January 9, 1973
Page 651
By Mr. MUSKIE (for himself, Mr. BAKER, Mr. BROCK, Mr. CHILES, Mr. GURNEY, and Mr. METCALF)
S. 261. A bill to amend the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 to provide for minimum Federal payments for 4 additional years, and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee on Government Operations.
UNIFORM RELOCATION ACT AMENDMENTS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, with Senators BAKER, BROCK, CHILES, GURNEY, and
METCALF, I introduce legislation to amend the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970.
The Uniform Relocation Act of 1970, a major legislative step toward providing fair and equitable treatment of persons forced to move from their homes or businesses by federally assisted projects, provided that the Federal Government make full payment of the first $25,000 per displacee until July 1, 1972. However, since that date, State and local governments have been required to participate in the cost of relocation payments prescribed by the act to the same degree that they share in other project costs.
The bill I am introducing today would continue – until July 1, 1976 – full Federal funding of the first $25,000 in relocation costs per individual displacee.
Without this legislation, cities across the country will face a new and substantial financial burden in fiscal 1973. In my home State of Maine, for example, the city of Portland anticipates having to come up with $335,000 in local funds to pay its share of relocation costs. The city of Bangor projects that its fiscal 1973 obligation for relocation costs will be in excess of $87,000 in local funds. The cities of Lewiston, Westbrook, and Waterville expect that they will have to pay $235,000 in local shares for relocation costs. Across the country, local governments will have to find as much as $125 million during fiscal 1973 to meet their relocation obligations.
The legislation I submit today is identical to that agreed upon by a House-Senate conference committee during the final days of the 92d Congress. Although the conference report was agreed to by both House and Senate conferees, neither body was able to act before adjournment. The Congress now has the responsibility to complete this important unfinished business.
Congress passed the Uniform Relocation Act of 1970 to provide fair and equitable treatment for persons displaced by federally assisted projects. It is now necessary for us to provide the Federal assistance necessary to assure the implementation of that objective.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, in joining as a cosponsor of Senator MUSKIE's proposal to amend the Uniform Relocation Act as recommended by the last Congress' conference committee on S. 1819, I would like to emphasize the need for prompt action on this legislation. Both the Senate and the House have held full hearings on this legislation; both the Senate and the House have approved their respective companion bills; and both the Senate and House conferees have agreed on the compromise version now being introduced. Therefore, I urge that this legislation be handled as expeditiously as possible.
Perhaps the best explanation of the need for promptness is to look at a specific example of the effect of delay on just one urban renewal project in my home State of Florida. The following two letters, the first written to me by the chairman of the urban renewal agency of the city of Palatka, Fla., and the second written to that agency from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, are self-explanatory.
I ask unanimous consent that the letters be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY,
Palatka, Fla.,
December 29, 1972.
HON. EDWARD J. GURNEY,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR GURNEY: As you are aware, S. 1819, a bill to amend the Uniform Relocation Act of 1970, was not passed by the Congress even though the conferees of the House of Representatives and the Senate had agreed upon compromise legislation.
This has had a most unfavorable effect upon the Urban Renewal program of the City of Palatka. At this point, there is pending a capital grant of about $3,250,000 for the City of Palatka to undertake an urban renewal project, number R-36. The project planning is completed, and we are ready to undertake this worthwhile project. Local funding is contingent, however, on the successful passage of this bill. To make the relocation costs a part of the project costs would add about $250,000 to the City's overall project cost. Since the city has already arranged to spend about $680,000 in either cash or non cash local contributions, this additional cost would add an impossible burden which the City could not afford.
Now, to get to the heart of the crisis which faces us, we have received several extensions of time for the submission of an acceptable Part II of our Urban Renewal application. By letter of November 2, 1972 to our mayor, copy attached, Mr. Forrest Howell has given us until February 28, 1973 to reach a satisfactory solution to our problem. Beyond that date, the project will be terminated. In summary then, we are faced with the loss of a very worthwhile project if the relocation bill is not passed and signed into law prior to February 28, 1973, or a way is not found to keep our project in the survey and planning stage beyond that date until S. 1819 can be passed and put into effect.
We sincerely appreciate your past support for this project. The people of the City of Palatka have indicated their overwhelming support for this project. Please help us by working to secure the prompt passage of this legislation as soon as possible after the new Congress convenes.
Very truly yours,
JOHN D. ARRINGTON, Jr.,
Chairman.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Jacksonville, Fla.,
November 2, 1972.
Subject: Urban Renewal Project R-36 (Part I) Extension of Time for Submission of
Part II of Urban Renewal Application.
Hon. EUGENE L. WALKER, Mayor,
City of Palatka,
Palatka, Fla.
DEAR MAYOR WALKER: This is to advise that we will concur in the extension of time from November 7, 1972 to February 28, 1973 for the submission of an acceptable Part II Application for the subject Urban Renewal project.
Under the present policy of Community Development, it is not permissible for any Urban Renewal project to remain in survey and planning beyond the period of February 28, 1973.
If a solution has not been reached by February 28, 1973, it will be necessary to terminate this project.
Sincerely,
FORREST W. HOWELL,
Area Director.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, the plight of the Palatka Urban Renewal Agency is but one example of what could happen to many worthwhile projects throughout the Nation if action on this legislation is further delayed. I urge the most expeditious possible passage of this urgently needed legislation.