Nelson, Ron, acting city manager, city of Compton, Los Angeles, Calif..... Nishinaka, George, director, Special Service for Groups. Norman, Dr. Alex, Department of Social Welfare, University of Califor- Wong, Leland, Los Angeles County Youth Gang Project..... 300 Dodd, Dolores, administrative assistant for health planning, city of Hous- 454 Galloway, Jean, M.Ď., assistant health director for Preventive Medical 447 Smith, Dr. Barton, Department of Economics, University of Houston...... 405 MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD New Area Corridor Planning and Revitalization Program, Los Angeles, Calif., 308 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY REMARKS This is the second published volume of the House Committee on the District of Columbia's hearings and findings on the problems of urban centers in America. The materials contained in the first volume grew out of the committee's efforts to develop a broad overview of the character and dimensions of the problems that plague cities and urban areas on a national level. Washington, D.C., because it is the Nation's capital city and not unlike others in terms of the problems it faces, but different in terms of its unique relationship with the Federal Government, was used as the central model for comparison. The committee's principal focus was to try to determine if the assistance of the Federal Government was need and what, if anything in particular, the Federal Government might do to directly aid urban areas in their effort to solve the special problems that they face. I have believed for some time that Washington could and should be an ideal model of the Nation of Federal-local cooperation in devising solutions to major problems, but a great deal remains to be learned about exactly what the Federal Government does-or could do-that is helpful and what it does that may be harmful or a hindrance to local efforts. These are the kind of facts that the urban centers hearings set out to develop. In the 96th Congress, between June 25 and September 30, 1980, the committee heard testimony from 35 witnesses, all of whom had long experience in dealing with the problems common to urban America. These included one administration official (then HUD Secretary Moon Landrieu), the former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Dr. Arthur S. Flemming, three Members of Congress (Representatives Hawkins, Mineta, and Garcia), and a broad selection of urban scholars, policy analysts, national and community organization heads, and several city officials, including of course, the Mayor of Washington, D.C., and a number of the city's chief administrators. Coincidentally, these hearings began only weeks after the tragic Miami disorders of the spring of 1980. The timing of the committee's investigations was only coincidental because hearings on such problems had been planned before the eruptions in Miami. Following the Washington, D.C., national scope hearings, the committee set forth in the 97th Congress to examine those problems which it had learned of in settings widely perceived to be sufficiently different in geographic and socioeconomic character as to perhaps alter the character of the urban environment's most pervasive problems. To test the validity of this view, the committee held sessions of the urban hearings in Philadelphia, a northeastern Frost Belt city; Los Angeles, a western city; and Houston, a southwestern Sun Belt city recently perceived to be enjoying an economic boom. The hearings held in these cities-juxtaposed and combined with the find ings of the Washington, D.C., sessions-have left the committee with a remarkable record of the nature and status of the major problems faced by urban America. The hearings conducted in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Houston centered on the special problems of these cities. The witnesses, though always qualified, were primarily local in terms of their concerns and involvement. They usually detailed the local character and special dimensions of the same problems that committee witnesses had singled out in Washington, D.C. The hearings in these three cities brought the total number of witnesses heard to 75. Of great importance, especially in face of some of the interpretations commonly given to the idea of a "New Federalism," every witness who testified before the committee has agreed unequivocally that there is a necessary Federal role to be played in solving major urban problems. There is an unyielding consensus on the point that many of the problems of our urban centers are simply too enormous to ever be solved by cities (or States) acting alone. It has also been made clear that solutions are not likely to be simplistic. While the symptoms and manifestations of urban decline and decay are more or less precisely the same from one city to another, the experts are agreed that the dynamics are complex and that effective solutions may vary considerably. Thus, there is little cause for optimism about single-stroke solutions, especially those which tend to minimize Federal participation. The committee has heard testimony on several other urban program ideas and related issues which merit future attention and discussion in some detail. These include (1) urban enterprise zones; (2) block grants (or "targeting"), and (3) the need to enable local communities to influence and become directly involved with the future selection of model sites for any forthcoming urban enterprise zones and the collection of certain data therefrom. PHILADELPHIA The Philadelphia hearing brought strong statements of concern from witnesses about the deleterious effects of cuts in Federal support funds for a number of community social and educational programs. All of these concerns were serious and legitimate. However, because certain Philadelphia communities had recently teetered on the edge of violent outbreaks, the concern expressed by the district attorney that the loss of LEAA funds would substantially undermine law enforcement efforts