Now, the time has come to save Pennsylvania Avenue. We believe that the bill currently before you provides the vehicle to do this.

As each of you knows, this is a bill which deals with how to preserve, reconstruct, and build; not with what to preserve, reconstruct, and build. It takes the essential step of establishing a means of accomplishment and does not deal with the endless argument of "what to do where."

Without the means to accomplish the construction of a new building on a deserted parking lot, or to preserve an old building, there is no point in arguing about whether the site should be for residential, office, entertainment, or park use.

Further, this bill provides a way to develop the best possible overall plan by taking into account not only the massive planning work, which has gone before, but by also directly involving the entire Washington community in a 12-month plan development period.

We believe that the real concern for the rights and needs of the local citizens which is voiced in the bill, the mandate for citizen involvement, and the requirements of coordination with existing planning agencies and programs will be effective. We believe that the people who live and work here must have a voice in the use of Pennsylvania Avenue, since it is both of national and local importance.

We believe, as citizens who will be directly affected, that our voices will be heard. The Washington Building Congress intends to offer the expertise and experience of our membership to the new Commission and we can assure you that we will be working vigorously to make. sure that some portion of our view is considered in the plan.

You can be certain that we have members who feel very strongly about saving the Willard, the Post Office, the Apex Saloon, Mathew Brady's studio, and other historic features of the avenue. We also have members with divergent views. Now, however, is not the time for that discussion.

Now, we believe, is the time to fashion the engine for accomplishment of good and not to attempt to champion various pieces of real estate. In this regard, the board of governors of the Washington Building Congress has consistently over the years expressed the concern of the organization that any bill include certain particulars. In April of 1965, our board of governors voted to recommend the establishment of a permanent organization charged with responsibility for the avenue. At that time, among other things, we recommended that "an authority be established, a majority of whose members would be residents of the Washington metropolitan area," and "that any businesses forced to move as a result of carrying out the plan be equitably compensated for the losses which they are required to sustain in order to realize public aims."

In March of 1971, our board of governors again took action and made a number of recommendations. These apply to H.R. 10751 currently under consideration by this subcommittee. A number of our concerns have, we believe, been adequately dealt with.

For example, we recommended "that an advisory board be appointed by the chairman which would be comprised of property owners and tenants from within the development area.' On page 8, line 21, H.R. 10751 states that:

"There shall be established a non-voting Advisory Board of seven members appointed by the chairman from among tenants and owners of real property within the development area.

A number of our concerns, however, have not been dealt with as H.R. 10751 is presently drawn and we would respectfully ask the subcommittee to consider revisions in the following areas:

1. REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The bill, on page 6, line 15, provides for seven private sector members, of whom four must be residents of the District of Columbia. Presumably, the other three positions would provide, as they should, representation from the Nation at large.

This would mean, in effect, that many of the people in the Washington area would not be represented at all. We would recommend, therefore, that the four members be selected from the metropolitan area, the Washington standard metropolitan statistical area, if you will, so that all of the local people are represented, not just some of the people.

2. TENANTS

In the city some stores are operated by the same people who own the building. Their interests are covered-although undoubtedly not as thoroughly as they should be—by the provisions of the bill.

Our concern is with the store operator who is a tenant. His operation is just as important as any other to the fabric of our city. We depend on him for goods and services. The bill, page 20, line 16, deals only with "owners of real property."

The Washington Building Congress recommends that relocation/ compensation programs should adequately and fully deal with the interests of lease holders as well as real property owners.

For your information, we surveyed all of the businesses which front on Pennsylvania Ave. from Sixth St., NW., to 15th St., NW., last Saturday. We found that there were 39 retail businesses, nine empty structures, six parking operations, five office buildings and one building under construction. A more complete summary of our findings and the actual census is submitted for your information.

3. PLAN APPROVAL

As now conceived, the bill establishes, page 19, line 22, a 12-month new construction moratorium during which time the Corporation is to develop and obtain approval for a final plan.

In this process, approval, page 10, line 10, by the National Capital Planning Commission and the District of Columbia government is required or the plan cannot be submitted for congressional approval, page 11, line 18.

The Washington Building Congress recommends that approval by the District of Columbia government be defined so that there are clear goals and guidelines to obtain this approval.

Furthermore, the Washington Building Congress recommends additional language to give direction to the Corporation in the event of a disapproval, providing for action within a specified time.

As professionals, as people, as your neighbors in our great city and as proud citizens whose hearts fill with pride at the vision of a renewed National Avenue, we urge the adoption of this bill.

If there are any questions, I will be glad to answer them.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, we commend you on a very clear-cut and definite statement. I agree with your statement that we need to define procedure for the approval by the District of Columbia, but I am afraid as it is now, it wouldn't be certain where the authorization lies. Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, you say that the local people need more representation on the board of directors. Of course, at the present, if the bill is approved as drawn, the majority of the board would be made. up of local people; would it not?

Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. And final approval of the plans would be subject to a veto by the government for the District; would it not? Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. Does that not give local residents a substantial line of control?

Mr. BROOKE. I was making one additional point: as the bill is drawn, specifically, it says the local people must be residents, voters of the District of Columbia. We propose the metropolitan area, not just within the District. In fact, this is because it is just not for the Main Street, it is for all of us who live here, not Washington metropolitan statistical area.

Mr. TAYLOR. Would you broaden the strength of any four parts of the metropolitan area? Would you limit that metropolitan area requirement to the other three?

