HUD Projects

Insurance applications before the Federal
Houslng Admlnistratlon (FHA), Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), for two multlfamlly houslng prolects, Fox Ridge and Franklin Parh,
proposed for construction in Baltimore County, Maryland, pursuant to
section 236 of the National Housing Act.
Mr. Pfrommer indicated in his letter that in our review we should
include the following considerations: (1) the extent to which the builder
of the proposed prolects previously had participated in multlfamlly housing
programs admlnlstered by FHA, (2) ownershlp and relocation of a road
involved in the construction of the Fox Ridge prolect, (3) coordlnatlon
of actlons of HUD and the Baltimore County government which resulted In
the Issuance of coTditlona1 commitments to the Julio Brothers to Insure
the moltgage loans for the proposed projects, (4) whether HUD procedures
were followed zn approving the conditional commitments to Insure the
mortgage loans, and 15) the basis for the Act-Lng Asszstant Secretery-
Commissioner's oplnlon that HUD was legally bound to carry through the
conditIonal commitments to Insure mortgage loans for the proposed prop-
&ects. The results of our review and our discussions of these matters
J with responsible agency officials are summarized below.
tbr $ckground
Section 236, which was added to the Natlonal Houslng Act by sectlon
and Urban Development AC t of 1968 (82 Stat. 4981, pror
rental and cooperative houslng for lower income famesection
236 of the act, HUD 1s authorized to Insure
mskgcge loans on multlfamilv houslng proJects and to
the mortgagors, thF!%erest on the mortgage loans In
excess 0 percent and the mortgage insurance premiums. These payments--
--permit a basic monthly r&Cal for each
lower than would be applicable If
Sectlon 236 provides that a
tenant pay either the basic rental or 25 percent of his monthly Income,
whlchever 1s greater. Section 236 provides also that a tenant's rental
payment not exceed the rental which would be applicable If no Federal
B-167367
assistance 1s given, Rental payments collected by mortgagors in excess
of the basic rental charges are required by section 236 to be returned to
HUD for deposit in a revolving fund for the purpose of provldlng future
assistance under the program,
Contractual authorizations of $70 mllllon for interest reduction
payments pursuant to sectlon 236 of the act were provided by the Supplemental
Appropriation Act, 1969 (82 Stat. 11931, and the Second Supplemental
Approprratlons Act, 1969 (83 Stat. 53), approved October 21, 1968,
and July 22, 1969, respectively.
Under current HUD procedures, an application for Insurance of a
mortgage loan on a multlfamlly houslng proJect must be submltted to FHA
and processed through three stages lnvolvlng (1) a study of the progect's
feasibility, (2) issuance of a condltlonal commitment to Insure the mortgage
loan, and (3) Issuance of a firm commitment to Insure the mortgage
loan. Applicants for mortgage insurance may request HUD to Initiate the
processrng of the appllcatlon at any one of the three stages, depending
on the extent to whrch the proJect plans have been developed in relation
to the HUD requirements applicable to that stage and any preceding stages,
On behalf of+h-e-Jullo Brothers, sponsgr and bulw of the proposed
Fox Ridge and Franklin Park projects, the proposed mortgagee? In D$cember
submitted appllcatlons to HUD which requested the issuance of condl-
1 commitments to insure mortgage loans for the Fox Ridge and the
Franklin Park proJects. On July 10, 1969, HUD issued condltlonal commltments
to Insure mortgage loans -,706 _6,300 and $3,626,600 on the Fox
Ridge and Franklin Park projects, respectively. HUD Issued firm commltments
to insure mortgage loans of $1,7g,200 for the Fox Ridge proJect
on October 21, 1969, and of $3,626,600 for the Franklin Park project on
Prevzous partlclpation In mortgage
Insurance programs
In connection with the submlsslon of an application for mortgage
insurance, HUD requires the sponsor to submit a certlflcate of its
previous participation In multlfamlly housing programs admlnlstered by
FHA. HUD Instructions speclflcally state, with respect to completion
of the certificate, that:
-2-
J
B-167637
"**Jr Each prznclple, as defined in the certificate, must
list every FHA insured multifamily or Title X proJect in
which he has been, or is involved, identifying the name,
location, FHA case number, and the nature of his
interest***@ ” (Underscoring supplied,)
Our review of HUD records disclosed no evidence that &he+ullo
Brothers, at the time their applications for mortgage insurance for the
Fox Ridge aan Park projects were submitted&n December 19682
were involved in any insured prolects. We found, however, that eight
other proposed projects of -eke Julio Brothers were being considered by
HUD for mortgage insurance in December 1968. Information regarding
these eight proJects IS shown in the enclosure.
Ownership and relocation of a road involved
m construction of Fox Ridge project
Our review of HUD project records and discussions with offlclals of
HUD and Baltimore County revealed that the road requiring relocation to
enable construction of the Fox Ridge project was owned by&&Julio
Buothers. We were informed by Baltimore insuring office offic-Jals that
@~Julio Brothers planned to relocate the road and that they had entered
into an agreement with Baltimore County whereby ownership and control of
the relocated road was to be transferred to the county upon completion of
the proJect Our review of HUD project records showed that the relocation
cost was Included in the project off-site cost of $71,490 which was used
rn establishing the amount of the mortgage loan to be insured.
The Director of Public Works for Baltimore County informed us in
December 1969 that the existing road would be closed to all traffic
when construction of the relocated road was completed. The Director
stated that construction permits for that portlon of the project which
was to be built on the site of the existing road would be withheld until
the relocation of the road was completed by+Jullo Brothers. The
Director stated also that the relocation was being carried out In accordance
with Baltimore County's master plan.
Coordination with Baltimore County government
HUD project records showed that, in accordance with HUD procedures
for approval of mortgage insurance applications, the Baltimore insuring
-3-
J I
B-167637
offlce ascertained that the land on which the proposed projects were to
be situated was zoned by Baltimore County to permit the construction of
the proposed Fox Ridge and Franklin Park projects. Offlclals of the
insuring offlce Informed us that, because the land had the required
zoning classification, they did not consider it necessary to Inform the
County of the issuance of the condltlonal commitments to Insure the mortgage
loans for the projects. These offlclals polnted out, however, that,
before the County would Issue construction permits to +he-Julio Brothers,
it would require the submission of construction plans for the purpose of
determining whether the streets, water and sewer service, and other community
facilltles were adequate to serve the projects.
Instructions not followed by lnsurlng offlce
In issuing conditional commitments to insure
mortgage loans
HUD procedures provided that a preliminary reservation of funds
for interest reduction payments must be obtained for each proJect before
notlfrcatlon is given a proJect sponsor of the feaslblllty of a proJect
for Insurance under section 236 and before issuance of a condltlonal or
a firm commitment to insure a mortgage loan. This requirement was established
by HUD to ensure that the subsequently approved interest reduction
payments do not exceed the aggregate contractual authority to make interest
reduction payments as authorized In appropriation acts.
On June 27, 1969, HUD changed the above procedures to allow insuring
offlces to issue notifications of the feaslbllity of proJects for lnsurante
wIthout first obtaining reservatrons of funds for interest reduction
payments. This revision, however, required that the notlflcations contain
provisions that the feaslblllty of the prole_cIt s -_ _b_eI 1cs_u bje_c-te --o to- --_fu nd-s IL_b_a
made available forc ----I-nvt-e-.r?e.s?t- - _-r-e--d uction-gadyments. We were Informed by I-IUD
officials that contractual authority of $25-alron provided by the
Supplemental Approprlatlon Act, 1969, for interest reduction payments
had been substantially allocated to various projects and that the revised
procedures were establlshed to permit an orderly processing of mortgage
insurance applications pending passage of the Second Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 1969, which increased by on the contractual
authority to make interest reduction payments. Wyere informed also
that the June 27, 1969, revised procedures were intended to apply only
to the notiflcatlons of proJect feaslbillty.
-4-
S167637
We found, however, that the Baltimore Insuring offlce Issued on
July LO, 1969, condltlonal commitments to insure mortgage loans for the
Fox Rs.dge and Franklin Park proJects, which contarned provlslons that
the commitments were Subject "to the reszxxation of&nds ---1s-b eing - -a-p p_ro_v_e--d
and alloca&d." We were advIsedby an offlclal of the HUD Offlce of
General Counsel that, in accordance with the above provlslon, HUD was
not to complete the processing of the applxcatlons for mortgage
xnsurance until reservations of funds were approved for the prolects.
HUD offxcials informed us that the xnsurlng offxe had misinterpreted
the revised instructions and the condrtlonal commitments should not
have been issued at that trme.
The Second Supplemental Approprlatlons Act, 1969, was passed on
July 22, 1969, and reservations of funds were approved for the two
projects on August 8, 1969.
With respect to the legality of condltlonal commitments, HUD's
General Counsel stated that a condltlonal commitment to Insure a mortgage
loan that did not Include any provision for cancellation, was a
blndlng contract that obligated HUD to issue a firm commitment to
Insure the mortgage loan provided that all the conditions contarned
in the conditional commitment were met by the applicant. In this
regard, we were informed by HUD officials that the Acting Assistant
Secretary-Commrssloner, FHA, forwarded to you on October 1, 1969, a
letter which included cltatlons of law and precedent to support HUD's
legal opinion that a conditlonal commrtment was a valid contract.
We have not obtained formal wrltten comments from HUD offlclals
concerning matters discussed in this report; however, the lnformatlon
contained hereln has been drscussed Informally with HUD offlcxals and
1s based on lnformatlon avarlable In HUD frles or otherwise furnlshed
to US by HUD and Baltimore County officials.

HUD Programs

Reference is made to your letter dated December 17, 1969, m
which you requested that we furnish you with a chronology of actions
taken by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regardmg
its review and disposztion of certain statements made by various
citizen organizations prior to HUD’s approval of the JITriangletf
Urban Renewal Project in Charleston, West Virgima. Your request
stated that the chronology may be limited to the information available
in HUD proJect fa3es maintained at the HUD central office and the HUD
regional office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and that it wa.s not necessary
for us to comment on the appropriateness of HUD actions.
