attack the consulting contract of the RLA with the
Washington Channel Waterfront, Inc.^
The officials of the renewal agencies feel that Garber intentionally harasses them. Other examples are seen in the hearings. Garber has denied all requests of the renewal
^The Washington Post. March 31, 1963, P* D-1. 96 agencies for transcripts of the hearings . Anna Miller,
Special Assistant to the Director of the RLA, stated that it is most difficult to attend all hearings and that it is important that they have some record of the statements made on renewal. Garber, she said, has refused to allow them to have any record of the testimony.^ The House Committee has made it a practice to allow agency witnesses only a very short time to prepare to testify. Doyle was once notified on a Friday evening that he was to testify on Monday morning.
Lawrence Press of NCPC complained of the staff tactics in investigations. William Owens, the District Committee
investigator, often called several times to each of the agencies asking the same question. Once, Owens called Press four times during one day, and each time he asked the same question. The NCPC employee felt that the staff was going 2 beyond reasonable limits in attempting to find things wrong.
The purpose of such tactics was seemingly explained by Garber. He feels that the RLA has greatly overstepped its
legal authority. New legislation would probably not change
this situation, the Chief Counsel stated. He said that it might be valuable to have the Justice Department investigate
^Statement by Miss Anna Miller, Assistant to the Executive Director of RLA, personal interview, Washington, D. C., July 9, 1 9 6 3.
^Statement by Lawrence Press, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 29, 1963. 97 the apparent collusion. However, the best approach he felt would be to Investigate renewal very closely. Through such investigations, he felt that they could "make it rough" for the RLA. Garber thought that such investigations would make the RLA follow their legislation more closely.^
The renewal officials are not the only ones disturbed by Garber's activities. Congressman Broyhill expressed con siderable anger about Garber's conduct. The Congressman accused the Counsel of personally obstructing the commercial renewal bill against the wishes of the majority of the members.
He had no objections to members blocking the majority, but he said a staff member should never be allowed to do this. He claimed that the Counsel was conducting the hearings because of his personal dislikes and was doing everything possible to establish a bad record against renewal. The Virginia Congress man described the hiring of two extra staff members as being part of Garber's "empire building." Renewal did not justify 2 a special staff and lengthy investigations.
The Senate staff has been less active in renewal.
However, Staff Director Chester Smith stated that the staff had several clashes with Searles when he was the Executive
Director of the RLA. Since Searles left the program, they
^Statement by Hayden Garber, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 19, 1963. ^Statement by Hon. Joel T. Broyhill, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., August 6, I9 6 3. 98 have found fewer difficulties with renewal.^ Smith cited
Searles' land dealings with redevelopers and with the Flagship
Restaurant expansions as two areas of questionable arrangements
The Staff Director said that Searles did not take the proposed
Senate investigations seriously until he had been threatened with severe action. Another Instance of conflict cited by
Smith was Searles' apparent disregard for the human element in renewal. The Executive Director was more concerned with physical building than with the people affected. Smith re ferred to a case where the RLA was prepared to tear down the last remaining small store in Southwest serving the occupants of public housing. The Staff Director called Searles during the lunch hour to learn that the wrecking crew would begin immediately after lunch. At first, the RLA official refused to intervene to save the store, but the threat of a full-scale investigation changed his mind. Searles drove to the site and stopped the bulldozers. Such problems have not arisen since 2 Doyle became the Executive Director in I9 6 1.
Summary. In renewal politics, Hayden Garber has been a director of each major Congressional attempt to curb renewal.
He seems to have a penchant directed against renewal, and he has been accused of using inappropriate tactics in
^Statement by Chester Smith, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 17, 1963.
%bid. 99 "investigating" the RLA. The Chief Counsel, of course, is directly responsible to Chairman McMillan. It seems safe to assert that the Chairman could have halted Garber's renewal activities if he had so desired. It is significant, however, that the Chief Counsel has such great responsibility for
Congressional action in this field. George Frain, discussed in the previous section, has also used a staff position to attack renewal. He, too, has materially affected the program.
IV. GENERAL COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS
The only Senate "investigation" has consisted of the staff collecting renewal documents. No Senator was willing to conduct such an investigation even though the Staff Director thought that one was necessary. During the past three years,
the House District Committee Chairman has directed three dif
ferent subcommittees to examine renewal. Subcommittees One,
Two, and Four have investigated renewal. These subcommittees
are headed by Howard Smith of Virginia, Thomas Abernethy of
Mississippi, and John Dowdy of Texas. Subcommittee Number
Three is the only subcommittee which is headed by a non-
Southerner, Abraham Multer of New York. In each of the three
major considerations of renewal, legislation restricting re
newal procedures in the District have emanated from the sub
committees .
In each of the hearings, the subcommittees have been
openly hostile to renewal. It seems apparent that the majority 100 of the participating members have not approved of the concept and practice of renewal. Each hearing has been used to attack substantive renewal procedures. In these sets of hearings, land disposition practices by negotiated bidding was a primary issue. Bills were produced which would require public bidding.
Such a system would greatly restrict any renewal agency.
The Washington Post stated in an editorial that "if re development sites must be auctioned off to the high bidder, the redevelopment will no longer be possible or desirable in
Washington."^ A number of other provisions suggested by the
House Committee would similarly strike at the substantive elements of renewal. Chapter III reflects this in the review of testimony.
The leadership, as well as many of the members of the
House District Committee, is generally opposed to giving government renewal powers. Dowdy stated that he disapproved of all "social planning." He classified renewal as being 2 entirely too much governmental control over private property.
The Administrative Assistant to Congressman John Bell Williams asserted that government has no right to control the use of private property. He said that if a man wishes to build "a brick privy" in his front yard, he should not be restricted
^The Washington Post, April 1 7, I9 6 3, P* A-1 6.
Statement by Hon. John Dowdy, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 19, 1963. 101 by government.^ Other Congressmen feel that all redevelop ment should be left to private enterprise, which is claimed to be much faster and cheaper. Both Congressmen Broyhill and 2 Horton expressed this view.
Pour Congressmen cite experience with renewal as a reason for their positions on renewal. Congressman Sisk frequently refers to his experience with renewal.
Now, my home town in California happens to be going through urban renewal and downtown development, and basically I think we are doing a good job. Part is finished. Of course, we have had some problems, and so on, and struggle, but basically they have done a good job, and we have no unhappy people. Those that are being displaced are being relocated before they are shoved out into the street. It can be done. I know it can.3
Three other members report less satisfactory experience with renewal. Horton of New York stated that the program in his
District has taken too long and that private enterprise can 4 do a much faster and better Job. An aide to Congressman
Charles Diggs, a Negro from Michigan, reported that there were too many problems in displacing people. The program
^Statement by Charles H. Griffin, Administrative Assistant to Congressman J. B. Williams, personal interview, Washington, D . C ., July 31, 1963.
Statements by Congressmen Joel T. Broyhill and P. J. Horton, personal interviews, Washington, D. C ., August 6 , 1963 and August 2, 1 9 6 3.
%ouse. Committee on the District of Columbia, Report of Proceedings. o p . cit.. May 9, 1963, p. 452.
Statement by Hon. Frank Horton, personal interview, Washington, D. 0., August 2, 1 9 6 3. 102 appeared too much like Negro removal The Administrative
Assistant to Congressman Williams of Mississippi claimed that his state was being discriminated against by the Urban Renewal
Administration. He stated that three applications for planning grants had been submitted to the Administration and that the 2 grants are being delayed because of the racial problems.
Three of the four who cite experiences with renewal were dissatisfied with the programs.
There have been several complaints made concerning the general investigation made in 1 9 6 3. The Washington Post charged that the hearings were blatantly directed toward es tablishing a bad record on renewal. It complained of the questions on "minutiae" directed to those who favor renewal 3 while the Committee accepts all citizens' hearsay testimony.
The sole defender of renewal. Congressman Sisk, was very disturbed by the subcommittee treatment of Doyle and of the preferences given to those who oppose renewal. The
California Congressman made such concern very evident in one of the 1963 hearings. Mr. Dowdy: In essence, you have a dictatorship of the property in the District?
^Statement by Miss Dorothy E. Quarker, Administrative Assistant to Congressman Charles Diggs, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 31, 1963.
^Statement by C. H. Griffin, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 31, 1963. ^The Washington Post, May 23, 1963, P . A -22. 103 Mr, Roberts; Yes, Sir, an anonymous dictator, who is on the Government payroll and getting paid for dictating.
Mr. Sisk: Here is the thing, Mr. Roberts, the reason I ask this question— and this is not to be critical of you— but I would certainly deplore the fact if this committee or any other committee of Congress became a sounding board for anyone to come down here and attack the integrity of other , individuals.
Now I am very concerned by what seems to be almost a personal attack by you upon Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Roberts: I hope it does not appear that way.
Mr. Sisk: Well, I am not here to carry the ball for Mr. Doyle personally. But I do believe, based on his actions and his statements before this committee and what I know of the gentleman, that he is not a dictator, and he has no desire for it.
I would hope we do not become so emotionally con cerned about these things that we permit ourselves to get to the point of a vendetta against someone or even against an Agency.1
Sisk also complains that the entire hearings are operated to
make the renewal program appear unfavorable. He feels that
the staff is solidly opposed to renewal and that they use
only the materials which would make renewal appear in a
bad light. However, he finds himself unable to alter this 2 situation.