Mr. BROOKE. No, sir. We are proposing that it be those four, residents to the District of Columbia, from the MSMA.

Mr. TAYLOR. Why do you recommend that change, sir?

Mr. BROOKE. I believe that in the testimony, my implication was that the people in the area-I don't believe I have said specifically. Mr. TAYLOR. You mean the people in the area, not just the District? Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, you state that businesses forced to move because of carrying out the plan should be compensated for expenses they sustain?

Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, under the present law, of course, the Corporation would have to pay the fair market value for the property. Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. The Corporation would have to pay the relocation costs as provided by existing law. Now, what other assistance should be given?

Mr. BROOKE. We are especially concerned, of course, with the tenant and we are especially concerned that the tenant be given at least equal treatment with an owner in the cost of moving. It is our belief that the 1970 Relocation Act in some cases may not go far enough in compensating either an owner or a tenant, in such things as removal and reinstallation of his equipment.

This is involved. There are certain technicalities for a very smallshall we say marginal shop that would be the difference between the

success and the failure. We believe strongly that we need every one of these fellows and the act as presently written needs to have special language to take care of every cost of moving.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, you question whether or not the present Relocation Assistance Act would cover the expenses of relocating businesses operated by tenants.

Mr. BROOKE. Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR. And you want to make sure they are covered in this bill?

Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. You say this, "as each of you know, this is a bill which deals with how to preserve, reconstruct and build, and not with what to preserve, reconstruct and build."

Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, the bill definitely sets out a specific area, described by metes and bounds, but how the development should be accomplished seems to me to be very indefinite. The bill just creates a corporation to devise a plan, and carry it out. It does not say what to preserve and what not to preserve.

Mr. BROOKE. Perhaps there are three words: How, what, and where? There is no question that it says where. This is fine. It went to you that it says how, by setting up this Corporation which no one has to come with a plan, and then would be empowered to do these things necessary to get buildings built. That is the important part

to us.

At this point, there is no reference to which buildings are to be saved, what has to be done with the corner of which intersection. This bill goes-is merely the vehicle to allow a planning process to come up with a final answer. And it is not the Pennsylvania Avenue new plans capitalized, by any means, not any preconceived plans. It is a vehicle to allow them to come together and come up with a final answer.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Puerto Rico?

Mr. CÓRDOVA. I wish to commend the witness for a very fine and able and constructive statement. I am in agreement that there is some difficulty in the matter of approval by the District of Columbia. I believe it is necessary to clarify what must be done to express this approval, and I consider giving direction to the Corporation in the event that one or more of the approvals is not forthcoming.

I believe that we should see to it that that plan is not simply killed, but the objections must be taken into account. The Corporation should be directed to go forward with a plan which may be approved, perhaps, if necessary, by the Congress-if there is a difference of opinion among the different agencies.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Brooke, and I, too, would like to commend you for a very fine and well-presented

statement.

Mr. BROOKE. Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Harry Hahn, supervisor of stores, Reliable Stores Corp.

STATEMENT OF HARRY HAHN, SUPERVISOR OF STORES, RELIABLE STORES CORP.

Mr. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Harry Hahn, and I am representing the Hub Furniture Co., located at Seventh and D Streets NW. Our store is in the tract covered by proposal H.R. 10751 and one of the buildings that could be torn down if the proposal passes.

I would like to state at the beginning of my presentation that we believe fully in the redevelopment of Pennsylvania Avenue. This is the Nation's Capital and it is important for us who work and live here to be cognizant of our obligations to the hundreds of thousands of people who visit us and contribute so much to the economic vitality of our city.

We also feel that Pennsylvania Avenue should be considered just a part of the redevelopment that is needed. The burned-out corridors of Seventh Street, 14th Street, H Street, and the Anacostia area, to name just a few, are some of the sections that have not been redeveloped.

We are against H.R. 10751 because we do not feel it is the proper instrument to achieve your objectives.

The economics, from the District's standpoint, would be disastrous under this bill. There is no provision for a continuing payment to the District after the plan is completed. It should also be pointed out that the losses in taxes cover more than just real estate taxes. Our store, the Hub Furniture Co., paid $524,692 in total taxes in 1971, of which only a small portion was in real property taxes.

Kann's must pay a minimum of $1,250,000; Lansburgh's the same; and Morton's would pay about the same as the Hub. These four stores contribute more than $3%1⁄2 million to taxes. In addition to these four stores, think of the tax loss created when we add the other stores that would be involved.

Where do downtown businesses move when they are displaced? What would be the formula for relocating them? Many of these stores have been in their present locations for 40 or 50 years. The Hub was opened in 1902. This bill would cause another exodus to the suburbs by downtown business. Relocation has already caused problems in the core area. Don't force us to move to the suburbs.

One most important facet of the present boundaries of the Pennsylvania Avenue Plan; namely, the taking of Seventh Street, from Pennsylvania Avenue, the Metro Authority is also going to take, by condemnation, all businesses or the east side of Seventh Street between G and H.

The Pennsylvania Avenue Plan would, by eliminating Kann's Department Store and the dozens of other small businesses that cater to the low- to medium-income bracket, would mean that these people would have nowhere to shop.

Most suburban shopping centers do not cater to them and the few that do are so situated that these low-income people, not having an automobile, cannot get to them and, of course, the new subway, when completed, isn't going to pinpoint or go to these particular

82-774-72- -9