Because of the vast quantity of material available on this matter
m HUD files, we have extracted what we believe to be the more pertinent
information. The enclosure to this letter includes a synopsis of
the numerous memorandums, letters, and documents generated as a
result of inquiries and replies between various interested parties and
the HUD central office and the HUD regional office concerning the Triangle
project. The synopsis 1s u1 chronological sequence and presents
the inquiry with EiUDs reply following immediately below.
In addition, there are three appendixes to the enclosure: appendue
I 1s a schedule showing the number of buildings to be cleared and
the number of famikes and individuals to be displaced3 appendix II is a
copy of the instructions entitled “Matters of Advice” sent by the HUD
regional office, which required certain action by the Charleston Urban
Renewal Authorrty before HUD would execute the contract for a temporary
loan and a Federal capital grant; and appendix III is a copy of the
Formal Administrative Complaint submitted to the Secretary of HUD
by a delegatmn of citizens from Charleston.
We have retained copies of all documents from which the synopsis
was prepared. Consequently, we are prepared to provide any add&
tional information contained therein that you may desire.
In accordance with the agreement reached wrth your Cornmattes
Counsel, a copy of this report is being furnished to the Secretary of
B- 168690
Housing and Urban Development for his information. We plan to make
no further distribution of ths report unless copies ar6 specifically requested,
and then we shall make distribution only after your agreement
has been obtained or public announcement has been made by you concerning
the contents uf the report.
Sincerely yours,
Comptroller General
of the United States
Enclosure
The Honorable Jennings Randolph
Chairman, Committee on Public Works
United States Senate
ENCZOSURE
Page 1
TRIANGLE PROJECT CHRONQLOGYO F EVENTS
EXTRACTED FROM HUD PROJECT FILES
BY THE U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Title 1 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C.
14501, authorizes the Assistant Secretary for Renewal and
Housing Assistance, Renewal Assistance A$ninlstration, Department
of Housing and Ghan Dezlopment (HUD), to make grants,
planning advances, and temporary loans to local public agencies
for eliminating slums and blight in urban areas through
surveys and planning, land acquisition and clearing, rehabilitation
of existing structures, new-building construction,
and the installation of public improvements. Before aid can
be given under this program, the local governing body must
have enacted a resolution approving the urban renewal project
and the community must have a workable program for community
improvement certified by HUD. Application is made to the HUD
regional office serving the area where the urban renewal is
to take place,
In February 1966, the Charleston Urban Renewal Authority
(CURA) of the city of Charleston, West Virginia, applied to
HUD's region II located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for a
Federal grant and advance for renewal plans for an 83-acre
Triangle urban renewal project which would include demolition
and redevelopment of the area for commercial use, new public
and private housing, a new elementary school, a hospital, expanded
recreational facilities, and parking for the adjacent
and recently modernized civic center. The local street system
would be improved; utility lines would be placed underground;
and the necessary sidewalks, curbs, traffic signals, and sewer
improvements would be installed. (See app. I which shows the
number of buildings to be cleared, the number of people to be
displaced, and the number and type of public housing units to
be constructed.)
In March 1966, HUD announced that a Federal capital
grant of $2,468,000 for the city of Charleston had been approved
for its 83-acre Triangle urban renewal project and
ENCLOSURE
Page 2
that the city would receive a $248,900 Federal advance for
survey and planning activities.
In December 1967, CURA submltted to HUD a revised application
requesting that the advance for survey and planning
activitres for the Triangle project be increased from
$248,900 to $356,592, a net increase of $107,692. The justification
for the increase was that, at the time the original
budget was prepared, costs for title services were inadvertently
omltted from the budget. No change rn the Federal
capital grant of $2,468,000 was requested at that time. HUD
approved the amended application.
In April 1969, CURA submitted a revised application for
a Federal capital grant of $6,780,106 and requested a temporary
loan in the amount of $14,081,441. The revised application
represented an increase of $4,312,016 over the original
estimate of $2,468,000.
According to the rnformation rn the HUD central office
project files, the large increase in the estimated Federal
capital grant was primarily the result of (1) the project's
boundaries being changed and (2) the treatment of the project's
being changed from a combination of rehabilitation and
clearance to clearance only which required a large increase
in the amount of land to be acquired. .
On October 23, 1969, HUD approved the Federal capital
grant of $6,780,016 and the temporary loan of $14,081,441.
During 1968, a great deal of controversy arose between
the residents of the Triangle area, as voiced through the Triangle
Improvement Council (TIC), and officials of the city of
Charleston, primarily CURA.
In addition, numerous pieces of correspondence passed
between various officials, private citizens, and neighborhood
citizen organizations of the city of Charleston and the HUD
central office and region II office. Following is a synopsis
of the letters of inquiry and the agency responses, presented
in chronological sequence.
SYNOPSIS
Inquiry
February 13, 1968--Letter from a member of the Charleston City
Council requesting HUDts region II to delay the approval of
Charleston's workable program until the city complied with the
elements calling for relocation of families displaced by governmental
action, Further, this letter contained certain
statements that much of the information and plans regarding
relocation in the 1967 and 1968 workable program was false.
Agency action
February 27, 1968.-The reply of HUD's, region II to the councilman's
letter advised him that Charleston's workable program
was being reviewed, serious deflclencies had been noticed
in the program, recertification of the program was not being
recommended at that time, and the city would be informed of
the action it must take prior to recertification. With regard
to relocation, HUD stated that, regardless of who causes
the displacement (city or State), the city has the responsibility
to ensure that adequate relocation assistance is provided.
HUD stated further that the city must prove to HUD
that housing 1s avaIlable on a truly nondiscriminatory basis
or if the city cannot clearly and conclusively document this
fact, it must provide HUD with an estimate of housing resources
to be available over the next 2 years, according to the availability
to white and nonwhite families.
March 1, 1968--HUD's region II notified the Mayor of Charleston
that the city's workable program dated January 10, 1968,
did not demonstrate sufficient progress to justify HUD's recommending
recertification at that time and therefore returned
the entire program for resubmission. Attached to the letter
was a list of the major deficiencies that must be corrected
prior to resubmission.
ENCLOSURE
Page 4
Inquiry
March 11, 1968--The Mayor of Charleston requested a meeting
with HUD's region II officials in Charleston to discuss the
requirements which must be met by the city to obtain recertification
of the workable program.
Agency action
March 25, 1968--HUD intraoffice memorandum disclosed that a
field visit had been made to Charleston to discuss the actions
the city must take prior to resubmission of the workable
program. According to the memorandum, meetings were
held with various officials of the city of Charleston, the
State Road Commission, and the Executive Committee of the
Citizens Advisory Committee for Community Improvement to discuss
code adoption and enforcement, planning and neighborhood
analyses, housing for displaced families, and citizen participation,
Inquiry
August 8, 1968--Community Development, Inc., inquired of HUD's
region II if 3-t had approved (1) the minor amendments made to
the Charleston Housing Code on August 5, 1968, and (2) the
relocation activities of the city of Charleston.
Agency action
August 29, 1968--HUD's region II acknowledged receipt of the
letter from Community Development, Inc., and advised it as
follows:
1. A request for recertification of the workable program
had not been submitted to HUD's region II, and, as a
result, no determination had been made as to the adequacy
of any code.
2. No determination had been made relative to the relocation
activities of Charleston.
3. When the request for recertification was submitted,
these questions, among others, would be reviewed in
detail.
Inquiry
August 8s 1968--The president, Inter-City Council of Neighbor- i
hoods, inquired of FKYDvs region II if it (1). had approved the
amendment to the Charleston Housing Code and (2) was going to
recertify the workable program despite the lack of a representative
code review committee or city commitment to help relocate
families in housing condemned by code enforcement before
the city council voted on the two planning documents
~~~feston Comprehensive Plan and Community Renewal Program
.
Agency action
August 29, 1968--HUD's region II acknowledged receipt of the
letter from the president and advised him as follows:
1, A request for recertification of Charleston's workable
program has not been submitted to HUD's region II,
and, as a result, no determination had been made as
to the adequacy of any codelo
2, No determination had been made as to the CRP and the
comprehensive plan.,
3. When the request for recertification was submitted,
these questions among others would be reviewed in
detail.
Inquiry
August 9, 1968--A member of the Charleston City Council requested
that HUD's region IT not recertify the Charleston
Comprehensive Plan or the CRP until the elected representatives
of the city could pass on them.
Agency action
August 29, 1968--HUD's region II acknowledged receipt of the
councilman's letter and advised him that HUD's region II had
not received a request for recertification of the workable
progra and, as a result, no determination had been made at
that time.
ENCtiOS'uRE
Page 6
Inquiry
August 12, 1968--A member of the Charleston City Council
stated his concern aboutHUD"s~apparent approval of a weak
housing code for the city and HUD's apparent reneging on its
original requirement that the comprehensive plan and the CRP
be completed before the workable program could be recertified.
In addition, the councilman stated that a member of
HUD's region II had attempted to interfere with citizen participation
in development of the comprehensive plan and the
CRP by contacting a local Office of Economic Opportunrty representative
and requesting that funds to an outside consulting
firm be withheld since letting a contract could "only
cause trouble and further delays." The councilman requested
information concerning the HUD representative's job in
Charleston and whether HUD's guidelines mean what they say.
Agency action
August 27, 1968--HUD central office acknowledged the councilman's
letter and advised him that:
1. No prior commitments with respect to approval of the
city's workable program had been made by RDD"s region
II.
2, Contrary to the councilman's impression, it was the
purpose of the HUD representative to bring about the
implementation of HTJD policies which included improvement
in the quality of citizen involvement and
relocation under the workable program and other HUD
programs.