^United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia, Report of Proceedings. Hearing held before Subcommittee No. 4, Both Congress, 1st- Session, May 23, 1963 (Washington: Federal Reporters, Inc., 1 9 6 3), p. 1 0 1. 5 * ^Statement by J. T, Carle, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., August 1, 1963. 104 Sisk is very unhappy with the Southern domination of
the Committee. However, only nine of the twenty-five members
on the House District Committee are Southerners. Through
control of the chairmanship, subcommittee chairmanships, numbered subcommittees, legislative Mondays, and conservative
staff members, the "Southern Clique" maintains control.
Congressman Sisk also believes that the cohesion of the
Southerners and the disunity of the non-Southerners in voting
is a decisive factor. The "Southern Clique" always appears in
executive sessions with enough proxie votes to assure success
to their positions. The members who Sisk feels do not adhere
to the positions taken by the Southerners infrequently attend
committee sessions.^
Another method of Southern control is found in the
Committee staff which is selected by the Chairman and the
leaders. Sisk was deeply troubled by the hiring of staff
assistants who were obviously disposed to oppose urban renewal 2 He found them difficult to work with in renewal matters.
Congressman Multer's Legislative Aide verified Sisk's
experience working with the House District staff. Kenneth
Colcord stated that the House District Committee staff was
completely "untrustworthy." He claimed that they lie to the
liberal members in order to prevent opposition to staff views.
^Ibid.
^Ibid. 105 Those who do not agree with the Southern positions find that 1 the staff is of no use or help.
What then explains the most conspicuous feature of the
House Committee, the Southern dcxnination? Most persons inter
viewed agreed that two factors explain the situation in re
newal. First, the members holding positions of responsibility
are conservative, and they dislike renewal as an element In
"social planning." Second, there is the underlying racial
issue that Southerners can use in their campaigns. These
Congressmen can use their membership to advantage while other
members find no value in District Committee membership.
Summary. This chapter has considered the relations of
Congress and the renewal agencies. The Congressional activities
in the District's program are controlled by a small number of
members of Congress, and certain staff members assume major
responsibility for directing these activities. Essentially,
the Congressional role in renewal politics in the District is
the one outlined and directed by McMillan and Garber. This
chapter has also reflected the ideological and political
opposition to the substantive nature of renewal. There is one
other major element, however, which explains the actions of
^Statement by Kenneth Colcord, Legislative Assistant to Congressman Multer, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 31, 1963. 106 Congress In renewal. This is the role of interest groups.
The following chapter will focus upon this aspect of renewal
politics , CHAPTER V
THE INTEREST GROUPS AND CONGRESS
There are numerous groups attempting to influence renewal policies and programs. However, it seems that the
Influential members in renewal politics rely upon a selected few groups in reaching positions on renewal. Those few groups with easy access to the District Committees, especially to the
House Committee, can influence renewal positions taken by
Congress. This chapter will consider both the proponents and the opponents of renewal, and it will assess their accessi bility to the District Committees.
I . RENEWAL GROUPS
It is necessary to describe briefly the interest groups involved in renewal. A useful way to organize these groups is according to their positions on renewal. The major difficulty comes with certain groups which have ambivalent attitudes toward renewal. However, the dichotomy between proponents and opponents will help highlight Congress' disposition toward the District's program.
Proponents. The principal proponent of renewal has been the Federal City Council, an organization founded in
1 9 5. 4 Philip Graham of The Washington Post was the main sponsor. It was formed to encourage leadership in the 108 physical development of the city. The Council has ninety- five members, mainly from the business community. Many of the members belong to other prominent organizations, such as the
Board of Trade. The Council tries to be a positive element in matters of growth, and it eschews general publicity on its projects. The Council claims that It wishes to act as an unseen "catalytic agent" in expediting the physical development of Washington.^
The Council, since its Inception, has had an interest in renewal. It was Yates Cook's, the Executive Director, and
Philip Graham's idea to ask Sherman Adams to have President
Eisenhower appoint the Council President, George A. Garrett, 2 expedltor of Southwest renewal. The Council also assisted
Statement by Robert S. Moyer, Administrative Assistant with the Federal City Council, personal interview, Washington, D . C ., August 7, 1 9 6 3.
^Cook asked leaders in Pittsburgh how they had expedited the Golden Triangle renewal project. He was told that local leaders had Mr. Mellon appoint a representative as exp edit or of renewal. The Influence of Mellon gave the expediter con siderable powers with local business and political leaders. When local railroad owners refused to move the rail system from the Golden Triangle, Mellon threatened to transport all his goods by truck, and the rails were moved, Yates Cook took this idea to Graham of the Post and suggested that they have the Commissioners appoint an expeditor Graham said that it would be much better to have the United States President select an expeditor. According to Cook, it was this "Think Big" disposition of Graham which made him "great," A reporter from the Post and Cook composed a letter to be signed by the President. Graham spoke to Sherman Adams and arranged to have the letter signed by the President. George A. Garrett, a former Council President, was made the expeditor of renewal and was given ambassador's rank. Upon the influence of this appointment. Cook was allowed to attend ,109 In obtaining loans for renewal developers. The Council pre pared an extensive study of renewal for the House Committee
in 1 9 6 1.
An offspring of the Council is the National Capital
Downtown Committee, Inc., known as Downtown Progress. It was
organized in July of 1959 as a non-profit corporation "to
plan for the revitalization of Downtown Washington and to
assist in putting that plan into action."^ Downtown Progress, under the direction of the Executive Director, Knox Banner, developed the Action Plan with the advice of special con sultants, NCPC, RLA, and National Capital Transportation
Agency. The project has the support of many of the most prominent business leaders. Over $500,000 was donated by downtown businessmen to this project.
The proposed plan describes downtown redevelopment as
being based upon urban renewal. Renewal authority, according
the meetings of the RLA and NCPC. Cook and Garrett went to Albert Cole, the Administrator of HHFA, to ask why the Administration was holding up grants to the RLA. Cole blamed the entire situation on Searles. Cook and Garrett immediately wrote a letter to Searles, explaining what Cole had said. Cole was very embarrassed by this situation, and he called all parties together to settle the many conflicts The Administrator ordered the grants to the RLA immediately provided. Statement by G. Yates Cook, personal Interview, Washington, D. C ., August 7, 1963. ^National Capital Downtown Committee, Inc., Action Plan for Downtown (Washington: National Capital Downtown Committee, Inc., January, 1 9 6 2), p. 1. 110 to the Executive Director, is absolutely necessary. Only piecemeal redevelopment is now possible without renewal powers. The repeated rejections by the District Committees of renewal authority in commercial areas threatens Downtown Progress. Banner stated that if the 88th Congress rejects their bill, it will be difficult to maintain Downtown Progress.
Also, limited improvements to the Downtown area might improve the physical condition of the area to such an extent that renewal would be prohibited due to slum requirements.^ This would prevent planning and redevelopment in the core area as an entity. Therefore, Downtown Progress has a very real interest in gaining legislation authorizing commercial renewal.
In the 8 7th Congress, the Federal City Council had been responsible for the commercial renewal bill; but, in the 88th
Congress, Downtown Progress organized the campaign to gain passage of their bill.
Another proponent of renewal is the Washington Planning and Housing Association. The Association was created in the
1 9 3 0's to improve housing. It supports public housing, urban renewal, rent control, and integrated housing. The Association has a very small staff, and the President, Reuben Clark, is a member of a local law firm. The Association testified against the Rabaut Bill; and, in 1 9 6 1, it made a study of the progress
^Statement by Knox Banner, personal interview, Washington, D . C ., July 29, 1963. Ill of urban renewal in the District. This study evaluated the common criticisms of renewal,^ The Association testified at public hearings in favor of renewal.
The two principal Washington newspapers. The Washington
Post and The Evening Star, have supported renewal. The Post. one of the early advocates of renewal, has consistently sup ported it. During the Rabaut hearings, the Post declared that the real purpose of the Rabaut Bill was to kill renewal rather 2 than to speed it up. In 1 9 6 3, it accused Dowdy’s subcommittee of blatantly supporting the critics of renewal while ignoring 3 the supporters. It has also denounced proposals of competitive bidding.
The Evening Star has generally favored renewal. Samuel
Kauffmann, the President of The Evening Star. headed the
Federal City Council committee which studied renewal and sug gested certain changes in structures and procedures. However, a real estate reporter of the Star. Robert Lewis, has been a critic of renewal programs. According to Lewis, renewal is an instrument which is often used "to terrorize the people."
^ h e Washington Housing Association, Report on Urban Renewal in the District of Columbia (Washington: Washington Housing Association, May 1, 1 9 6 1). (Mimeographed.)
% h e Washington Post. April 29, i9 6 0, p. B-1.
% n -editorial in The Washington Post. May 23, 1 9 6 3, p . A —22 .
^Statement by Robert Lewis, reporter with The Evening Star. personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 19, 1963. 112 One of Lewis* articles caused Doyle of the RLA to request
that the Star take Lewis off local reporting. Doyle pointed
out that Lewis owned property in Adams-Morgan, and Doyle felt
that this was reflected in Lewis' reporting of news concerning
renewal. The request was denied,^ The Daily News has played
a very minor role. It generally emphasizes the sensational
aspects. The title for an interview with Doyle was "A New
Function— RLA Head Urges— Shun Ruthlessness."