in general and special prosecutorial activities in particular was ominous. The testimony of other witnesses underscored the seriousness of this concern by showing how other community problems were related to this particular problem and others, all connected at some point to the community's lack of a sufficient resource base. LOS ANGELES The Los Angeles hearing also brought expressions of serious concern from a number of witnesses about the effects of cuts in Federal funds on local community programs. Witnesses also expressed great concern over the alarming rise of youth gangs and related violence in Los Angeles. The city was said to have more than 200 youth gangs, a problem arising in large measure from unemployment and the nonassimulation of recent immigrants. HOUSTON In Houston, the committee learned from experts on Sun Belt cities that the economic boom in Sun Belt cities is deceptive. One of these, Dr. David Perry, noted that "the level of poverty in the major cities of the Sun Belt is higher than in similar cities in the Northeast." This, he said, was owing to the fact that "the major source of poverty for almost 75 percent of households in these areas of Sun Belt cities was not unemployment but underemployment.' Unlike the Northeast where poverty is the result of people not having jobs, Dr. Perry reported that "poverty in the Sun Belt (results from) the jobs people have." Accordingly, he urged the committee to request the Census Bureau to begin once more to collect data on what he termed "subemployment." A "subemployment index," he stated, "would be better than an unemployment index any day." According to Dr. Perry, the Census Bureau was stopped from keeping such data by the Nixon administration. An equally important observation was made at the Houston hearing by Mr. Gene Locke, a local attorney who was former director of HOPE Development, a nonprofit community-based organization. Mr. Locke noted, in regard to Reagan administration proposals, that the States assume principal responsibility for social programs under the administration's idea of a "New Federalism," that "because Texas does not have a history of being a State socially concerned about its citizens, we therefore don't have the administrative infrastructure to carry out the programs." That is starting point No. 1. If you dump all of the money into Texas and say run all of the programs you want to, we don't have the machinery at the State level to do it. It would take years to develop that capability and people would suffer in the process. And that assumes the State of Texas in fact wants to develop the capability. That is really what is at issue here. My assertion, my testimony, to be clear, and very clear, is that the State of Texas historically has not wanted to provide for the social needs of its people. It does not want to now. And in the immediate and foreseeable future it will not want to. Therefore, when massive infusions of Federal funds come to the State of Texas via block grants, even though they are earmarked as a block grant for education, the people at the lowest ends of the totem pole will not be the recipients of that block grant. The chairman of the committee and a number of its members share this view. We are convinced that this lack of commitment and in-place bureaucratic infrastructure would seriously hamper the efficacy of any program efforts entirely dependent on individual State initiative and direction. In conclusions, the problems in urban centers hearings documented the pervasive existence of the following problems in major urban centers: (1) The physical infrastructure of many American cities (particularly those of the Northeast) is rapidly decaying and in immediate need of vast repairs. (2) Many of our cities continue to be tinder boxes of potential violence; the wonder is that so few have exploded in recent years. (3) Throughout urban America, minority youth unemployment has risen to the point of constituting imminent danger in our cities. There is an increasing disparity between black and white income and the rate of unemployment. (4) The shortage of decent affordable housing (especially rental units) has reached crisis level in many of our cities and is likely to worsen if recent trends in condominium conversions continue. (5) Public school systems are deeply troubled and failing badly in many localities. (6) Police-community relations-having never been really good in most cities-have rapidly deteriorated over the past decade as Federal support dollars (LEAA) for training and programs continued to dwindle. (7) Most localities are either or both unwilling or ill prepared to assume the principal responsibility for administering needed social programs. As a result of its fact gathering and documentation of the conditions in urban America, the urban centers hearings have provided a solid basis for considering legislative remedies to some of the more obvious problems of our cities. Legislation tailored and addressed to these problems will be introduced in the second session of the 98th Congress. I would like to acknowledge and extend special thanks to the many witnesses and members of the committee without whose participation these hearings would not have been possible. I also want to recognize and thank those members of the committee staff whose diligent efforts and commitment brought about the effective organization and overall success of these hearings: Edward C. Sylvester, Jr., the committee's staff director, oversaw and directed all related staff activity. The responsibility of organizing each hearing was carried out by Donn G. Davis, senior legislative associate, and Dietra Gerald, senior staff assistant. Special thanks go to Mr. Keith Bea of the Congressional Research Service for the valuable research assistance he provided during the early stages of this undertaking. The two published volumes of statements and documents which constitute the official record of these hearings were compiled and edited by Donn G. Davis. RONALD V. DELLUMS, |