3. A copy of his letter had been sent to HUD's region II
in order that his views might be considered when they
review the Charleston workable program,
Inquiry
August 13, 1968-- Senator Robert C. Byrd referred a letter
from the Organization for the Betterment of Chandler Drive,
Charleston, to the Secretary of HUD for consideration and re-
Ply* (The above organization requested Senator Byrd to
ENCLOSURE
Page 7
provide it with information concerning HUD's approval of the
Charleston Housing Code and why HUD had violated its own
code,]
Aszenev .acction
August 27, 1968--HUD central office acknowledged Senator
Byrd's letter and advised him that the request for the recertification
of Charleston's workable program was being reviewed
by HUD's region II and that HUD's region II had not
made any prior commitments regarding the recertification approval
e Senator Byrd was advised further that the information
submitted by the Organization for the Betterment of
Chandler Drive would be made available to HUD's region II so
that it could be considered in connection with the review of '
the workable program.
August 22, 196%-The president of TIC requested that the HUD
region II office reject the part 1 application of CURA for
the Triangle project primarily because cl) no Project Area
Committee (PA& had been designated by CURA, and no meaningful
citizen participation had taken place in any phase of the
project, despite repeated attempts by local Triangle area
citizens, and (2) CURA had totalLy ignored the TIC request
for designation of land in the project area for development
of nonprofit, moderate-cost private housing,
Agency action
Concerning the statements made by the president of TIC, we
were advised by a HUD region II employee that:
1, A meeting was held on September 16, 1968, at the
Kennedy Center, Charleston, between HUD's region II
Renewal Representative and members of TIC to discuss
the allegations set forth in the August 22, 1968,
letter written by the president of TIC.
2. The HUD Renewal Representative felt that the meeting
had been mutually satisfactory.
ENCLOSURE
Page 8
3. Because of,the above-mentioned meeting, HUD had not
formally replied to the president's letter.
Inouirv
September 27, 1968--Letter from the Chairman, Inter-City
Council of Neighborhoods, requested information from HUD's
region II concerning its apparent approval of the proposed
CRP for Charleston.
Agency action
October 23, 1968--HUD's region II acknowledged receipt of
the chairman's letter and informed him of HUD's procedures
for reviewing and approving a CRP. Further, the CRP had been
reviewed by the regional office and action had been taken by
the city of Charleston to meet HUD requirements.
Incruirv
October 25, 1968--Letter from the president tof TIC to-the
Secretary of HUD advising him-that:~- -- -- - -
1.
2.
3,
CURA held a meeting with TIC-on October 22 to discuss
TIC's alternative proposal to the part I 'renewal
proposal for the Trtianglevarea.
CURA brought in an employee of HUD*to amend this
meeting,
The HUD employee informed those present at this meeting
that (a) HUD did not approve of including vacant
land for relocation housing in renewal projects,
lb) TIC's proposal would increase the project cost,
and (c) the XUD employee advised TIC to accept CURA's
plans.
In addition, the president of TIC requested the following information
from and/or action by the Secretary of HUD.
1,. Were Federal funds used for the HUD employee's trip
on behalf of the CURA?
ENCLOSURE
Page 9
2. Are HUD staff employees authorized to make su h definite
statements in public, since your review !E f the
application is not complete and the CURA is saying
that the matter is still open? r .
3. The HUD employee should be immediately transferred to
a section in HUD where he will not be in contact with
the Charleston Urban Renewal Projects because he cannot
possibly do an objective job of reviewing the
Triangle Renewal Application,
AIzency action
November 8, 1968--HUD central office acknowledged receipt of
the president's letter and advised him that HUD*s region II
had direct responsibility for administering urban renewal activities
in West Virginia and that a more detail reply would
follow as soon as a report was received from HUDOs region II
concerning the matters raised in his letter.
Inefuirv
October 28, 1968--Letter from Senator Byrd referred TICPs
letter of October 25, 1968, to HUD's region II for such consideration
as it might warrant and for a report thereon.
(TIC's letter to Senator Byrd contained basically the same
information as did its letter to the Secretary of HUD dated
October 25, 1968.)
Aaencv action
November 15, 1968--HUDss region II acknowledged receipt of
Senator Byrd's letter and advised him as follows:
1, The Triangle Urban Renewal Project covered an area of
about 80 acres and involved the acquisition and
clearance of 347 parcels of land and the relocation
of 391 individuals, 227 families, and 124 businesses*
2. The estimated net project cost was $6,808,520 and the
estimated Federal grant was $5,878,610.
3. The project included the construction of 200 units of
public housing, 100 units of senior citizen housing,
ENCLOSURE
Page10
a new elementary school, and a new city park and
playground and provides land for conventional housing
and commercial establishments.
4. TIC is a nonprofit citizen's organization that is a
delegate agency of the local community action committee
of the Office of Economic Opportunity.
5. During 1968 there had been a great deal of controversy
between the residents of the Triangle area--
voiced through TIC and city officials, primarily
CUM--over the proposed renewal treatment for the
Triangle area.
6. On October 22, 1968, at a meeting called by CURA, TIC
recommended among other things:
a. Deletion of a proposed elementary school.
b. Deletion of a playground.
c. Relocation of proposed Interstate Highway 77.
d. Deletion of a commercial area on the south end of
the project.
e. Expansion of the project to the northeast to include
both the right-of-way area of Interstate
Highway 77 and the land owned by a water company
for development of private residences.
f. Substitution of leased public housing for the
planned 200 units of conventional public housing,
g. Mixing of residential with commercial in a 4-block
area in the southern section of the project,
7. CURA had responded to each of TIC's recommendations
indicating that it would not change the plan; however,
CURA had agreed to consider some of the recommendations
and,subsequent to the meeting, had seriously
considered the recommendation regarding leased
public housing.
ENCLOSURE
Page 11
8. HUD's region II felt that the HUD Renewal Representative
who attended the meeting in Charleston acted in
a responsible manner. His comments at the meeting
were relative to HUDts timing requirements on project
planning (36 months) which placed a deadline date
for local approval of the Triangle project pr)p April
1969. He also commented on this Office's rejection
of an expansion of the project boundaries because it
would certainly increase the Federal grant and delay
the funding of the project.
In the light of this information, it appears inappropriate
to transfer this employee from the Charleston
area.
9. The inference of the letter from the president of
TIC, that Federal officials demand what is put into a
local renewal application, was unwarranted. The Triangle
project has been in the planning stage since
April 1965. The existing proposed plan was created
by private planning consultants under the supervision
of CURA, Aside from HUD's requirement regarding the
eligibility of the project area and the feasibility
of the project from the standpoint of financing and
relocation resourceso the city has had unlimited
freedom in planning its renewal projects.
ENCLOSURE
Page 12
Inquiry
November 14,-X968"--Letter from the president of TIC inquired
of HUD's region II if it had determined to compromise on requiring
the Charleston City Council to approve the CRP prior
to approving the workable program in order to give Charleston
early workable program approval.
Agency action
January 7, 1969--HUD's region II acknowledged receipt of the
letter from the president of TIC and advised him that:
1.
2.
Inquiry
The workable program for Charleston as approved by the
city council had been received and was being reviewed
by HUD's region II.
The decision had not been made to either reconfirm our
earlier workable program--CRP condition--or recommend
the workable program for approval prior to the local
approval of the CRP.
November 19, 1968--Letter from the Chairman, Inter-City Council
of Neighborhoods, advised the Secretary of HUD that, on November
18, 1968, the Charleston City Council had approved a workable
program for submission to HUD. The chairman inquired of
the Secretary if HUD had given the Mayor of Charleston verbal
assurance that HUD would waive the March 1, 1968, regional office
requirements for recertification of Charleston's workable
program.
Aaencv action
December 2, 1968--HUD central office acknowledged receipt of
the letter from the chairman and advised him that the Charleston
recertification request was now being reviewed by HUD's region
II.
In addition, HUD central office advised the chairman that HUD'S
region II had made no prior commitments with respect to the approval
of the city's workable program.
ENCLOSURE
Page 13
Incruirv
November 19, 1968--Letter from Planning Director, Municipal
Planning Commission, Charleston, forwarded copies of the
Workable Program for Community Improvement*to 'BUD's region
II for its review.
Agency action
November 20, 1968--Notification of receipt of the workable
program submitted by the Mayor of Charleston on November 18,
1968, was received by BUD's region II on November 20, 1968,
This was the first' recertification submission.
January 20, 1969--By letter this date, HUD's region II notified
the mayor that the region's review of the city's application
for recertification of the workable program, under
date of November 18, 1968, had been completed and that a
number of questions had arisen which required clarification
and additional information. An attachment to this letter
itemized the requested information in the areas of codes
and ordinances, planning, and relocation.
In addition, a HUD region II official was scheduled to visit
Charleston to assist
formation.
the city in preparing the requested in-
January 29, 1969--By memorandum this date, HUD's region II
Director of Planning informed the Assistant Regional Administrator
for Program Coordination and Services as follows:
Before recertifying the Charleston workable program the '
, Below-listed documents must be submitted to BUD by the city
of Charleston:
1. Certified copy of the completed zoning ordinance.
2. Certified copy of the completed subdivision regulations.
3. Copy of the completed capital improvements program
and a certified copy of the adoption resolution.
ENCLOSURE
Page 14
4. Copy of the completed CRP and a certified copy of the
adoption resolution or other verification of its impleme&
ation.
This memorandum from the HUD region II Administrator stated
that these documents were also required by the March 1, 1968,
letter to the Mayor of Charleston concerning the recertification
of the city's workable program.
Incrulrv
December 6!, 1968--Letter from the president of TIC to HUD's
region II advising it that Senator Byrd had made available to
TIC a copy of HUD's letter to him dated November 15, 1968,
concerning the HUD regional office employee who attended the
October 22, 1968, joint meeting of CURA and TIC in Charleston.