The political parties in the District have not taken an
active role in renewal politics. The District's Democratic
Party generally has supported renewal. The Republican Party
has not been interested in renewal and has taken no stands on 3 the various programs. The League of Women Voters has been
active in renewal affairs. In i960, it suggested a plan to 4 centralize renewal agencies. It testified against the
Rabaut Bill, and it has worked to encourage passage of the
Downtown Progress bill.
Support for renewal has also come from the various
Adams-Morgan committees. The central organizations are the
^Statement by Miss Anna Miller, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 9, 1 9 6 3.
%*he Washington Daily News. October 31, I9 6 3, p. 9»
^Statement by Miss Anna Miller, loc . cit.
^ h e Evening Star /Washington, D. c/7, April 3, i960, p . B - 1 . 113 Adams-Morgan Planning Committee and the Community Council,
These groups have worked for federal ald.^ The Planning
Committee has defended the proposed renewal program at the various renewal hearings. In i960, the representatives from
Kalorama area quit these groups in protest of the proposed 2 renewal plans. The Kalorama organization, often represented by Its Vice President, G. M. Koockogey, has opposed renewal in general and the Adams-Morgan plan in particular. In 1 9 6I, the Kalorama groups barred from membership all those who 3 favored renewal.
The Washington Board of Trade is difficult to classify since it has openly opposed renewal in the past. However, since its official position is to favor renewal and since it favors commercial renewal, it can be placed with proponents of renewal. It is Washington's Chamber of Commerce, and it is
Washington's oldest interest group involved in renewal.
Pounded in I8 8, 9 the Board has about seven thousand white members from the Washington metropolitan area. Its member ship list includes most of the prominent businessmen of the 4 area. Early in the history of the renewal program, the Board
The Redevelopment Land Agency, D . C . Redevelopment Land Agency. 1962. Annual Report (Washington: Redevelopment Land Agency, September 28, 1 9 6 2), p. 27. % h e Evening Star /Washington, D . C^, November 1 6, i960, p. B-2. g The Evening Star /Washington, D . C^, September 1, 1959, p. B-1. h Martha Derthick, City Politics in Washington. D. Ç. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962), p. 8 6. 114 organized a committee on urban renewal. Many of the members
of the Board had become distressed about the Southwest renewal project's displacement of numerous businesses. The Board
favored and encouraged Rabaut's renewal bill. However, the
Board, because it is composed of many members, does not always
present a united front. The Board officially favors the
Downtown Progress bill, but an important element of the Board, the Parking Association members, is strongly lobbying against the bill. Such situations, the Executive Director said, mitigates the influence of the Board.^ The Board serves as a good transition to the groups opposing renewal.
Opponents. The most influential group to oppose re newal is the Washington Parking Association. The Association
virtually opposes any changes to the downtown area which might alter or affect their seventy million dollar annual parking
business. The four largest operators, called by the Post
the "parking barons," have developed very close ties with
Congressman McMillan of the House District Committee. This alliance caused the demise of the Motor Vehicle Parking Agency, the Foggy Bottom Garage, the Grand Plaza Parking lot, the lOth
Street Mall parking, one-way streets, and the Southwest 2 parking schemes.
^Statement by William Press, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., August 6 , 1963. ^Laurence Stern and Leslie H. Whitten, The Washington Post. August 19, 1 9 6 2, p. A-l. 115 The major target for the "parking barons" is the Down town Progress Renewal Bill, "Commercial urban renewal in volving Federal aid presents a greater potential threat to the off-street parking industry," one lobbyist commented,
"than our long standing adversary, municipal parking."^ The
Parking Association is one of the most adamant opponents of renewal in the District.
The remaining business opposition consists of various ad hoc business groups or even individual businesses. None of these have the economic or political power of the Parking
Association. There are several groups from the Adams-Morgan renewal area. The Adams -Morgan Light Commercial Institute, headed by Joseph J. Honick, is an organization of small business men threatened with expulsion from the Adams-Morgan area.^ The group cites business mortalities due to renewal dislocation as a major reason for their opposition to the renewal plan. They call for the rejection of the Adams -Morgan plan. The
Property Owners Protective and Improvement Association, another Adams -Morgan group, consists of tenement and home owners . This Association also demands the defeat of the renewal plan which would eliminate large rooming houses.
^Laurence Stern and Leslie H. Whitten, The Washington Post, August 2 3, 1 9 6 2, p. B-1.
^Joseph J. Honick, "Statement of Joseph J. Honick for the Adams -Morgan Light Commercial Institute before the Com missioners of the District of Columbia" (Washington: Honick Associates, 1 9 6 3). (Mimeographed.) 116 Certain individual businessmen from this area have taken
active roles in renewal politics. Alphons Hackl, President
of Colortone Press located in Adams-Morgan, has contacted
Congressmen and Senators in efforts to defeat the renewal
plan.^ The renewal plans call for the relocation of his
printing company.
In the Waterfront area, there are at least three
businesses active in renewal politics. Watson B. Rulon,
Jr., owner of Hogate's Restaurant, has been very concerned
with the Waterfront Plan, Rulon was a witness in the second
House hearing on renewal in 1 9 6 3. The restaurant owner
complained of injustices in the rents being charged his
restaurant compared to those charged the Flagship Restaurant,
his competitor. The RLA owns the land, and it established
the rents, Rulon has a redevelopment plan and corporation
for Waterfront, and he wanted his plan and corporation to be
utilized instead of the plan of the Washington Channel Water
front, Inc. Two other Waterfront business owners, Sarah
Ellis and James Gregory, have objected to the provisions for
customer parking and for priorities for displaced businesses .
The Catholic Church has been a foe of renewal, but
currently it is not opposing renewal. The Church sponsored
Alphons J. Hackl, "Statement before the Commissioners of the District of Columbia" (Washington; Colortone Press, 1 9 6 3). (Mimeographed.) 117 a special study of renewal in 1959 which was published under
the title of Crisis Downtown.^ The study was very critical
of relocation procedures. The author of this study. Rev.
Robert Howes, was one of the major witnesses supporting the
Rabaut Bill in 1959. St. Dominic's Catholic Church, located
in Southwest, had nearly its entire congregation moved because
of renewal. Also, the Church fought with the RLA over the
proposed location of a market adjacent to St. Dominic's. A major witness representing the Board of Trade in support of
the Rabaut Bill, William Hannan, is a brother of Rev. P. M.
Hannan, Auxiliary Bishop of the Catholic Archdiocese.
The Catholic Church has been quiet on the subject of
renewal since the Rabaut hearing. However, it seems that a
segment of the Church is currently supporting the Downtown
Progress Bill. The heads of the Georgetown Law School are
among the prominent Catholics pressing for that bill. The
Georgetown Law. School might be aided by Federal renewal money
if the commercial bill were to be approved.
Various citizens' organizations from renewal areas
have opposed renewal. For example, the West End Citizens'
Association opposed renewal plans for West End and Foggy
Bottom. An ^ hoc group, the Citizens Rights' Council,
Rev. Robert Howes, Crisis Downtown: A Church Eye- View of Urban Renewal (Washington: National Conference of Catholic Charities, 1959)• 118 opposed renewal in various hearings. This group consisted of persons evicted from the Southwest renewal area. The Kalorama
Citizens' group has been one of the most active of such or ganizations .
Most Negro organizations have either criticized renewal or openly opposed it. The NAACP has at various times cri ticized renewal plans, saying that the programs were designed to force Negroes out of their homes.^ The NAACP has also cited the high rents of Southwest apartments as examples of the use of the program against Negroes. The Urban League and the Citizens Civic Association have also criticized re newal as not being in the Negroes' interests. Sterling
Tucker, of the League, said that renewal is just a matter of 2 removing one slum only to create another. The Negro news paper, the Afro-American, criticized the large-scale relocation in Southwest, but it did support the general idea of the
Adams-Morgan project. However, the Afro has generally been critical.
Summary. There are a great number of groups involved in renewal politics . The positions taken by these groups are determined by the implications of each project. For example, much of the business community opposed renewal until the
^The Washington Post. September 1, 1959, p . B-2.
%?he Washington Post. April 26, 1962, p. B-1. 119 central business area became a possible recipient of money for renewal. Thus, the business community is quite divided on renewal. In Congressional decision-making on renewal, only a few of these groups have access to the leaders of the
District Committees. The next section will attempt to show the nexus between these groups and Congress.
II. GROUPS AND CONGRESS
A close analysis of the relations of Congress with the renewal interest groups reveals that the District Committees rely upon just a few of these groups for guidance. The most influential groups are made of businessmen, but there is a sharp split in the business community. The central businesses are fighting the parking interests over commercial renewal.
The remaining groups have relatively little influence before the District Committees.
Proponents and Congress. The Federal City Council does not generally operate on an intimate level with the Congres sional leaders of the District Committees. One method that the Council uses to influence Congressmen and Senators is to encourage editorials in the newspapers in the districts or states of the various representatives. On some questions, the Council keeps a United States map with colored pins indicating the origin of editorials or articles on the District
Robert Moyer, of the Council, stated that the Congressmen and 120 Senators will respond to constituency interests before they will to those of the Council.^
However, the Council does attempt to work with the
Congressmen on renewal questions. It was a call from Yates
Cook to Congressman Joel Broyhill which initiated the "request" for the Council to study renewal. The Council sponsored the study and supported a bill to reorganize renewal. The bill was never reported from the committee. The Executive Director said that the bill and the study were "politically unwise."
