Page images
PDF
EPUB

can be put to use. In just the short period of five years between 1969 and 1975 the cost of land rose from 22% of the total cost of a typical singlefamily home to 25%.

We are also concerned that the well intentioned effort to provide for maximum participation for the publc in the land use planning process will be counterproductive. It could represent a strong inducement for those with no legitimate interest in bringing about better planning in a community to obstruct efforts to use land for the betterment of the public as a whole.

There is no question of the need to develop a system for equitably resolving the many, diverse and competing demands that are and will in the future be placed on land in the United States. Proper planning can achieve this objective if that planning is in fact consistent with other national policies and priorities. We find that this legislation is tilted heavily toward planning as a means of protecting the natural environment without, at the same time, assuring that the other land needs of our still expanding national population will be accommodated. This approach is too narrow a one for our nation to follow.

Upon conclusion I would like to add that since testifying before you last year, I have attempted to educate myself further in the philosophy and theory behind a national land use policy. Nothing in this world is new or untried. Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have adopted national land use policies to further implement their social reforms. I urge the Members of this Subcommittee to study further the affect these policies have had on housing. taxation, and the theory of private ownership in these countries before making this serious commitment.

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today.

[Exhibit A]

STATEMENT OF POLICY-LAND USE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Any land use policy must balance the basic human needs of a still expanding national population and legitimate environmental concerns. Within that framework, housing opportunities for Americans of all income levels must be enlarged and their right of mobility and freedom of choice assured.

Priorities must be set and mechanisms created at the local, state, and national levels for resolving land use issues at the lowest level which will produce rational and coordinated land use. We conceive the federal role to be in the area of broad policy; the state role to assure that local land decisions are regionally coordinated and in the broad public interest; and the local role to determine land use in accord with overall needs, encouraging housing for people of all incomes, races, and creeds.

Accordingly, any national legislation establishing broad national land use policy must accomplish the national housing goals and provide for loans and grants to applying states for coordinating, reconciling, and developing state and local land use policies. The Federal Government should:

(a) Adopt the general principle that local real estate taxes would be relied upon primarily to meet real estate related services and that other tax sources would be relied upon to provide revenue for other public needs.

(b) Continue the present new communities program (Title VII) and institute a new federal program for small satellite communities which insures appropriate state and local cooperation and support.

(c) Give the highest priority to providing funds for sewage treatment and water purification.

(d) Provide a new comprehensive program designed to regenerate the inner city socially, economically, and physically, relying heavily on incentives to private developers for redeveloped and rehabilitation.

(e) Act promptly, to expand, conserve, regenerate, replenish, and supple ment our natural resources essential in the production of energy and raw materials necessary to meet current and future growth needs; and further. to encourage development of adequate transportation and transmission systems for raw materials and energy.

At the state level we favor:

(a) Requiring that state and local governments anticipate future growth. provide funds for and build needed community facilities, and create new programs of aid to localities to provide such facilities.

1

[ocr errors][merged small]

(c) Action to prevent localities from adopting excessive development standards that unnecessarily raise the cost of housing.

(d) Creation of an appropriate appeals mechanism capable of overriding local land decisions that are designed to, or have the effect of, thwarting the fulfillment of housing needs.

(e) State assumption of the major local share of the costs of education and use of real property taxes essentially for real estate-related services.

(f) State performance-oriented model codes, enabling legislation and technical help to regions and municipalities when needed to improve their capacity to deal with land use.

When areas of critical environmental concern or areas needed for open space requirements are acquired and/or reserved, the amount of land so acquired and/or reserved must be directly related to the foregoing, and land owners must be equitably and expeditiously compensated for land so acquired and/or reserved, and use restriction must be reviewed periodically. We vigorously oppose, as an unnecessary and unwarranted pre-emption of activities best performed by private enterprise, a governmental program of land acquisition for land banking not related to a program of public use. We also strongly oppose state-level approval of development.

At the local level we favor:

(a) Regional compacts to plan and coordinate those concerns of a regional nature (such as transportation, water management, regional sewer treatments) and to assure that common problems are solved on a regionally compatible basis.

(b) Equitable assessments for all undeveloped property encouraging preservation of open space and tax reforms to provide tax incentive for residential rehabilitation.

(c) Construction of community facilities to meet present and future needs. We strongly oppose:

(a) Moratoriums on building or zoning because of a community's failure to provide for anticipated growth.