The president's remarks dealt with refuting the comments made
by HUD's region II in its letter to Senator Byrd. In additron,
the president requested the following information and/or action.
1. Has part I of the application for the Triangle project
been given final approval?
2. Have the changes promised by CURA been made since the
August submission?
3. The HUD employee who attended the meeting in Charleston
be transferred to projects somewhere else in the region.
Agency action
January 17, 1969--HUD's region II acknowledged receipt of the
letters dated December 6, 1968, and January 8, 1969, from the
president of TIC and advised him that:
1. Final approval of the part I application for the Triangle
project had not been given by HUD's region II and, at
CURA's request, it was returned for the purpose of making
changes.
2. HUD's region II required very early in the planning of
the Triangle project that the area between Clendendin
and Court Streets be included either in the Triangle
project or in the Government Square Project. CURA had
ENCLOSURE
Page 15
determined that clearance and redevelopment would be
appropriate for this area.
3. Regarding the HUD employee who attended the Qctober 22
meeting in Charleston, HUD had reconfirmed its belief
in the employee's professional objectivity toward the
Charleston Urban Renewal Project.
HUD's region II felt that a personal meeting would be helpful
in answering the president's questions as well as explaining
the Federal position in the renewal program.
ENCLOSURE
Page 16
I
December 6, 1968--Letter from three members of the Charleston
Crtizens Advisory Committee to the Secretary of HUD requested
that he not recertify the Charleston workable program because
of the city's failure to conform to HUD citizen participation
guidelines. These members felt that the following justified
their request.
1. The Mayor of Charleston had refused to appoint representatives
from many areas and groups In the city
that lacked representation on any advisory city
group.
2. The Citizens Advisory Committee seldom meet and had
no real role in advising the mayor or city officials
on matters concerning them.
3. As members of subcommittees on Housing and Urban Renewal,
they were not allowed to see the changes made
ir, the city's housing code or to review the Triangle
and Government Square renewal proposals before they
were sent to HUD for part I approval.
4. The Citizens Advisory Committee was not permitted to
review the workable program report that HUD would be
asked to certify.
In addition, these members felt that no meantingful citizen
participation would take place in 1969 in Charleston if HUD
recertified the workable program.
&ency action
December 30, 1968--HUD central office acknowledged receipt of
the letter from a member of the Charleston Citizens Advisory
Committee and advised him that the city of Charleston's request
for recertification of Its workable program was now being
reviewed by HUD's region II and that a copy of his letter
had been sent to HUD's region II so that the information
it contains would be considered as part of the region's review.
ENCLO%JRE"
Page 17
lncwirv
December 10, 1968--Letter from Charleston City Councilman
(First Ward) to the Secretary of HUD requested that UUD not
recertify the city's workable program at this time. The
councilman requested also that the Secretary inform him why
HUD's region II, when serious questions were raised concerning
the workable program, had not discussed these matters
with the persons involved; in this case, neighborhood representatives
on the Mayor's Citizens Advisory Committee, the
City Treasurer, and councilmen whose wards would be affected
by HUD-financed programs and whose wards would not be represented
on the city's advisory groups.
In addition, the councilman enclosed a copy of a letter dated
December 4, 1968, from the City Treasurer--prompted by the
councilman's request --which supported his statement that inaccurate
and unrealistic statements had been made in the
workable program report the city council had approved.
&ency action
December 30, 1968,-HUD central office acknowledged receipt of
the councilmanls letter and again advised him that the cityus
request for recertification of its workable program was still
under review by HUD's region II. In addition, the councilman
was informed that the Secretary had requested a report on the
material the councilman had previously submitted and that, as
soon as this report was received, the councilman would be so
advised.
Inuuirv
December 16, 1968--Letter from Senator Byrd forwarded to an
Assistant Secretary of HUD the correspondence received from
the Treasurer of Charleston concerning the city's workable
program. The Senator requested a report on whatever action
HUD might consider to be warranted. The treasurer in his
letter, dated December 12, 1968, advised the Senator as follows:
1. The Charleston City Council had approved, sight unseen,
a resubmission of the city's workable program 3
to HUD's region II.
ENCLOSURE
Page 18
2. The resubmitted program had not accomplished the requirements
established by HUD In March 1968, whrch
were to be met prior to recertlflcation of the program
by HUD.
3. The Mayor of Charleston had Implied that HUD would
waive the above-mentioned requirements.
4. Correspondence had been sent to the Secretary of HUD
that crrtlcizes the resubmitted program.
In addition, the treasurer requested the Senator to establish
whether the city would be requrred to meet the standards of a
first-class program or whether these standards would be
waived.
Agency action
December 30, 1968--HUD central office acknowledged receipt of
the letter from Senator Byrd and advised him as follows:
1. The Charleston workable program was being reviewed by
HUD's region II.
2. HUDss region II had been provided with a copy of the
enclosures to the Senator's letter.
3. HUD's region II had been requested to take the enclosures
Into consideration in reviewing the city's
workable program and had provided a report to HUD
central office.
Inquiry
January 3, 1969--Letter from the Mayor of Charleston to the
Secretary of HUD advisrng him that the councilman's opinions
were not shared by the maJority of Charleston's councilmen.
Included with this letter were several enclosures, one of
which answers the councilman's deficiencies in Charleston's
workable program.
ENCLOSURB ’
Page 19
Agency action
January 15, 1969--Memorandum from HUD9s region II to the Secretary
of HUD concerning Charleston's workable program and
the councilmanfis correspondence of November 27, 1968, (Letter
of November 27, 1968, not available in project files.)
The Secretary was apprised as follows:
1, A comprehensive review of the application for recertification
of the workable program submitted by the
city of Charleston under the date of November 18,
1968, had been completed.
2. Substantial discrepancies in the program had been
noted, some of which were alluded to by the councilman
in his correspondence of November 27. (Letter of
November 27, 1968, not available in project files.)
3. The Mayor of Charleston would be informed that processing
of the application for recertification had
been suspended pending clarification of these discrepancies.
In an effort to expedite the receipt of this
information, the director of the workable program
branch would schedule a field visit to Charleston,
Inciuirv
January 8, 1969--Letter from the president of TIC to HUD's
region II advised it that:
1. The transfer of the HUD employee who attended the October
22, 1968, meeting in Charleston would be helpful
to all concerned.
2. Both the Citizens Advisory Committee and its Urban
Renewal Subcommittee were not allowed to advise or
review the Triangle project at any time. Also, the
Urban Renewal Subcommittee had only one regularly
scheduled meeting during 1968.
3. Agreement had not been reached between TIC and CURA
on the Triangle project.
ENCLOSURE
Page 20
&ency action
January 17, 1969--HUD's region II acknowledged receipt of the
letters dated December 6, 1968, and January 8, 1969, from the
president of TIC and advised him as follows:
1. Final approval of the part I applrcatron for the Triangle
project had not been given by HUD's region II
and, at CURA's request, it was returned for the purpose
of makrng changes.
2. HUD's region II required very early in the planning
of the Triangle project that the area between
Clendendin and Court Streets be included in either
the Triangle project or the Government Square Project.
CURA had determined that clearance and redevelopment
would be appropriate for this area.
3. Regarding the HUD employee who attended the October
22 meeting in Charleston, HUD had reconfirmed its
belief in the employee's professional objectivity toward
the Charleston Urban Renewal Project.
HUD's region II felt that a personal meeting would be helpful
in answering the presrdent's questions as well as explarning
the Federal position in the renewal program.
Inquiry
January 17, 1969--By letter this date, HUD's region II was
informed by the Secretary of the Intra-City Council of Neighborhoods
that on January 14 the council voted to oppose HUD's
approval of the Triangle project for the following reasons.
1. The local renewal commissioners did not represent the
working-class residents of the project area.
2. These commissioners and the mayor had suppressed any
study or action on the project by the Citizens Advisory
Committee.
3. The project-- the third nonresidential renewal project
in the CRP--proposed the clearance or partial clearance
of all eight of our affilrated neighborhoods.
4.
5.
6.
7.
ENCLOSURE
Page 21
The council desired the neighborhoods to be improved
not cleared.
The greatest need was for better housing but not for
housing of the type proposed by the project which was
mainly rental or public housing that was of a much
higher density than that wanted by the neighborhood
residents.
The relocation claims of CURA were obviously false,
The public housing authority cannot accept persons in
housing condemned by housing inspectors in north
Charleston and the rent-supplement housing claimed to
be ready by July 1969 had not been started.
Agency action
February 6, 1969--BUD's region II acknowledged receipt of the
secretary's letter and advised her that HUD's region 11 had
no reason, at that time, to find fault with the Triangle
project program.
Inquiry
February 6, 1969--By letter this date, the president of TIC
requested the Secretary of HUD to reject the recertification
of the Charleston workable program because it did not meet
HUD's Citizen Participation Guides.
Agency action
February 14, 1969--HUD central office acknowledged receipt of
the letter from the president of TIC and advised him that
representatives from HUD's region II went to Charleston in an
effort to resolve the questions that had been raised in connection
with its review of the cityfs application for recertification
which included questions about the citizen participation
element.
Incruirv
February 7, 1969--Letter from Senator Byrd to an Assistant
Secretary of HUD requested current information, as well as
ENCLOSURE
Page 22
advice, regarding the frnal determination of recertification
of the workable program for Charleston.
Agency action
February 14, 19&S)--HUD central office acknowledged receipt of
Senator Byrd's letter and advrsed him that representatives
from the HUD region 11 office had vlsrted Charleston and had
discussed with city officials the questions that had been
raised during the review of the application for recertiflcation.