The study should have been brief and the bill short.^ Though the Council often operates upon a personal basis, it feels that it must generate support from the various Congressional districts to influence the District Committees on many questions
Executive Director of the Federal City Council has had dealings with Garber at various times during the past several years, and he has found him irreconcilably opposed to renewal. Cook said that during consideration of their bill, it was impossible to speak to Congressman Smith without being questioned by Garber. The Counsel would continually argue against renewal. Cook said that Garber made it impossible to work with Congressman Smith. According to Cook, Garber has
^Statement by Robert Moyer, personal interview, Washington, D, C ., August 7, 1 9 6 3.
^Statement by G. Yates Cook, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., August 7, 19&3. 121
led a campaign within the Committee against renewal.^
Downtown Progress has a major asset in the strong sup
port of major downtown businessmen. Certain Congressmen are
close to these businessmen. Broyhill is an example of this.
In spite of his general dislike of renewal, he has pressed
very hard for this bill. He feels that if the businessmen 2 want renewal, they should have it. All of the Congressmen
on the District Committee were sent the Action Plan. Knox
Banner of Downtown Progress said that they are having each
Congressman on the House Committee contacted by a personal
friend on behalf of the commercial renewal bill. They were
having the administrator of the Fresno renewal project contact
Sisk, and they were having a former roommate of Huddleston
write a letter supporting the Downtown Progress bill. Down
town Progress has prepared a list of the names of all the
members on the District Committees and subcommittees. This
list has been distributed to friends with a brief explanation
of the need for a commercial renewal bill. The idea is to
encourage letters to and talks with certain Congressmen and 3 Senators. The Executive Director of Downtown Progress estimated
llbid. ^Statement by Hon. Joel T. Broyhill, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., August 7, 1 9 6 3.
■5 Statement by Knox Banner, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 29, I963. 122 that, in total, they must have contacted over one hundred persons asking for help. Banner also stated that Downtown
Progress had access to the Speaker of the House. Two persons were to discuss their bill with Speaker McCormack. One of these persons is a prominent Catholic.^ Banner had stopped trying to gain the support of certain Congressmen. Dowdy, according to Banner, was absolutely opposed to all renewal.
Even the prominent businessmen supporting the commercial renewal bill find Garber a strong opponent of renewal. The
Post described an example of this.
It was Levi, president of the HechtCo., who answered the most pointed if veiled question of all--the one on conflicts of interest, as stated indirectly by Committee Counsel Hayden S. Garber.
If a businessman is in conflict because he might share in broad community benefits from downtown renewal, Levi said, then thousands of businessmen across the land are acting wrongly in trying to improve their own cities.2
This type of questioning appears to be a basic pattern. The subcommittee, led by Garber, implies conflict of interest to all those who sponsor or favor urban renewal.
Most of the civic groups favoring renewal have had little impact on Congress. In 1963, the Washington Planning and Housing Association had great difficulty in even receiving permission to testify in favor of renewal. Reuben Clark, the
Association's President, felt that the subcommittee was
llbld.
% h e Washington Post. August 24, 1963, P- C-1. 123 intentionally building a bad record on renewal and that it was
important to have favorable witnesses because of the press coverage. He asked Garber many times for permission to testify, but he was refused. Finally, Clark said that they became such a "nuisance" that they were given permission. On June l4,
1963, Clark spoke in favor of the Adams-Morgan plan. However, he was questioned about the Association's past criticisms of renewal, and Garber accused the Association of staging children
in the streets of Adams-Morgan for t ' benefit of a bus tour of persons interested in renewal.^ There have been other
cases where proponents of renewal were discredited by the
staff. Donald Gartenhaus, a local businessman, the "lone defender" of renewal in the May 1 7, 19^3 hearing, was accused 2 of a conflict of interest. Groups supporting renewal without the backing of special business groups have practically no
influence before Congress .
The Board of Trade is especially close to the District
Committees. William Press, Executive Director of the Board
of Trade, stated that he was on very good terms with the
Chairman of the House District Committee. The membership of
the Board is conservative, as are the leaders of the House
1 United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia, Report of Proceedings, Hearings before Subcommittee No. 4, 80th Congress, 1st Session, June l4, 1963 (Washington: Federal Reporters, Inc., 1 9 6 3), p. 1 2 3 6.
^The Washington Post. May 1 8, 1963, p . B-1. 124 Committee, This, according to Press, is the basis of the Board's influence.
Press listed several instances when he advised Con gressmen on action on renewal. He said that he encouraged
Rabaut to develop a bill to restrict renewal activities. The
Executive Director also stated that it was only because he could personally ta^lk to McMillan that the commercial renewal bill was passed by the House in I9 6 2. According to Press, the Federal City Council representatives were just "politically naive." When they had failed to gain acceptance for their renewal bill, they then asked Press for help. Press received a promise from McMillan to support the commercial bill and to bring the bill out of subcommittee. The Executive Director stated that his relations with the Senate were good also, though perhaps not as good as those with the House. The only persons who attempted to obstruct the Board's goals are new members, and Press pointed out that they generally do not remain on the committees very long. He also admitted that they had difficulties with Senator Morse.^
The Board's Director did admit that they have had dif ficulties working with Garber. In 1 9 6 2, William Press approached the Committee in behalf of the downtown renewal bill. He spoke to Chairman McMillan, who said that he would
^Statement by William Press, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., August 6, 1963. 125 support that section. Congressman Smith and Chief Counsel
Garber reluctantly reported out the commercial renewal bill.
However, when the bill was reported to the full committee,
Garber had included sections which Press thought were very punitive. Press had Chairman McMillan and the full committee drop those sections.
Summary. The proponents of renewal have their views easily accepted by the Senate District Committee, but they have been generally on hostile grounds with the House Com mittee. The only groups to have any influence have been the
Board of Trade and the Downtown Progress on the commercial renewal bill. Congressman Broyhill has been the main advocate of the bill. However, several factors, including Garber's opposition to renewal, have thwarted even the businessmen in their efforts to have renewal powers extended. Another factor is the role of the opponents of renewal.
Opponents and Congress. According to Knox Banner, the most serious threat to the commercial renewal bill comes from the members of the Parking Association. The parking lot owners are very close to McMillan, and they have spoken to him about stopping the Downtown Progress bill. The parking interests are afraid of any change which might create a situation in which municipal parking might be provided.^
^Statement by Knox Banner, personal interview, Washington, D . C ., July 29, 1963. 126 McMillan has demonstrated special interest in the parking provisions in renewal plans. The only renewal hearing in
1963 attended by McMillan was the one on March 25, the one on the parking situation in the Waterfront plan. According to
Leo Tonkins, legislative aide to Congressman Mathias, the
Chairman Is holding up the Waterfront plans until the parking situation meets his approvalBoth Press and Banner stated that the Parking Association is especially close to McMillan.
It is impossible to accurately assess what the Chair man has done for the Parking Association or what the Parking
Association has done for the Chairman. However, it seems obvious that the Chairman could have gained approval for the commercial bill if he had really desired to do so. He could have stopped Garber's and Dowdy's attacks on renewal. The
"parking barons" admit their close relationship with McMillan.
One of the four largest parking operators has stated that when it comes to asking favors from the House Committee, "we're 2 not the bashful type."
The remaining numerous business and citizens groups opposing renewal depend upon complex personal contacts for their access to the House Committee. Garber's ties with
^Statement by Leo Tonkins, Legislative Assistant to Congressman Mathias, personal Interview, Washington, D. C ., August 1, 1 9 6 3.
% h e Washington Post. August 23, 1962, p. B-1, 127 groups interested in renewal are not clear. He once commented that he thought that it was funny that Negro groups would thank him for his stand on renewal. He said that he cer tainly did not oppose renewal because of themGarber does aid those opposed to renewal, and he favors those groups against renewal agencies.
The Washington Post reported that the Chief Counsel was "sympathetically accessible to Mr. Watson B. Rulon, Jr., 2 owner of Hogate's Restaurant." The first two renewal hearings by Subcommittee Number Pour in I963 were on the Waterfront plan. Rulon desired to be a developer, and he claimed that illegal privileges were given to a competitor, the Flagship
Restaurant. Garber and the subcommittee questioned renewal officials on the arrangements made with Washington Channel
Waterfront and on the expansion of the Flagship Restaurant.
Harry A. Barbour was hired as a special consultant on renewal. During World War II, he directed a public housing project in Richmond, California. He has been retired for over eight years, and he has had a "career-in-retirement of testifying at hearings in opposition to various renewal 3 policies, projects, and proposals." Barbour, previous to
^Statement by Hayden Garber, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July I9 , 1963. %*he Washington Post, March 31, 1963, p. B-1.
3lbid. 128 becoming a consultant for the committee, had made renewal studies for Kalorama Citizens' Association, a group opposed to renewal in Adams-Morgan. The Washington Post pointed out that many of the objections that Barbour had expressed con cerning renewal before his Congressional employment became major themes of questioning during the 1963 hearings. It seems evident that the Kalorama group has direct access to the District Committee through its former assistant.