(b) Imposition of unreasonable fee and permit charges on new housing. compulsory dedication of land, payment of "in-lieu" fees for parks and schools or any other ancillary charges not related to the cost of issuing approvals. We shall continue vigorously to fight no-growth policies in all their manifestations-including exclusionary and discriminatory zoning; limitation on approval to develop land or to build; needless delay in providing essential community services and facilities; and any and all other forms of limiting the attainment of housing goals or excluding certain economic, racial, or ethnic groups.

[Exhibit B-Attachment A]

H.R. 10294

(1) The bill is heavily oriented toward encouraging state and local governments to plan and to develop land use controls to protect the natural environment. Without a strong housing element there is insufficient emphasis on the need to plan for the enhancement of the living environment, including the land needs for housing and related community facilities.

(2) The Federal procedure for reviewing state land use planning processes in order to determine eligibility for grants is overly complex and involves review and consideration by a multitude of Federal departments and agencies, some of which have divergent and nearly irreconcilable goals and interests. Likewise the necessity for states filing and refiling countless reports, forms, applications and the taking of other actions to comply with government "red tape" would likely prove cumbersome.

(3) Federal level coordination of activities dealing with land use will be difficult, NEPA, the Coastal Zone Management Act, water and sewer programs of various Federal agencies, highway assistance, strip mining regulations, power plant siting, water conservation programs and energy resource programs often have such differing objectives that "coordination" could in effect mean a complete cessation of these and many other vitally needed Federal programs.

(4) Many of the definitions in the bill are so vague that they could be given nearly whatever meaning Federal or State governments choose. In

other cases general terms are employed and no meaning for them can be found in the bill. For instance, what is the meaning of "major" federal actions affecting land use or public involvement that is "meaningful"? What is an action "significantly" affecting land use? What is the size and scope of developments of regional impact? What is an "area of environmental concern" to whom?

(5) Citizen participation in the planning process and the implementation of this process is heavily emphasized. Yet, there are no reasonable bounds within which citizens may become involved in the process. There is nothing to prevent people with no real legitimate interest in the planning process to thwart, for example, efforts to construct a highway or a well planned PUD.

(6) In delineating areas of critical environmental concern, there is no reasonable limit over what may be reserved and the criteria for establishing such areas is so broad that there is nothing to prohibit a state from going to unreasonable excesses in designating land as being critical and thereby inhibiting growth altogether.

(7) The potential exists for state regulation of nearly all residential development-large and small alike. The bill establishes no minimum limits as to the size of projects that may be covered by state land use laws. The bill is not clear in defining that land use decisions should be made at the lowest governmental level which will produce rational and coordinated land use. In most cases this is the local level.

(8) Administration of the grant-in-aid program is under the Department of the Interior, an agency of government oriented toward the vast, sparsely settled areas of the West, Indian affairs, parks and campgrounds. HUD, which administers the 701 planning program as well as housing and comanunity facility programs, has an orientation and expertise for dealing with a broad spectrum of land use problems. Failure to designate HUD as the administering agency reemphaszies the environmentally oriented nature of this legislation. Failure to give appropriate consideration to the people issues stresses the one-sided environmentally oriented nature of the proposal.

(9) The bill provides no assurances that private landowners will be compensated if their land is reserved from development because it is determined to be of "critical environmental concern".

(10) The bill provides vague criteria for designating critical areas but establishes no process for periodic review of such areas. as conditions. land use techniques, construction technology and peoples' needs and desires change.

(11) No provision is made to "grandfather in" land development underway at the time any new planning process is implemented. Thus, a builder who has proceeded in good faith under one set of rules could suddenly find the rules changed and fined he has no vested rights.

(12) The bill fails to provide for a public hearings procedure before land areas are determined to be of critical concern.

[Exhibit B]

NAHB RESOLUTION-LAND USE LEGISLATION-MAY 21, 1974, WASHINGTON, D.C. Whereas, this association has taken the position that the Land Use bill (H.R. 10294) deserved full floor consideration by the House of Representatives.

Whereas, the bill has been cleared for such consideration and is now due to come before the House as H.R. 10294, but reflects a lack of an adequate roie for the Department of Housing and Urban Development as the administering agency, and contains very serious ambiguities as set forth in attachment "A", now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That NAHB's Board of Directors withholds support for this bill and urges the Congress not to approve H.R. 10294 in its present form, nor to approve any bill on this subject unless HUD's role as the administering agency is established and the ambiguities outlined in the attachment are resolved.

(Attachment.)

Mr. TSONGAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Hart.

Mr. Steelman?