City officials Indicated that they would provide the
additional lnformatlon needed to resolve these questrons.
hwuiry
ENCLOSURE’
Page 23,
February 7, 1969.-Letter from Senator Byrd to an Assistant
Secretary of HUD forwarded correspondence received from the
Treasurer of Charleston. The Senator requested I-IUD to review
the situation described in the Treasurer's letter and to advise
him accordingly. The Treasurer's letter, in addition to
having as an enclosure a copy of HUDss rejection of the work
able program dated arch 1, 1968, informed the Senator as
follows:
1. A city councilman had been notified by HUD that consideration
of Charleston's workable program had been
suspended pending further investigation.,
2. A team of four men from HUD had visited Charleston as
a follow-up to the suspension. The outgrowth of this
visitation was not known; however, there was soma fear
that HUD might waive two of the original deficiencies
noted in March 1968. The items involved were the (3RP
and the Citizens Advisory Committee.
3. The Treasurer was of the opinion that the main effort
in Charleston appeared to be aimed at waLvfng ERJD1s
requirements which would lower the standards,
Agency action
February 26, 1969--HUD central office acknowledged receipt of
the letter from Senator Byrd and advised him as follows:
1.
2.
3.
Negotiations with Charleston over the recertification
of its workable program had been going on for alaaost
a year.
At a recent meeting with city officials, HUEIts re- '
gion II felt that reasonable understandings had been
reached on the actions to be taken by the city before
recertification could be approved.
HUD considered it more important that a workable program
be continued than to insist on rigid requirements
which could result in no workable program and the denial
of Federal aid for which a program is a prerequisite.
ENCLOSURE
Page 24
Related agency action
February 12, 1969--By memorandum this date, BUD's region II
Relocation Division reported to the workable program section
of region II that it was the region's opinion that many of the
complaints and recommendations of the citizens of Charleston
had merit and the Relocation Division strongly supports that
the following procedures be made mandatory for the city to
comply with.
The city had to demonstrate the feasibility of relocation because
of displacement caused by all Government action within
the community. The demonstration required (1) the identification
of an agency or agencies responsible for relocation
services and assistance including payments and (2) the immediate
employment of staff for this agency. In addition, the
Relocation Division detailed certain requirements which must
be met for the current workable program to be recertified.
February 14, 1969--Letter from HUD"s region II to the Mayor of
Charleston, confirmed a meeting held in the mayor's office on
January 28, 1969, concerning the recertification application.
The items requiring clarification and positive action on the
part of the city, before recertification can be approved,
dealt with codes and ordinances, planning, and relocation.
February 28, 196%-HUD's region II memorandum to the files
concerned a conference held in its office on February 26,
1969, between regional office personnel and a special committee
from the city of Charleston. The memorandum stated that
the most important points of the discussion were (1) validity
of the local planning agency's relocation report on the Triangle
project and (2) the possibility of having the TIC sponsor
low- and moderate-income housing.
Inquiry
February 28, 1969--Letter from Senator Jennings Randolph to
HUD's region II requested a status report on the Triangle
project and comments on the results of the conference held in
. ENCLOS&?'k
Page 25
the regional office with a special committee from the city of '
Charleston.
Apency action
March 14, 1969~-HUD's region II reply to Senator Randolph"s
letter set forth the status of the Triangle project and also
commented on the results of conferences held on February 26
and Mrch 11 with members of the city of Charleston.
Inquiry
With respect to a meeting held at the HUD region II Office on
February 26, 1969, the following agency action resulted. Ir
Agency action
I&r& 5, 1969--Letter from H13Dssre gion II to the Mayor of
Charleston concerning the meeting held in its office set forth
the major points of difference that still existed as follows:
1.
2.
3.
IJyuiw.
The feasibility of relocation. I
The designation of TIC or some other nonprofit orga-'
nization as a sponsor for the Federal Housing tiministration
mortgage insured low- and moderate-income
housing0
Minor changes to the Urban Renewal Plan or adjustment'
within the plan, such as the development of the hous
ing site by the Local Housing Authority.
krch 6, 1969--Letter from the president of TIC to HUD"s re-'
gion II set forth TIC's impressions and detailed comments on
the Cm's reply to HUD's letter of January 2, 1969, and the
city's new relocation section R-223.
Agency action
April 9, 1969~-HUD*s region II acknowledged receipt of the
letter from the president of TIC and advised him of the developments
which had taken place, regarding the Triangle project,
Page '26
subsequent to the date of his letter. Further, HUD did not
feel that it would be proper to comment, at this time, on the
issues raised in the president's letter because they will be
the topic of discussion at a proposed meeting between CURA's
planner and TIC's planner in the HUD region II office.
ENCLCSUKti
Page 27
*
Inqtirv
March 24, 1969--letter from Senator Byrd to Hulls region II,
forwarded correspondence (dated March 19, 1969) received from
several residents of Charleston. These residents contended
that they had been denied admission to the city's public
housing because sf a Federal Urban Renewal Project. Senator
Byrd requested Buds region II to report on the above situation.
Agency that
Charleston's 100 units of elderly public housing will provide
adequate relocation housing for that project's 49 elderly
families and 25 elderly individuals. Page #12 and #13 of the
relocation plan for West Virginia R-21 states that 30 elderly
homeowners and 167 elderly tenants are eligible for public
housing. However, page #3 of the URA response to the Regional
Office's letter of l-2-69, concerning relocation,
states that in 15 months the entire turnover in the 100 percent
occupred elderly public housing project was 5! Clearly,
relocation of the Triangle's elderly is impossible as W.Va.
R-21 now stands.
The use of public housing turnover for the non-elderly,
as projected by the URA, 1s also highly questionable. For
example, page #4 of 7212.1, Chapter 2, Section 2 of the Urban
Renewal Handbook asks (Item #6) for a statement by the housing
authority concerning admission requirements other than income
and family size. The letter submitted by the URA from the
Charleston Housing Authority does not answer this question.
The facts are that unwed mothers still have problems entering
the city's public housing, families with several generations
living together (an Appalachian tradition) are not eligible,
nor are flfamiliesf' of unrelated persons or families with pets
(another Appalachian tradition). Also the March 31, 1969
Housing Authority report lists a turnover of only 26 percent,
/
APPENDIX III i *
Page 9
lower than the URA's estimate. It should be pointed out that
most of this turnover is in the Orchard Manor Project, the one
furthest from the Trrangle and downtown jobs, and in the poorest
physical condition of all Charleston's projects. It also should
be pointed out that page #16, Item 6, of the "workable programI'
section on relocation states only 22 percent of the city's
public action displacees will be taken care of by public housing.
In addition the Housing Authority figures used on page 112
of the WURA Response I0 to the Region #2 letter of l-2-69 shows
a steadily falling public housing turnover over the last 10
years, which is not properly projected by the DRA in its relocation
plan. Also, since the same page shows twice as many
persons applied for public housing over 10 years as there was
a turnover, It is plain that at best public housing turnover
for Triangle displacees only prevents other needy persons from
obtaining decent housing, while public demolition of housing
has cut the turnover rate down as the private market becomes
tighter.
It should also be pointed out that most of the new ndnelderly
public housing proposed for Charleston is years away
because of the Housing Authority's rejection of Turnkey methods
and its running into vigorous opposition from community groups
due to its insisting on large (for Charleston) projects of at
least 100 units in a few neighborhoods, instead of the scattered
site policy urged on the Authority by a Special Committee
of the City Council.
The 13th page of the relocation plan for the Triangle
Project states that 5 families with 8 or more members have incomes,
('. e . sufficient. . . to obtain housing with little or
no difficulty." Most of these families are Negro and this
statement shows a total lack of understanding of the current
housing problems facing local large families, especially if
they are Negro. This same page says 8 other large families
will be housed in the yet to be constructed Rent Supplement
projects. The accompanying chart in the relocation plan does
not, however, indicate bedroom sizes large enough to house
these families and, of course, none of these projects are in
the Triangle.
Page 3 of the "Cm Response" shows that the%verage'l
sales price ($20,732) of homes sold by the Multiple Listing
APPENDIX III
Page 10
Service, is far above the reach of most Triangle families.
This lrsting of private sales housing as a relocation resource
neglects to mention that the local M.L.S. is not citywide,
but is county-wide, with most of its listings not even
being in the city limits. Many of its more reasonably priced
listing are in Nitro and other areas far removed from
Charleston. The slindependent real estate brokerOt referred to
on page #4 of the %JRA Response" who estimates some 100 housing
units for sale under $lQ,OOO does not state that these
units meet H.U.D. relocation standards.
We also point out that page $117, item 8 of the "workable
program'l submission states (based on a Postal Survey) that
Charleston has a vacancy rate of only 2 percent which likely
is accurate. This is especially rmportant since it incluces
the large number of substandard dwelling units m the city.
We submit that this "real estate brokers" statement and similar
remarks in the city's "workable program" papers concerning
sales housing available for persons earning under $3,000 are
grossly inaccurate or out-of-date, as 1s the turnover rate
listed in the sVHousing Dimensionstt study.
3. Refusal to use available relocation site and help keep
community members in the community they know.
The refusal of the URA to make any effort to develop an
"open lands grant" renewal project on 9 acres of vacant land
next to the proposed Triangle project is arbitrary and demonstrates
Its lack of intention to allow the Negro residents of
the area to remain. in this part of town. Region f2 Director
Phelan suggested the URA apply for an "'open lands grant," on
April 25, 1969. This land is owned by apprlvate out-of-state
firm that may build a new water filtration plant that likely
will triple all local water bills. Overwhelming support for
using this land for housing was registered at a public hearing
held on this matter in February, 1969. However, the URA still
refuses to consider this site. This vacant land had some 300
Triangle residents cleared from it in 1966 and no action to
obtain Public Service Commission approval to build on this
site was taken until almost 3 years later, after local ordinance
was introduced to rezone this land for housing. Obviously
no dire need for a new plant on that site exists or
.. 2 tt- ,I’r L
APPENDIX TII , ‘
Page 11
this delay would not have taken place. The qualified approval
by the State Public Service Commission to allow construction
on this land is now on appeal to the State Supreme Court. A
local non-profit organization stands ready, as does the AFLCIO,
to develop housing on this site which is acceptable to
the Triangle Community as a relocation resource. This site
also can and mustp be built on before residential clearance
is begun in the Triangle project.