Another nexus between groups opposed to renewal and the Committee is George Prain. Prain became interested in renewal in i960 when he discovered that the Adams-Morgan r e newal plan included putting a parking lot across from an apartment which he owned. He bitterly opposed that provision, and he has since also opposed renewal in general Since i9 6 0, he has utilized his position in Congressional offices to oppose renewal. Prain has served as the nexus between groups opposed to renewal and the various Congressmen.
Nearly all of the Congressmen for whom Prain has worked have made statements supporting the various groups opposed to renewal. Congressman Frank Thompson from New Jersey, a former employer of Prain, in several speeches and extended remarks criticized Southwest renewal. He cited both Catholic and 2 NAACP opposition to the project. After Prain left his
^Jerry Doolittle, "Law Mills Grind for Unsung Old Pro," The Washington Post. August 25, I9 6 3, p . E -2. United States Congress, Congressional Record (Washington; 129 employment, the Congressman indicated no further interest in renewal.
Congressman Carroll Kearns employed Prain until his defeat in 1 9 6 2. Kearns also made frequent remarks in opposition to renewal. He even criticized the parking lot proposed for
Lanier Place, the area across from Prain's apartment house in Adams-Morgan.^ In a statement. Congressman McDowell cited Fulton Brylawski's plan of Adams-Morgan house restor ation by private redevelopers as a reason for calling the 2 RLA plans unnecessary. Another employer of Prain, Congress- 3 man Kyi of Iowa, has also spoken against renewal. Crocker of the Office of Urban Renewal stated that Prain often has 4 his Congressmen speak to groups opposed to renewal. On one occasion, Prain took several of these groups to speak to 5 John McMillan, Chairman of the House District Committee.
Thus, Prain directly represents his own property interests in Adams-Morgan, and he also acts as a link between groups
Government Printing Office, September 2, i9 6 0), p. A 6735.
^United States Congress, Congressional Record (Washington: Government Printing Office, May 24, I9 6 2), p. 2840.
2lbid.. p. A 3 9 0 1.
^United States Congress, Congressional Record (Washington: Government Printing Office, May 8, 1 9 6 3), p. 7 6 2 6.
^Statement by John Crocker, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., July 15, 1963.
^The Washington Post. March 2 6 , 1 9 6 1, p. B-2. 130 opposed to renewal and the leadership of the House District
Committee.
In Congress, the representatives from districts
bordering on the District have had a special relationship to
renewal politics. Generally, they have been critical of
renewal. The legislative aide to Congressman Mathias said
that his Congressman took an interest in renewal because of
the publicity of the Washington newspapers. The area's
Congressmen can benefit through publicity in the papers which
their constituency reads.^ A proposed statement by Mathias
for the Waterfront hearing elaborated upon his interest. "The
redevelopment of the Waterfront affects the interests of many
of my constituents, as well as the residents of the entire 2 Washington metropolitan area." Mathias attended the Water-
front hearing held by the Commissioners. The Congressman,
while supporting Waterfront redevelopment, questioned the priorities given by the RLA to former businesses, and he
opposed the RLA plan for off-site parking. However, the
Congressman's aide, Leo Tonkins, cautioned that this publicity was a two-edged sword. Too much publicity on District matters
^Statement by Leo Tonkins, personal interview, Washington, D. C., August 1, 1963. ^Hon. Charles Mathias, "Rough Draft for Subcommittee Meeting on Monday, March l8th," (Washington: Office of Congressman Charles Mathias, 1 9 6 3), p. 1. (Mimeographed.)
3rhe Washington Post. July 30, 1963, P . B-1. 131 might Infer that the Congressman was neglecting his primary
responsibility to his district.
Another Congressman from the Washington metropolitan
area, Richard Lankford, once summarized his interest in
renewal.
As the Representative from the Fifth Congressional District of Maryland, bordering Washington, I feel that I have even a greater responsibility than many of my colleagues, for my constituents are vitally concerned over a program of this magnitude. Its effects, good or bad, will not be confined entirely to the District of Columbia.1
Lankford is not on the District Committee, but he does show
some interest in renewal. The Congressman indicated that he
believed that the renewal program had not been successful.
He said that displacees were causing slums in other areas. p Also, he felt that renewal had been inordinately slow. The
Maryland Congressman introduced a bill which would alter major sections of the present statutes governing renewal. It would have halted further renewal until projects were 50 per cent completed, and it would have required competitive bidding
^United States Congress, Congressional Record (Washington: Government Printing Office, April 16, 1 9 6 2), p. A 2933.
^Ibid.
^United States Congress, House of Representatives, A B i ll. H.R. 1 1 2 9. 88 7th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington: Government Printing Office, April I6 , 1 9 6 2). 132 The only other Washington area member to take an interest has been Congressman Joel T. Broyhill. He stated that he became opposed to renewal because of the many complaints from displaced businessmen. Many of these business men live in Northern Virginia in his district. The Congress man has been the primary proponent of the commercial renewal bill, however. If the downtown businessmen want it, they should have it, the Congressman asserted.^
The conditions of accessibility and participation on the Senate side are different. A statement by Senator Hartke explains this. He said that the Senators are completely 2 apathetic to renewal. Martin Ferris, Assistant Counsel, confirms this. Ferris said that many groups approach Senator
Beall's office, but nothing was usually done unless the Senator takes an interest. Although Beall had earlier opposed renewal, he now thinks that the program has done some good. The
Senator, however, seldom takes an interest; and, therefore, the staff seldom acts for any interest groups. Ferris indicated that about the only renewal interest groups to gain 3 the attention of any Senate members were the business groups.
^Statement by Hon. Joel T. Broyhill, personal interview, Washington, D. C ., August 7, 1963. O Statement by Hon. Vance Hartke, personal interview. Palls Church, Virginia, November 10, 1 9 6 3.
^statement by Martin Ferris, personal interview, Washington, D . C ., July 17, 1963. 133 Conclusion. The previous chapters have Indicated that
only a few members of Congress take any interest in renewal.
This chapter indicated that these few members rely on Just a
few interest groups for guidance on renewal matters. The businessmen clustered around Downtown Progress and around
the Parking Association have the greatest accessibility to
the members. However, these two groups are pitted against
each other. The present situation is a stalemate favoring the more conservative of the two, the Parking Association.
The other opponents of renewal can use the Dowdy subcommittee as a platform to attack renewal, but it is doubtful that such citizens' groups as Kalorama have great weight with Chairman
McMillan. They seem to be tools of Garber in fighting re
newal. Thus, it seems that only a few organizations have much weight with the few members of Congress who take an
interest In renewal. CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This final chapter will attempt to draw together the
findings of this research and to indicate possibilities for
further investigation. The preliminary hypotheses will be
reviewed in the context of the findings of the total research
project, and they will be evaluated upon that basis. In
doing this, a more unified answer to the main research
problem can perhaps be presented. These findings will also
be considered in view of the findings of recent literature
on urban renewal and on the politics of the District.
Finally, some of the unanswered questions about this scheme
of government will be posed as suggestions for further
research.
I. RECONSIDERATION OF HYPOTHESES
The first hypothesis was that the diffusion of renewal
authority and responsibility among numerous city and Federal
governmental units encourages confusion, conflict, and delay.
Other researchers have studied the diffusion among the RLA,
NCPC, and OUR. The Hanson dissertation, the Wurtzel case
study, and the Federal City Council study each commented on
the dispersal of authority between these various renewal agencies. The consensus was that this condition led to 135 conflict and delay. Another element. Congress, also inten sifies this diffusion, as this research indicates. Through out this paper, there have been numerous examples of how various committees and individuals In Congress have attempted to interpose their views and have, as a consequence, further diffused renewal authority.
Intensive investigations, threatening legislation, and direct intervention have been means by which several Congress men and several staff members have assumed great importance in renewal. These conditions were recently summarized by the
Executive Director of the RLA, a former renewal official from
Chicago. "The big difference between here and Chicago," he related, "is that here the telephone call is not in terms of
•We’re going to get you fired ' but rather 'The whole program will suffer if you don't do it my way.'" The interventions of Congress have had real effect on the programs. The Post estimated that George Prain alone had delayed the Adams- 2 Morgan project over two years. Now the Commissioners have deferred approval or rejection of that project by calling for a new survey. Congress' Involvement in renewal has meant the dispersal of renewal powers to an unfriendly participant.
The second hypothesis was that the conflicts between
^Jack Eisen, "New Renewal Attempts Renew Old District Battles," The Washington Post. November 3, 1963, P. E-2.
^Jerry Doolittle, "Law Mills Grind for Unsung Old Pro," The Washington Post. August 25, 19&3, P . E-2. 136 Congress and the renewal agencies stem from basic disagree
ments over the substantive nature and purpose of renewal.
Often organizational difficulties are blamed for the delay
in the renewal system, and in turn, this delay is blamed for
the hostile Congressional attitudes. This analysis seems to
fall short of grasping the subtleties of the conflict between
Congress and renewal agencies. This study seems to indicate that many of the delays were caused by basic disagreements
over the purpose of the renewal process. Problems with developers, conflicts over basic project approaches, relocation, and systems of negotiated contracting are some of the areas of disagreement. Reorganization of agencies probably would have had limited effect on these objections.
The legislative scheme on District matters is such that there are only a few members that take part. Each of the members who have opposed renewal have raised substantive issues. Congressman Dowdy is against all social planning, and Congressman Rabaut seemed to feel that all renewal was unconstitutional. Chief Counsel Garber disapproves of renewal, and presumably Congressman McMillan does also. These men have opposed the taking of private property by the renewal agencies, and they have especially opposed giving that property back to private developers .