Mr. STEELMAN. I do not have any questions, Mr. Hart.

Thank you for taking the time to appear before the committee. You were with us last year. You testified in favor of the bill when we last saw each other. I have not seen you since to compliment you on your fast footwork. I do not know if Muhammad Ali learned from you or you from him, but you do pretty well on it, I will say that.

Mr. HART. I will tell you that the trip I took to the Scandinavian countries was quite an eye opener. I hope you will avail yourself of the information and see how the private enterprise system and housing has completely deteriorated from the beginning of a national land use policy.

Mr. STEELMAN. Did you take the trip after you appeared before the committee?

Mr. HART. Yes, I did.

If you remember, when I testified, I testified on behalf of the fact that if the housing element was put in this bill, then possibly our association might support it. I was called by one member of the committee kind of naive, and my attitude

Mr. STEELMAN. He is not in our presence today, is he?

Mr. HART. No, I do not believe he is. But I had formerly served in the Indiana legislature and he thought I was kind of naive to believe that a bill was going to come out just exactly the way I wanted.

I did go home and study, and I think I have sent about 10,000 letters to you telling you my feelings about this subject and helped to defeat the bill. I hope maybe you will understand my true feelings at this time.

Mr. STEELMAN. Was the trip to Scandinavia a serious thing that caused you to change your mind?

Mr. HART. It made me wake up to the fact that this was just not the thing that is hurting our industry; but it is the group invasion in the industry by the bureaucracy that has caused our product to reach the point today where the consumer cannot afford to buy it. Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. Skubitz?

Mr. SKUBITZ. No questions.

Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. Miller?

Mr. MILLER. On page 5 of your testimony, you say that H.R. 3510 drops, for instance, a mandate in last year's bill that the land use planning process consider, to the greatest extent possible, the full range of housing oportunities within the State.

Are you suggesting that the language of that regard be put back into this legislation?

Mr. HART. Yes, I am.

We have an amendment, I think, at that part-at least it was on my copy-we have an amendment that we offered last year on this particular item.

Mr. MILLER. My question then is I do not see how that jibes with the position that the planning process should take place at the most local level. It seems to me, if you have to take this into consideration on a statewide basis as to housing opportunities, that is somewhat

inconsistent with trying to decide whether development can take place or not at the local level.

Mr. HART. I will let John Courtier answer that.

Mr. COURTIER. We used that particular section to show how the new version of the bill has even moved further from the concept of planning for housing needs. We did not use that as something we would like to talk about in support for the bill.

What we are trying to say is that land use planning at whatever level it is conducted should take into account the many, many different impeding pressures that are placed on the land.

Mr. MILLER. What I am trying to get is your position. When the land use planning process takes place at whatever level, in determining whether or not a development should take place, it has to take into account the housing opportunities in that State.

Mr. COURTIER. I would rather say housing needs.

Mr. MILLER. You picked a word, housing needs. You are telling me, if I interpret your position correctly. if I want to build 400 homes at $50,000 a copy and the need is demonstrated to be other than that in the State, that the jurisdiction should have the right to require me to do otherwise.

Mr. COURTIER. That is not the position we are taking. What we are trying to say is that planning at whatever level it takes place, land use planning should take into account the housing needs of people who are reasonably expected to locate in that area or the people who are already there and perhaps are inadequately housed. We are not trying necessarily to tie it only to the State level: but our position would be, at whatever level the planning took place, that that particular matter should be considered.

Mr. MILLER. I live in a very small community in the San Francisco Bay area. If a developer wants to develop in my hometown, is there any obligation on that local planning agency to consider housing opportunities in Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, in making some kind of decision?

Mr. COURTIER. What we are addressing is not the actual construction, but the planning for the future use of the land, let us say, at that local level. We are not focusing on the issuance of a particular permit to build a particular subdivision; what we are trying to focus on is the zoning of the land.

Mr. MILLER. I understand that; but it is very pertinent to this legislation whether or not it is your position in coming up with the housing elements, so to speak, what has to be considered. On the one hand, I see you were talking about the housing needs or opportunities within the State. On the other hand you were talking about planning at the most local level.

I think that there is a basic philosophical position to be made there.

Mr. COURTIER. We would rather have had the language of the bill last year address the housing needs of the localities. However, that is not what the bill said. But it did at least address the housing needs of the State; so at least to that extent, we applaud attention to the housing needs of the people within the State. We would have rather had the bill say land use planning should take in account the housing needs of the local government.

« PreviousContinue »