4. Inadequate Relocation Staff and Survey Urban Renewal Authority
Director"s Prior Conduct.
The Technical Relocation Review Committee established
by the URA has not been effective due to among other things,
lack of cooperation by several agencies supposed to be supporting
it. The enclosed document will explain some of the problems
connected with this committee.
The hiring, training, and actions of the U.R.A. relocation
staff have been and are inadequate. The staff for the
Triangle and Government Square projects were not hired from
those areas, although a number of local residents have applied.
The training program for this staff was inadequate and included
a session with the Executive Secretary of the Charleston
Chamber of Commerce, the only local organization to support the
Triangle Project. On the other hand, the U.R.A. solidly rejected
an offer by the Director of the neighborhood anti-poverty program
to allow its experienced housing staff to assist in its
training. Instead, anti-poverty activities and "minority group
considerations@' were covered by the director of an all-white,
middle class, United Fund organization.
Meanwhile, the U.R.A. staff is attempting to pressure residents
into leaving the project area even before H.U.D. approval
of W.Va. R-21. It should be added that the lqworkable program"
statement on page 912, item l-A, to the effect that the Triangle
Improvement Council helped train the U.R.A. relocation staff is
simply untrue!
Administration of the relocation program of West Virginia
R-21 will be under the general direction of the URA Director,
Eric Hemphill. This Mr. Hemphill is the same man forced to
leave Kingston, New York by H.U.D.*s Region I, in 1967, for
APPENDIX III
Page 12
his failure to properly rehouse a Negro community there which
he was in charge of displacing as director of New York R-107.
Mr. Hemphill had his slaary cut off by Region l,, as well as
all urban renewal funds, as a result of his mismanagement of
that project. The City Council voted to cut off all support
of the renewal authority there and question of money as well
as relocation were raised by the C.U.R.E., N.A.A.C.P., Congressman
Joseph Resnick, and numerous councilmen. Mr. Hemphill
has never admitted to any mistakes in Kingston and gives every
indication he will perform in the same overeager, inefficient,
and insensitive manner in Charleston as he did in Kingston.
In Kingston Mr. Hemphill projected relocation in private sales
housing and public housing turnover which did not pan out. He
appears to be about to repeat this mistake in Charleston.
Klngston lost its Negro councilman as a result of Hemphill's
disruptive efforts there, which also is likely to take place
in Charleston. His word can surely not be taken on matters
connected with relocation, as it was at first in Kingston.
It might be pointed out that a problem in Kingston was
the failure of the URA there to insist that firms It did buslness
with observe their contracts with the URA in areas-ithat
would protect the general public Interest, and Charleston already
has had that problem also. For this reason it is,drfficult
to feel confident about CURA promises concerning reloeation,
staging, and reuse, even when set down in writing,, under
the current CURA administration. :
* e
The insistance by Mr. Hemphill on smaller bedroom sizes
for public housing in West Virginia R-21 than recommended by
the HUD Regional Office is another indication that the URA does
not intend for the larger Negro families now in the project
area to return. Mr. Hemphill supports fewer large bedrooms in
the proposed project, although his own survey shows, that 10
of 15 families requiring 5 or more bedrooms in W.Va. R-21 are
Negro. Mr. Hemphill also had a dispute over bedroom sizes
with the housing authority in Kingston, it should be noted.
5. Destruction of Community Leadership
The relocation plan is discriminatory in that it plans
to take all standard housing (mostly owner occupied) and major
Negro community institutions at early stages of the project.
- .
APPENDIX III
Page 13
Taking the homeowners housing first for temporary relocation,
as proposed in the staging plan, and clearing the John F.
Kennedy Center, Community Resource Center and Metropolitan
Baptist Church during Stage B will have the effect of shattering
the existing community leadership and social programs at
just the time the area most needs such trusted leadership of
individuals and institutions to minimize the disruptive aspects
of the project. The fact that no new housing or community
facilities will be built for several years after, further
compounds the disruptive effects of this planning for
carefully worked out clearance. This issue is further compounded
by the refusal of the Renewal Authority to hire community
residents on its relocation staff and the refusal of
the city's Mayor to appoint an area resident trusted by the
community, Henry Haynes, to one of two recently filled vacancies
on the U.R.A. 1 r
6. Conclusion: The Prepared Relocation Plan Is a Sham
No acceptable relocation housing exists in the Charleston
area for moderate and low income families, especially if they
are Negro. The staging for the project area will remove the
larger families, who are mainly Negro, first and they will be
the most difficult families to relocate. In fact, the city
does not intend to relocate many Triangle families as clearly
stated by Mayor Dodson on September 9, 1969, who said that
Charleston would lose some 3,000 persons in the next few years
as a result of urban renewal and other public actions. The
city planning director has earlier stated that urban renewal
and other public projects would remove people from the city
entirely. Consider also the enclosed news clip that states
that Union Mission, a welfare agency that works with low income
persons in private housing, will not longer be needed
because, It. . . the revitalization of the Triangle will eliminate
the need for the mission's activities in the area."
Note also the Mayor's explanations of the traditional city
policy for people displaced by Governmental action, city's
obligations under its "workable program" agreement. This
lack of understanding appears to make fair application of
Federal relocation requirements under the current City Administration
extremely unlikely. The relocation plan for west
Virginia R-21 is,
its residents.
in reality, a "final solutiontl for many of
APPENDIX 111-4.
Page 14
B. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Summary
We shall demonstrate that:
1. Proposed relocation plan will produce new ghetto communities,
The present integrated community will be replaced by an all-white
community with, perhaps, a few upper class Negroes from outside
of the project area.
2. Taken in combination with city assisted action in connection
with the adjoining Water Company land and the state and federal
action adjoining the area, the Highway Projeat, this federal and
local action amounts to an annihilation of all of the Negro component
of a community and is clearly a deprivation of equal protection
of the laws with respect to said persons. \
3. There is discrimination against Negroes by virtue of the manner
in which all Negro businesses in the area are scheduled for
clearance and certain white businesses are not so scheduled; with
the location of the business not a factor,
In the re:use plan private clubs'that discriminate against-
Negroes shall receive land for use, for example9 as a parking loPt .
4. No provisyons have been made for equal opportunity employment
programs in connection with the plan. , * .
5. Minority group considerations should have been met and were
not. , t
6. The urban renewal authority's relocation staff had only taken
Negro representation while qualified Blacks from the community
were turned down.
7. Minority group leaders who have questioned aspects of the
project have been publicly attacked and maligned by the CURA
Chairman and have been refused information regarding the project
which should have been made public in any event.
8. Representations in the proposed plan that discrimination in
housrng will be avoided by the existence of the Charleston Human
Rights ordinance, sale of FHA homes, the Minority Group Subcommittee
of the Citizens Advisory. Subcommittee, the Charleston
.
APPENDIX III
Page 15
Human Rights Commission and the Housing Committee of the Citizens
Advisory Committee although seeming impressive, are no protection
at all upon close examination of each of these items.
A. Nkw Ghettos To Be Created B
We believe the relocation housing proposed for thd lower income
residents of the project area, both within and without the
project area will end up being racially segregated. The F'HA Commissioner
has indicated that the Hanna Drllve rent supplement project
is to be a major relocation resource for lower income Triangle
residents. Since other rent supplement projects planned for the
city either will have few large bedroom units or not be timely
built, this seems especially true.
The staging of clearance in the Triangle project is such that
the area north of Washington Street (overwhelmingly Negro) is to
be cleared before any relocation housing will have time to be constructed
in the project area. Thus, the Negro residents will
likely be forced to use their displacement certificates to enter
Hanna Drive, thus making it a mainly Negro project. The staging
calls for clearance of the "white" part of the project area
(south of Washington Street) late enough in the clearance scheduel
so that new housing is likely to be coming avahlable in the
formerly "Negro" part of the area. These white famtlies will
thus have priority in this new housing and it will become nearly
all-white!
B. Deprivation of Equal Protection of Law and Massive Discrimination
Against A Black Community
The current Triangle Broject, as proposed, is part of a
three part public program to eliminate completely West Virginia's
largest mainly Negro neighborhood, the Triangle. The City of
Charleston provided zoning and free city land to allow a utility
company to clear 300 some residents and a Negro Church from
9 acres of the community, in 1965-66. During that time the
City and state agreed to coordinate the routing of an interstate
highway just south of the Water Company, to displace some 400
people and a number of Negro operated businesses. During that
time, too, plans were developed to complete the wipe out of this
community, through total clearance by urban renewal.
is politely called,
This policy
"A long needed shift in the city's population."
It is, simply, a policy of Negro removal. The northern edge of
the mainly Negro section of the Triangle was cleared of residents
APPENDIX III
Page 16
by the West Virginia Water Company, after the City of Charleston
gave it city owned land in the area and needed zoning. Interstate
Highway #77 is proposed to dislocate a strip of black and low income
white housing immediately south of the Water Company land.
The proposed renewal project will complete this wipe out of the
black portion of the Triangle community.
C. Discrimination in Reuse Proposals
The Triangel Project still appears to intend to provide land
to two all-white private clubs, Deni Kedem Shrine and the Society
of Colonial Dames. No affirmative efforts have been made to require
these organizations to change their discriminatory membership
policies.
All Negro operated businesses in the project area are scheduled
for clearance, while several white operated firms, some
listed as having "deficiencies*' by the URA, will be allowed to
stay in the project. The widening of Court Street appears to
take Negro operated businesses on its east side and then swing
over to force removal of two Negro churches on its west side,
while allowing a white church on the east side of Court Street
to remain.