A third factor about the substantive nature conflict concerns interest groups. When Congressmen find that their constituency actively supports renewal, they probably support 137 It. Congressman Broyhill does not approve of renewal, but he is actively pressing for the business community's Downtown
Progress Bill because the businessmen want it. However, the history of the District's renewal reveals few strong supporters, and today the most influential lobby, the business community, is split in its position on renewal. The conflict between
Congress and the renewal agencies is not one that could be erased by simple reorganizations. The real issues stem from disagreements over the substantive nature of renewal.
The third hypothesis was that the control of Congress' renewal activities rests in the hands of a small number of
Congressmen and Senators. The apathy on District matters is pervasive in Congress, Few members have even the slightest concern or interest in this jurisdiction which has no effect upon their districts. The Washington, D, C, area members are interested partially because of publicity, and the Southerners seem to take some interest because of racial implications.
Also, the committee system, as it works on the District Com mittees, seems to leave entire fields of legislation almost solely to the subcommittee chairman. Congressman Dowdy, working under broad instructions from Chairman McMillan, has almost plenary powers over the House's handling of renewal.
The general apathy and committee system leave renewal matters to just a few members, and these members have been hostile to renewal in the past. 138 The fourth hypothesis was developed from the conditions suggesting the third one. It was hypothesized that certain staff members of Congress assume major responsibility for directing Congress' actions on renewal. The two most influential staff members seem to be Hayden Garber and George Prain. The first has directed each of the investigations conducted by the House District Committee, which have run almost contin uously since 1959. His disposition toward renewal and his investigating tactics have been distinguishing elements throughout renewal hearings. The second, Prain, has assumed considerable importance through his ability to utilize his three Congressional positions. His personal interest in renewal seems apparent, and the renewal agencies consider him one of their main opponents. The two special investigators hired by the House District Committee in I963 only made the position of the House District Committee staff stronger. One of these two, of course, had been one of the chief antagonists of District renewal. Not only did these four staff members direct most of the legislative action on renewal in the House, but these four men were widely recognized as opponents of urban renewal.
The final hypothesis concerned the accessibility and influence of interest groups before the District Committees,
It was hypothesized that the members of the District Committees rely upon a relatively few individuals and groups for guidance in renewal affairs. Accessibility is limited to a small 139 number of interest groups. Some groups, such as the Washington
Planning and Housing Association, have no influence before the
Committees. The groups closest to these Committees have been the Parking Association and the downtown merchants, and these two groups are presently struggling against each other over the downtown renewal bill. Thus, in a scheme in which only a few members of Congress and a few staff members are dominant, an equally few interest groups are relied upon for direction.
The findings of this research as focused through these hypotheses indicate that on renewal matters the personal positions of a few men in Congress and of a few business groups are the determinant forces in Congressional dispositions.
The dominant philosophy has been generally a conservative or rural one, and personal preferences and prejudices have been very important. The scheme is responsive only to a few of those affected by the renewal process. Congress, when seen in the renewal process, is dominated by persons and forces hostile to renewal. Thus, Congress, as a participant in the
District's renewal, is a vehicle mainly causing obstruction, vetoes, stalemates, and delays.
II. FINDINGS ANALYZED WITH OTHER STUDIES
This thesis seems to reflect upon the general literature of urban renewal. First, it indicates that there is a serious conflict between several concepts of the purpose of renewal. 140 Miles Colean wrote in 1953 about basic approaches to renewal
However, ten years later, this study indicates, there is little agreement in Washington concerning the basic function of re newal. This should be of some significance since Washington has one of the major renewal programs in the United States.
The renewal agencies defend varying amounts of replanning under renewal while the segments of Congress considered adhere either to renewal as part of rehousing programs or to total private renewal.
This disagreement over the purpose of renewal has had a material effect on the District's program. Two major projects, Adams-Morgan and Columbia Plaza, verged on being dropped. Downtown renewal was still left without enabling legislation. The interjection of Congress into the renewal program amounted to a challenge to basic renewal concepts, and this left Washington's renewal program uncertain as to purpose and function.
This study also seems to verify some of the findings of other research on the administration of renewal. As was mentioned in the first chapter, a number of authors have cited the necessity for some person to take a central role of leadership. This study shows the results of a situation where this active leadership is missing. For example, Louis Danzig,
^Mlles Colean, Renewing Our Cities (New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1953). I4l
in Newark, was able to capture and control all renewal powers,
and he kept the various other city groups without authority in
renewalWashington is an example of what happens when the
renewal powers are diffused among a number of bodies. The
RLA shares renewal authority with several planning, housing,
and administrative offices, plus with Congress. The program
has been filled with conflicts which halt and delay renewal.
This study seems to verify the research done on urban
renewal administration. The central theme seems to be that
renewal cannot thrive if the powers are spread among too
many bodies .
These findings should also be viewed in light of other
recent studies on Washington. Although Martha Derthick's
study is meant to provide only semi-interpreted data, her
conclusions on this process should be reviewed for they are
not confirmed by the findings of this study. First, she
views Congressional investigations as a period of reexamination 2 of the administrative structure of renewal. She implies that
Congress will eventually alter the system of administration
and that a new phase will begin. The research conducted for
this paper indicated that administrative organization was
secondary to the substantive nature of renewal. The debates
^Harold Kaplan, Urban Renewal Politics ; Slum Clearance in Newark (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963TT
^Martha Derthick, City Politics in Washington. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1 9 6 2), p. 200. 142 in Congress and the relations with the agencies indicate a hostility to the entire program, not just to administrative delay. Secondly, she concludes that Negroes will have in creasing influence upon the renewal program.^ This conclusion is not supported by this research. Presently, Negroes have practically no influence at all before the House District
Committee, the dominant element in renewal matters. Certainly, the major restructuring of the whole District system of gov ernment would seem necessary to alter this situation. Derthick does provide insights into some of the basic issues on renewal.
However, on renewal politics, she seems to reach conclusions unsupported by the history of Congressional action.
The study performed by Royce Hanson is more analytical and does picture the District Committee very much as these findings do. The system of District Committee is pictured 2 as "inept and cantankerous." The primary elements as seen by Hanson are the personal emphasis, rural predomination, irrelevant constituency, conflict between the two Houses, and lack of leadership. Each of these elements is seen in this study. Hanson’s focus on renewal is upon the subject of reorganization of renewal agencies. However, he does not
^Ibid.. p. 201.
% o y c e Hanson, "Capital, Metropolis, and Local Govern ment: The Process of Governing Metropolitan Washington" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The American University, Washington, D. C ., 1 9 6 2), p. 1 7 8. 143 attribute all Congressional action to the reorganization con troversy, as Derthick seems to do.
A third study focuses upon the organization of the renewal process. This is the case study by Barbara Wurtzel.^
This study seems to confirm the general hypothesis that diffusion of renewal authority does cause conflict and delay.
A short section in this paper discussed the role of staff members on the District Committees. This is a topic seldom dealt with by other authors. According to Wurtzel, the staff members have considerable power resulting from the low interest in District affairs and from their physical proximity to the District. She stated that "Correspondingly greater reliance is therefore placed on the work of the staff and its opinions." The nickname of "city councilmen," she 2 mentions, is given to the staff. Wurtzel's comments on the staff members is confirmed by this research on the politics of renewal. Each of these three studies focused upon the renewal program in different ways. In general, the con clusions of these studies support the findings of this study on Congress and renewal politics.
Barbara Wurtzel, "The Southwest Projects— A Case Study of Urban Renewal Organization in the District of Columbia" (unpublished case study, The American University, Washington, D. C ., 1 9 6 1).
^Ibid., p. 65 , 144
III. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
This study has attempted to suggest hypotheses on the role of Congress in the District's renewal program. It is recommended that further research be conducted into the major areas considered in this paper. In many instances, sections of this paper could be broadened into separate research topics. For example, a study of renewal interest groups could be broadened to include the many non-Congressional aspects . Other areas which seem valuable for further research are :
1. The relationships of other District government departments and agencies with Congress should be considered.
The renewal agencies were on a hostile basis with the House
District Committee, and tentative reasons for this have been stated. Other departments, such as the Police Department, seem to be on very congenial terms with the District Com mittee. The factors causing this should be considered,
2. The Internal divisions within the District Com mittees should be studied. Are there discernible liberal- conservative or Northern-Southern divisions? This study did indicate some grouping within the Committees, but this may not be the case in such matters as crime and school bills.
3. The role of District Committee staff members should be further investigated. This study indicated very strong influences, but this may not be true in all areas. It may 145 be that Garber's influence is not as strong in other fields.
4. The use made of District Committee membership by the Southern members should be considered. Many persons interviewed for this study said that the Southerners ' ability to use the racial issues was the reason that they maintained interest in District affairs. This aspect should be studied.
This study has considered the role of Congress in governing the District in one field. There are many other avenues that one could consider in studying the governing of the District of Columbia. The purpose of this research has been to describe and analyze the politics of one field, urban renewal. It has not been the purpose of this study to be prescriptive. However, in conclusion, it can be stated that the conditions revealed by this study will probably
trouble persons interested in democratic government. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY
A . BOOKS
Adrian, Charles R . Governing: Urban America. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1955.
Bailey, Stephen K . and Howard D. Samuel. Cong:ress at Work . New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1952.
Banfield, Edward C. Political Influence. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1 9 6 2.
Bishop, Donald G . and others. Community Planning: in a Democracy. Washington: The National Council for the Social Studies, 1948.
Chapin, F . Stuart. Urban Land Use Planning. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1957.
Colean, Miles L. Renewing: Our Cities. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1953.
Dahl, Robert A, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press, 196I,
Derthick, Martha. City Politics In Washirgton, D. Ç. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1 9 6 2.
Editors of Fortune. The Exploding Metropolis. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1958.
Galloway, George B. The Legislative Process in Congress. New York: Thomas Y . Crowell Company, 1953.
Gibbs, Jack P. (ed.). Urban Research Methods. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., I9 6 1.
Griffith, Ernest S. Congress : Its Contemporary Role. New York: New York University Press, 1956.
Hunter, Floyd. Community Power Structure : A Study of Decision Makers. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1963.
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1 9 61. 148 Johnson, Thomas P., James R. Morris, and Joseph G. Butts. Renewing America's Cities. Washington: Institute for Social Science Research, 1 9 6 2.
Kammerer, Gladys M. The Staffing of the Committees of Congress. Louisville: Bureau of Government Research, University of Kentucky, 1949.
Kaplan, Harold. Urban Renewal Politics : Slum Clearance in Newark. New York: Columbia University Press, 1 9 6 3.
Key, V. 0., Jr. Politics. Parties. and Pressure Groups. Third edition. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1 9 5. 3 Kinnard, William N., Jr., and Zenon S, Malinowski. The Impact of Dislocation from Urban Renewal Areas on Small Business. Storrs: University of Connecticut, i9 6 0.
Loring, William and others. Community Organization for Citizen Participation in Urban Renewal. Boston: The Massachusetts Department of Commerce, 1957.
McLean, Mary. Local Planning Administration. Chicago: The International City Managers' Association, 1959.
Meyerson, Martin, Barbara Terrett and William L. C. Wheaton. Housing. People. and Cities. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 19^2.
and Edward C . Banfield. Politics. Planning and the Public Interest : The Case of Public Housing in Chicago. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1955.
Millspaugh, Martin, and Gurney Breckenfeld. The Human Side of Urban Renewal. New York: Ives Washburn, Inc., i9 6 0.
Mumford, Lewis. The City in History. New York: Hare curt, Brace and World, Inc., 1 9 6 1.
______. The Culture of Cities. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 193&.
From the Ground Up. New York; A Harvest Book, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1956.
The Highway and the City. New York: A Harvest Book, Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., I9 6 3. 149 Perloff, Harvey S, (ed.) , Planning and the Urban Community. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Institute of Technology and the University of Pittsburgh Press, 1 9 6I.
Ratcliff, Richard U. Urban Land Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1949*
Rossi, Peter H. and Robert A. Dentier. The Politics of Urban Renewal ; The Chicago Findings. Glencoe; The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1 9 6I.
Schorr, Alvin L. Slums and Social Insecurity. Washington: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1 9 6 3.
Sweeney, Stephen B. (ed.). Metropolitan Analysis : Important Elements of Study and Action. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1958.
Tunnard, Christopher and Henry Hope Reed. American Skyline : The Growth and Form of Our Cities and Towns. New York: A Mentor Book, New American Library, 1956.
Vernon, Raymond. The Changing Economic Function of the Central City. New York: Area Development Committee, Committee for Economic Development, 1959»
Metropolis 1985. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, Inc., I9 6 3.
Webster, Donald H. Urban Planning and Municipal Public Policy. New York; Harper and Brothers, 195BI
Woodbury, Coleman (ed.). The Future of Cities and Urban Redevelopment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1 9 5. 3 Wright, Frank Lloyd. The Living City. New York: A Mentor Book, The New American Library, 1 9 6 3.
B. PAMPHLETS AND PERIODICALS
Abrams, Charles. "Downtown Decay and Revival," Journal of the American Institute of Planners. Vol. XXVII, Number 1 (February, 1961), 3-9. American Academy of Political and Social Science. Metropolis in Ferment : The Annals. CCCXIV (November, 1957). 150 Architectural Forum: The Magazine of Building (January, 1963), 43'^^ÏÔ57.
Arnold, David, "The City Government's Role in Urban Renewal," Public Management (June, 1959), 130-132.
Banner, Knox. "Downtown Progress . . . Washington's Big Plan," The Carpenter. Vol. LXXXII, Number 9 (September, 1 9 6 2), ÎF9.
"Action Plan for Downtown: Downtown Progress," National Capital Area Realtor. Vol. Ill, Number 3 (March, 1962), 11-12, 32-34.
C ont ini, Edgardo. "Urban Renewal Performance and Prospects," Urban Land. Vol. XXII, Number 5 (May, 1963), 3-7.
Cook, G. Yates. "Downtown Businessmen Out to Renew Center City." J ournal of Housing. Vol. XVII, Number 1 (January, i9 6 0), 1 0-1 1.
Duggar, George S. "Local Organization for Urban Renewal," Public Management (July, 1 9 5), 8 1 5 8-1 6 1.
"Urban Renewal: Current Criticism and the Search for a Rationale," Public Management (September, 1 9 6 2), 194- 1 9 7 . Cans, Herbert J. "The Human Implications of Current Re development and Relocation Planning," Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXV, Number 1 (February, 1959), 15-25. Goedhard, Neil. "Determining a City's Needs and Desires," Public Management (January, i9 6 0), 50-53*
Goodwin, George, Jr. "Subcommittees: The Miniatures Legis latures of Congress," The American Political Science Review. Vol. LVI, Number 3 (September, 1962), 596-6o4.
Graham, Philip L. "A Five-Year Program for Building a Greater National Capital," an address to the 25th anniversary dinner of the Washington Building Congress, Washington, D. C ., October 20, I9 6I.
Grier, Eunice S. "Human Factors in Urban Renewal: A New Challenge for Social Science," an address to the Social Science-Community Seminar, The Brookings Institution, September 8, 1 9 6 1. 151 Howes, Rev. Robert. Crisis Downtown: A Church Eye-View of Urban Renewal. Washington: National Conference of Catholic Charities, 1959.
Lichfield, Nathaniel. "Relocation: The Impact of Housing Welfare," J ournal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXVII, Number 3 (August, 1 9 6 1), 1 9 9-2 0 3.
Marris, Peter, "The Social Implications of Urban Redevelop ment," J ournal of the American Institute of Planners. Vol. XXVIII, Number 3 (August, 1962), 180-1851
McFarland, M, Carter. The Challenge of Urban Renewal. Urban Land Institute Technical Bulletin Number 34. Revised edition, February, 1 9 6 2.
Meyer, Agnes E. "The Nation's Worst Slum: Washington, D . C .," Atlantic (August, 1 9 6 3), 8 9-9 2.
Pei, I. M. "Urban Renewal in Southwest Washington," The Journal of the American Institute of Architects (January, 1 9 6 3), 6 5-6 9 .
Sharpe, Carleton F . "Teamwork in Urban Renewal," Public Management (September, 1 9 6 2), 198-201.
Slayton, William. "Urban Renewal--A Program for Cities," Public Management (April, 1955), 74-76.
Steiner, Richard. "Urban Renewal in the Small City," Public Management (September, I9 5 8), 2 1 1-2 1 3.
Temple, T. Edward. "Planning and Programming for Urban Renewal," Public Management (May, 1957), 98-101.
Weaver, Robert C . "Class, Race and Urban Renewal," Land Economics. Vol. XXXVI, Number 3 (August, 1 9 6 0), 235-251.
C . GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
Connecticut Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Family Relocation Under Urban Renewal in Connecticut. Report. Washington: Government Printing Office, July, 1 9 6 3.
District of Columbia, Board of Commissioners. Annual Report. Fiscal Years i9 6 0, I9 6 1, 1 9 6 2. Washington: District of Columbia Government, I96O, I9 6I, I9 6 2. 152 District of Columbia, Board of Commissioners. Columbia Plaza. Washington; District of Columbia Government, J une, Ï9 6 1.
Organization Order N o . 109. establishing the position of Assistant Engineer Commissioner for Urban Renewal and the Office of Urban Renewal. Wash ington: May 3 1, 1 9 5. 5 (Mimeographed.)
, . State of the Nation's Capital. 1958. 1 9 5. 9 i9 6 0. 19 61 . 19Ü2. Washington: District of Columbia Government, 1958, 1959, i9 6 0, 1 9 6 1, 1 9 6 2.
, ______. Urban Renewal Workable Program. Progress Report. 1957. I960. 1962. Washington: District of Columbia Government, 1957, I960, 1 9 6 2.
, Office of Urban Renewal. Role of the District of Columbia in the Urban Renewal Program. Washington: District of Columbia Government, December, 1 96O.
, Redevelopment Land Agency. Annual Report. 1954. 1956. 1957. 1 9 5. 8 I W , I960. 1 9 6 1. 1962. Washington: 1 9 5, 5 1956, 1 9 5, 7 1 ^ , 1 9 5, 9 Î95Ô, T ^ , 1 9 6 2. Housing and Home Finance Agency. Federal Laws on Urban Renewal. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961.