D. Lack of Equal Opportunity
No program for affirmatively promoting equal opportunity in
employment in the city's urban renewal projects or employing
training project area residents has been proposed by the City's
long range urban renewal program or the city's renewal authority.
In light of the long history of racial discrimination in the
city's building and construction trades, the failure of the
Charleston Community Renewal Program to even suggest specific
action in this area will surely mean a continuing of the same discriminatory
policies.
E. Minority Group Consideration Ignored
We believe the requirements of the "Minority Group Considerations"
contained in Chapter 1 of RHA 7207.1 of the Urban Renewal
Handbook should have been and were not met.
The staging of the project will have the effect of decreasing
the housing available to minority group families within the project
area to an extreme degree.
APPENDIX III
Page 17
Banns Drive already has a large percentage of Negro families
and is not a %e+ area for Negro residents.
The entire Community Renewal Program of the City will contribute
to a concentration of Negro and low income families in
one section of Charleston, the North Charleston neighborhood.
Page B-5 of Chapter 3 of the CRP proposes 2500 new low or moderate
income homes be concentrated in a 97 acre area, surrounded by
three existing or proposed public housing projects. Hanna Drive
is in this area also.
City officials have stated, in writings that this area will
be the "relocation resource *I for Wertz Avenue and other minority
neighborhoods to be cleared later which will result in an increase
of racial and economic segregation. In addition to three
other renewal projects (General Hospital, Lewis Street, and
Stockton Street) are proposed to clear or partically clear mainly
Negro neighborhoods. Page 19 of the C.R.P. summary section proposes
for two minority group neighborhoods that, I'. . .Coal Branch
Heights and Wertz Hollow need to be either abandoned or cleared
and redeveloped." This and other parts of the Community Renewal
Program make it plain that the relocation of Triangle residents
in Hanna Drive, Orchard Manor, and a new low rent public housing
project approved for West Washington Street, are part of a city
program of building a ghetto in North Charleston in complete opposition
to the intent of HUD minority consideration.
F. Minority Group Leaders
Minority group leaders who have continued to question the
Project have been publicly attacked by the URA Chairman and have
had difficulty in obtaining information about the project. Most
recently the city's council-man-at-large, who is Negro, was refusedaccessto
U.R.A. files by its chairman. Attempts by minority
group leaders to propose modifications of the project have been
rejected and their use of technical help bitterly attacked by
the U.R.A. Chairman.
G. Renewal Agency Plans to Prevent Racial Discrimination in Rekiousing
A Sham
Pages 4'10 and #ll of the January, 1969, relocation submission
of the Charleston Urban Renewal Authority list a number of safety
guards against racial discrimination in relocation housing.
APPENDIX III
Page 18
Closer examinations, however, will show these exhibits are either
ineffective or of limited effect. The URA claims, for example,
that the Charleston Human Rights Ordinance will insure equal opportunity
in housing. However, no breakthrough has taken place
in Charleston's segregated housing patterns since passage of this
ordinance, no case of housing discrimination has been pushed to
the "hearing" stage, and the ordinance exempts those rental units
most suitable for families with children. Also, many of the Mulitple
Listing Service homes are outside the city of Charleston,
and neither the state, county, or nearby cities have fair housing
laws.
The URA also claims that discrimination will be dealt with by
the Minority Group Subcommittee of the Citizens Advisory Committee.
Charleston has no Minority Group Subcommittee of its C.A.C.
The U.R.A. claims the Housing Subcommittee of its Citizens
Advisory Committee also is concerned with stopping housing discrimination.
This subcommittee is almost totally inactive, like
the entire Citizens Advisory Committee structure. We quote
Samuel Hawthorn of H.U.D. Region #Z's "workable prograni"' sectlon,
who wrote Mayor Dodson on 8-21-69, about the C.A.C," . . . it appears
that few subcommittee meetings have been held. . ":-I6'
Also, we point out that the staff of the Charleston Human
Rights Commission is not closely tied to the housing activities
of the U.R.A. relocation staff and is not even a member of its
Technical Reloca1.ion Advisory Committee.
Under these circumstances we feel certain that nondiscrimination
in housing cannot be insured in the current Charleston
urban renewal relocation proposals and that current plans will
produce bigger black ghettos than now exist.
.I
APPEND;X III ' ;I
Page 19
C. LAND REUSE
Summary
1. The project borders do not provide reasonable protection
against blighting influences and are illogical and arbitrary.
2. The decision for almost total clearance of the area was
arbitrary and unnecessary. The Authority's own studies differ
materially on the question of the condition of the structures
to be cleared.
3. The refusal to permit residential rehabilitation was arbitrary
and unnecessary.
4. The refusal to allow businesses to upgrade themselves
was arbitrary. Condition of some businesses slated for clearance
are undistinguishable from others spared clearance and
no significant differences in location are involved.
5. The zoning aspects of the reuse plan are in conflict
with the City's Comprehensive Plan for the area.
6. Reuse of part of the project area for scattered site
public housing, "turnkey" housing, or l'leased'l public housing
was arbitrarily refused. National goals for low and moderate
cost housing in the reuse of the site will not be met.
7. Potential shift of an adjoining Interstate Highway route
might require an entirely new reuse plan.
Discussion
1. Project Boarders do not Provide Reasonable Protection
Against Blighting Influences and are Illogical and Arbitrary
Reuse borders of the Triangle proposal violate guidelines
set forth in RHA 7224.1, Chapter 1. They do not provide
reasonable protection against blighting influences. For
example, across Quarrier Street from Block 832 is a section
of badly deteriorated structures that are not part of any
public improvement project and certainly should be.
APPENDIX III
Page 20
Blocks #2A and #2B appear to have been arbitrarily included
in this project in order to remove residences rn favor
of specially favored nonresrdentlal reuses, a parking lot for
the Beni Kedem, land for a historrcal burlding for the Colonral
Dames, and warehouses for certain public and/or private firms
In the center of a valuable downtown area.
The Renewal Authority insrsts on leaving a blighting Influence
In the middle of the project area. This is Washington
Manor, an aging housing project of cinder block and brick. The
URA has refused to dxscuss renovating and landscaping this
eyesore, despite requests by area residents and an April 25,
1969 offer by l%~. Phelan of financial aid from H.A.A.
The boundaries of the project are illogical and arbitrary.
Blocks #2A and #2B, plus Block #32 appear to have been
arbrtrarlly included In this project.
2. Decision For Almost Total Clearance Was Arbitrary and
Unnecessary I
The decrsion to clear all residences and most business
from the project area was arbitrary and predetermined by the
local renewal authority. The U.R.A. made a "Soclo-Economic
Diagnostic Survey" In 1966 which reports (on Page #6) that
272 dwelling units are "standard" and 357 are "substandard."
A survey by Balzer and Associates, however, done In 1967 lists
some 94 percent of the area's structures as, "with deficiencies
requiring clearance."
We contend the vast differences between the URA9s two
studies, as well as actual facts, are the result of a predetermined
declsxon to recommend total clearance of the project's
residential area, which effected the Balzer survey.
An lndrcation of the CURA’s mentality and accuracy 1s an
updated map by the CURA pin pointing "substandard properties,"
dated January, 1969, whxch shows two properties as "substandard"
that have been demolished for over two years. It also
shows a number of properties, "with deficiencies requiring
clearance" that other consultants contend are far from such
condition.
APPENDIX III ' -l' ~
Page 21
3. Arbitrary Refusal to Permit Residential Rehabilitation
We feel It is significant that the URA totally disregarded
Jason Nathan, the former Regional Director of HUD, when he suggested
consideration of rehabilitation for the land between the
Government Square Project and Lee Street. We contend the U.R.A.
has been arbitrary in rejecting all requests for some rehabilitation,
as authorized in RHA 7210,1, Chapter 1, Section 1, which
mentiones that, 98 o a D a clearance area may include incidential
rehabilitation . o . of individual properties."
Total clearance of residential properties will discriminate
against the homeowners of the project area, will clearly cause
a net decrease in home ownership in the project area, whose hard
earned and generally good condition housing will be wiped out
at the very time In life when most of these homeowners can least
afford to purchase a new house, In addition, total clearance
will, as Regional Administrator Phelan put it on May 15, 1969,
give the community the feeling" e D o of being swallowed up . . e
by the new."
We contend the refusal of the URA to consider residential
rehabilitation for social reasons to preserve area home owners
to be both arbitrary and discriminatory.
4. Arbitrary Refusal To Allow Businesses to Upgrade Arbitrary
Scheduling For Clearance
The decision of the URA to allow certain businesses to
remain in the project area and to force others to be cleared,
no matter what investments they are willrng to make to upgrade
their properties, is, we insist, arbitrary and amounts to outright
favortism. An example of this is block d/l1 where, as the
enclosed will show, all parties concerned (HUD, Unity Housing,
and Harry Barton) are willing to consider allowing the present
owner to upgrade the property, except the URA. Another example
is a substantial building on the corner of Lee and Truslow Streets
(West Virginia Business Forms) which does not have, "deficiencies
requiring clearance,'* is to go while another structure (Park
Pontiac) down Washington Street, "with deficiencies" is to be
allowed to stay.
APPENDIX III
Page 22
A tire company (Goodrrch) listed as being, "with deficiences"
and a similarly listed property on Reynolds and Lee
Streets are slated to stay while other tire companies and
businesses lacking, "'deficiences requiring clearance,'D are
required to be cleared. Another question is why every service
station in the project is scheduled for clearance except a
certain "Gulf" station on Lee Street,
We suggest your office seriously investigate charges
raised on the floor of City Council that a number of the exempted
properties were so classified because persons interested
in them are closely connected with the cltyss dominate political
faction as well as our charge that these exemptions unfairly
protect certain busrnesses at the expense of others.