Housing and Home Finance Agency: What It Is and What It Does. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1 9 ^, Urban Affairs and Housing. Washington: Government Printing Office, September, I9 6 2.
Urban Renewal Administration. Relocation from Urban Renewal Project Areas. Through December 1961T Washington: Government Printing Office, I9 6 2.
Technical Guide 2, Questions and Answers on Relocation Payments. Washington: Government Printing Office, i9 6 0.
The Urban Renewal Program. Washington: Government Printing Office, November, I9 6 2.
, ______. Urban Renewal Notes : Business Relocation. Washington: Government Printing Office, April"] I9 6 3.
Urban Renewal Notes : Relocation. A Positive Program of Rehousing. Washington: Government Printing Office, February, 1 9 6 3. 153 United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations . District of Columbia Appropriations . 1 9 5. 6 Hearings before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia Appropriations, 84th Congress, 1st Session, Committee Print. Washington; Government Printing Office, 1 9 5. 5
______, ______, Committee on the District of Columbia. District of Columbia Urban Renewal Program. Hearings on an urban renewal program for the District of Columbia, 8 7th Congress, 1st Session, Committee Print. Washington: Government Printing Office, April 1 1, 1 9 6 1.
Report of Proceedings. Hearings held before Subcommittee Number 4 on April 1 and 9, May 9 and 10 and 17 and 2 3, June 14 and 19, and July 2 6, 1 9 6 3, 88th Congress, 1st Session. Washington: Government Printing Office and Federal Reporters, Inc., 1 9 6 3. , ______, ______. Urban Renewal in the District of Columbia. Hearings on H.R. 8 6 9 7, 06th Congress, 2nd Session, Committee Print. Washington: Government Printing Office, April 26, i9 6 0.
, ______, ______. Urban Renewal in the District of Columbia, Hearings on Washington Channel Waterfront, 88th Congress, 1st Session, Committee Print. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1 9 6 3.
Senate, Committee on Appropriations. District of Columbia Appropriations for 1962. Hearings before the Subcommittee on District of Columbia Appropriations, 8 7th Congress, 1st Session, Committee Print. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1 9 6 1.
Committee on the District of Columbia. Urban Renewal Documents. 1960-6 1. Staff Report, 8 7th Congress, 1st Session, Committee Print. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1 9 6 1.
United States General Accounting Office, The Comptroller General of the U.S. Audit of District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency. Fiscal Years 1957 and 1958, Report to the Congress of the U.S. Washington: Govern ment Printing Office, May, 1959.
Premature Approval of Large-Scale Demolition for Erieview Urban Renewal Project 1, Cleveland. Ohio by the Urban Renewal Administration. Report to the Congress of the U.S. Washington; Government Printing Office, June, 1 9 6 3. 154
United States General Accounting Office, The Comptroller General of the U.S. Review of Management Controls of the District of Columbia Government. Report to the Congress of the United States. Washington: Government Printing Office, March, 1959.
D . UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS
Doyle, Philip. Letter to Hon. John Kyi, July 29, I9 6 3.
Doyle, Philip. Letter to Hon. John Kyi, July 2, I9 6 3.
Doyle, Philip. Letter to Hon. William Widnall, July 15, 1 9 6 3.
Garber, Hayden. "Staff Memorandum on Washington Channel Waterfront Redevelopment." (undated.)
Gross, Hon. H. R, Letter to Joseph Honick, December l4, I9 6 2.
Hackl, Alphons J . Letter to Senator Jack Miller, July 10, 1 9 6 3. Hackl, Alphons J. Statement before the District Commission at a Hearing to consider an urban renewal plan for the Adams-Morgan Area, July, 1 9 6 3. (Mimeographed.)
Hanson, Earl Thomas. "Urban Redevelopment in the United States," abstract of an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1952.
Hanson, Royce. "Capital, Metropolis, and Local Government: The Process of Governing Metropolitan Washington," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The American University, Washington, D. C ., 1 9 6 2.
Honick, Joseph J. "Statement for the Adams-Morgan Light Commercial Institute before the Commissioners of the District of Columbia," July 1, 1 9 6 3. (Mimeographed.)
Kaplan, Harold. "Urban Renewal in Newark, New Jersey: The Power Structure of a Successful Program," a paper delivered at the I961 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, September, I96I.
Kass, Rosetta C. "Congressional Consideration of the District of Columbia Budget," unpublished research paper. The American University, Washington, D. C ., 1 9 6 2. 155 Mathias, Hon. Charles. "Rough Draft for Subcommittee Meeting on Monday, March l8th," an undelivered statement for Subcommittee Number 4, House Committee on the District of Columbia, Washington, D. C ., 1 9 6 3.
Wurtzel, Barbara. "The Southwest Projects— A Case Study of Urban Renewal Organization in the District of Columbia," unpublished case study. The American University, Washington, D. C ., 1 9 6I.
E. NEWSPAPERS
The Afro-American Washington, D. C_J^, September, 1959 through July, 1 9 6 3.
The Evening (and Sunday) Star Washington, D, September 1 9 5 9through July, 1 9 6 3.
The Washington Daily News. September 1959 through July, 1 9 6 3.
The Washington Post and Times Herald. September 1959 through December 1 9 6 3.
P . INTERVIEWS
Banks, James, Assistant Commissioner for Relocation and Community Organization with HHPA, Washington, May 12, 1 9 6 3. Banner, Knox, Executive Director of Downtown Progress, Washington, July 2 9, I9 6 3.
Barbour, Harry, Special Consultant with the House District Committee, Washington, July 2 6, 1 9 6 3.
Barnes, Minor, Legislative Assistant to Senator Miller, Washington, July 17, 1963.
Broyhill, Joel T., Congressman from Virginia, Washington, August 6, 1 9 6 3.
Carle, Jackson T., Administrative Assistant to Congressman Sisk, Washington, August 1, 1963.
Clark, Reuben, President of the Washington Planning and Housing Association, Washington, July 24, I9 6 3. 156
C lute, Peter, Administrative Assistant to Congressman Cohelan, Washington, July 31, I9 6 3.
Colcord, Timothy A., Legislative Assistant to Congressman MUlter, Washington, July 3 1, 1 9 6 3.
Cook, G. Yates, Executive Director of the Federal City Council, Washington, August 7, 1 9 6 3.
Crocker, John, Director of the Office of Urban Renewal of the District Government, Washington, July 15, 1 9 6 3.
Dawson, William L ., Congressman from Illinois, Washington, August 1, 1 9 6 3.
Dowdy, John, Congressman from Texas, Washington, July 19, 1 9 6 3. Doyle, Philip, Executive Director of the RLA, Washington, July 9, 1 9 6 3. Perris, Martin, Assistant Counsel of the Senate District Committee, Washington, June 6 and July 1 7, 1 9 6 3.
Frain, George, Legislative Assistant to Congressman Kyi, Washington, July 31 and August 1, 1 9 6 3. Garber, Hayden, Chief Counsel of the House District Committee, Washington, May 9 and July 19, 1 9 6 3.
Griffin, Charles H ., Administrative Assistant to Congressman J . B. Williams, Washington, July 31, 1963.
Hartke, Senator Vance, Senator from Indiana, Falls Church, Virginia, November 10, I9 6 3,
Horsky, Charles, The Presidential Adviser for National Capital Affairs, Washington, July 1 5, 1 9 6 3.
Horton, Frank J ., Congressman from New York, Washington, August 2, 1 9 6 3.
Huddleston, George, Jr., Congressman from Alabama, Washington, August 1, I9 6 3.
Kyi, John, Congressman from Iowa, Washington, July 31, 1963.
Lewis, Robert, Reporter for the Evening Star covering District affairs, Washington, July 19, 1963. 157 Miller, Arma S., Special Assistant to the Executive Director of the RLA, Washington, June 6 , July 9, July 19, 1 9 6 3,
Morris, Robert, Transportation Planner with Downtown Progress, Washington, July 29, 1 9 6 3.
Moyer, Robert S., Assistant to the Executive Director of the Federal City Council, Washington, August 7, 1 9 6 3.
Olson, Donald, Administrative Assistant to Congressman A, Nelsen, Washington, August 1, 1 9 6 3.
Owens, William, Special Investigator for the House District Committee, Washington, May 16, 1 9 6 3.
Press, Lawrence S., Planner with NCPC, Washington, June 13, July 2 9, and August 7, I9 6 3.
Press, William, Executive Director of the Board of Trade, Washington, August 6 , 1 9 6 3.
Quarker, Dorothy E ., Administrative Assistant to Congressman Diggs, Washington, July 31, I9 6 3.
Ritten, John, Legislative Assistant to Senator McIntyre, Washington, July 31, 1963. Schwengel, Fred, Congressman from Iowa, Washington, August 1, 1963. Silsby, Earl C ., Staff Member on the House Committee on Appropriations, Washington, July 31, 1 9 6 3. Small, Mary, Director of Public Relations with NCPC, Washington, May 17, 1 9 6 3. Smith, Chester, Staff Director of the Senate District Committee, Washington, July 17, 1 9 6 3. Springer, William, Congressman from Illinois, Washington, July 3 1, 1 9 6 3. Tonkins, Leo, Legislative Assistant for Congressman Mathias, Washington, August 1, 1 9 6 3.
Wallace, Janet, Legislative Assistant for Senator Hartke, Washington, July 17, 1963.