Certainly many of the properties listed for clearance are indistinguishable
by condition from those to be spared and their
location does not explain their being recommended for clearance.
A specific example 3s the proposed retaining of a building marked
even by the URA as having deficiencies which was indicated for
clearance in a study made by a TJRA consultant firm. Park Pontiac
is now scheduled to remain.
5. Reuse PlanIs Conflict with Comprehensive Plan c/
The planned residential reuse is discriminatory and‘;undesirable
and in conflict with Charlestonss Comprehensivet
Plan. Chapter 1, page 46 of the revised and approved Comprehensive
Plan states, "Ihe Triangle Project . . . redevelopment
will be predominatly for medium density housing." However,
over neighborhood opposition which was based on this point, the
City Adminlstration pushed through a rezoning that allows3high
densrty housing in all current resrdentral parts of the project
area. This clearly violates the provisions of RHA 7207.1,
Chapter $13, which states that the reuse plan should conform
to a city's master plan for development.
The high and medium density housing is discriminatory because
the residents of the project area, and low income persons
in the Charleston area in general, are Appalachians used
to low density housing in general. They have demonstrated
significant difficult in adjusting to housing that results in
families not having ground level entrances with lots of some
sort for their children. Orchard Manor Housing Project, in
--
APPENDIX III ' '
Page 23
the west part of Charleston, is a dramatic example of this
human problem. The URA has been totally insensitive to efforts
to increase the land areas for housing, so as to allow
for lower density housing, and has opposed suggestions for
financial approaches to deal with the alleged (but never documented
to the public) high cost of project area land. The
density planned for the project will likely lead to social,
psychological and law enforcement problems among its lower
income residents. Remember, our people are not used to the
densities of New York, Philadelphia or Detroit.
6. Scattered Site, Turnkey and leaded Public Housing Arbitrarily
Refused. National Goals For Low and Moderate
Housing Not Met
The DRA has not followed recommendations contained in
RHA 7207.1, Chapter 1, concerning use of scattered site, turnkey,
and leased public housing programs. The URA has rejected
community requests for leased housing or scattered sites in
the project area and refuses to list leased housing as a relocation
resource. Requests for Yeasing" and scattering have
repeatedly been presented at meetings with the URA by the
Triangle Improvement Council, rt should be added.
The project does not come up to the "National Goals*'
spelled out in the Urban Renewal Handbook as far less than
50 percent of the net acreage in the project is intended for
low or moderate cost housing. It should be considered, in
this matter, that a portion of the land designated for housing
reuse is intended for middle or upper income "high rise"
housing along the Elk River.
7. Reuse Plan Economically Unfeasible
We feel the entire reuse plan is overoptimistic and
cannot be supported by valid economic studies. Only two
studies are known to the public, the "Land Utilization and
Marketability Study" of 1967, by the Real Estate Research
Corporation and the 1968 Hammer, Greene, and Siler study,
"Economic Conditions and Potentials of the Charleston, West
Virginia CBD," On December 19, 1969, URA Chairman McJunkin
declared the Real Estate Research study was not valid. On
April 15, 1969, the City Planning Director declared the Hammer,
Greene and Siler study was "unreleased and incomplete.g'
APPENDIX III
Page 24
The "Land Utilization StudyEt proposed much commercial reuse of
land In the project, to relocate businesses dislocated by the %
Interstate Highways all over the Kanawha Valley. Such dislocation
and business relocation has, by now, already been completed.
The "Economic Conditions's study projected a needed growth in
Charleston's downtown busrness area due to a lack of suburban
land for shopplng center competition after the Interstate system
through Charleston is completed. We submit that the reuse
provisions for commercial, apartment residential and warehouse
uses are the result of informal agreements and commitments
by the URA to specific firms and Individuals, in violation of
HUD regulations concerning commitments prior to execution of
the project. We feel these commitments are the reason the URA
plans to turn a mainly residential area into a mainly nonresidential
project, over vigorous local opposition.
8. Potential Change In Hlghway Plan Might Require Entirely
New Reuse Plan
The location of Interstate Highway #77, proposed to pass
along the north edge of the project area3 is now under consideration
for a major shift rn location by the Department of-Transportation.
This will materially effect the planning of the
project area as well as potential land for relocation houslng.
If the highway is moved this will require extensive work?on the
proposal, since items such as taking the community's playground
for a dormitory for St. Francls!s nuns is justified by the current
highway allignrnent. The highway also figures in the proposed
financing of West Virginia R-21, it should be added, since
the State Road Conmzssion 1s slated to obtain certain land inside
the renewal area, under the reuse plan. _1
%:
APPENDIX III
Page 25
D, CITIZEN PARTICIPATIQN
Summary
1. The CURA has made clear that there would be no meaningful
citizen participation in the planning of the project,
in violation of the federal law and Regulations of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development,,
2, The Project Area Committee was "fired" en masse for
making suggestions and comments on prepared plans,
3, The work of the CURA has been carried on for the
most part in secrecy as far as the public is concerned0 The
Projest Area Committee, the Citizens Advisory Committee, Community
Groups, the City Council and members of the City Council
individually have been uninvolved in planned and at times,
prevented from even obtaining information about the project
and the U.R.A,
4. Conclusion, Citizens in general, and site occupants
in particular have been excluded from any meaningful role in
connection with the urban renewal plan and planning and will
continue to be so restricted.
1. The CUM Has Made Clear That It Will Not Tolerate
Citizen Participation
Charleston has traditionally had most of its decisions
made by a small group of influential meno This unhealthy trend
has been continued in the Urban Renewal Authority and is doubly
critical because the URA is planning its first project to
change a residential area into a non-residential area.
The total opposition of the Charleston U,R.A, to
meaningful citizen participation can be found expressed on
pages #7 and #8 of the YURA Response" which states, "Of
course, resident involvement in such aspects as planning 0 0 .
is not feasible," and, %ass Meetings ,, p e will Q D D not require
audience participation," The page #7 suggestion that
"resident involvement" should include picking up rusty nails
is further indication of their concept of citizen participation,
It should be pointed out that page #70 of the
APPENDIX III
Page 26
Charleston C.R.P.'s 'pSocial Dimensionsst study recommends that
renewal area citizens be involved in planning and even suggests
that local groups be allowed to hire advocate planners.
Such action by a local citizens group has been constantly attacked
in publrc by U.R.A. members.
2. ProJect Area CommIttee was fired en masse, in the
press, for rarsrng questions about certain aspects of the
plan.
Page #6 of the CURA Response states that the Triangle
Improvement Council has been allowed to select a Project
Area Committee. The fact is that the U.R.A, Chairman
"firedfv this group in a bitter press attack because its members
raised intelligent questions regarding aspects of the
plan vital to site occupants. These committee members have
never received official notice of "dismissals' and thus consider
themselves members of an expanded committee. At all
times the U,R.A. has shown its hostility toward any citizens
who question any of its activities. This includes public attacks
on advocate planners used by the local OEO delegate
agency and attacks on the President of the Triangle Improvement,
who happens to also be the elected Republican Commit..
teeman for the Triangle. 11
Meanwhile, the URA has hand picked another Project Area
Committee Pt thinks it can control, and refused to acknowledge
an elected PAC that represents a broad base of the TrianglePs
residents, along the lines suggested by the Region 7!!2
Administrator. This PAC announced in advance the meeting at
which it was elected it should be added. The latest URA
Project Area Committee has nine members, 3 of them ministers,
1 a state employee and 1 a member of the Urban Renewal Author-
1ty. No community meetings to select this group were ever
announced or held.
3. The Public Business of the URA is Carried On In
Studied Secrecy. It Does Not Even File Reports With
the Mayor and Council as Required By Law,
The activities and records of the U.R.A, are not
made public. The Triangle Improvement Council had to force
a confrontation to get a copy of the Triangle Renewal Plan,
APPENDIX III
Page 27
after first being refused a copy. Even this month the U.R.A.
refuses to provide information regarding the renewal plan to
a city councilman. Unlike any other city agencies URA meetings
continue to be closed to the press and the public.
Rumors are constantly making the rounds in Charleston
that the U.R.A."s "private" sessions are the scene of open
"deals" made by different commissioners on behalf of certain
parties that have approached them in private. If these rumors
were untrue they could easily be dispelled if the URA carried
on in public its business. We believe that release of plans
to the public in final, much less draft form, 1s the CURA's
minimum responsibality, as well as to operate publicly. We
believe that the Federal Information Disclosure Act requires
such publication and that the CURA, by withholding said information,
has violated the law.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the City Council
of Charleston had not seen the updated relocation plan at the
time of its public hearing on W.Va. R-21.
In addition, it should be noted that the URA has
violated West Virginia Law consistently by failing to provide
the Charleston Mayor and Council with annual reports of its
activities as required in Chapter #16, Article 18, Section 19
of the State Code.
4. Conclusion Citizens In General and Site Occupants
In Particular Have Been Exluded From Any Meaningful
Role in Connection With the Urban Renewal Plan and
Planning
Citizen wishes on the kind of housing they desire
are being completely ignored by the URA. A survey taken by
John F, Kennedy Center staff in February, 1969, showed that
66 percent of Triangle residents interviewed wanted the neighborhood
rehabilitated, not cleared and only 11 percent favored
clearance. Some 83 percent of residents interviewed desired
relocation within the Triangle if clearance did come, with no
persons wishing relocation into the North Charleston area.
62 percent of the people interviewed wanted individual or duplex
housing, and only 9 percent favored a housing project as
relocation housing, Finally 71 percent of the residents interviewed
desired to own their own home, while 26 percent
APPENDIX 1II
Page 28
supported housing operated by a local non-profit group. Both
the clearance, staging, and the reuse plan clearly ignore
these desires.
Recent public meetings and appointments connected
with urban renewal show the continued resistance of the Renewal
Authority to effective citizen participation. Lack of
"straightgg answers have angered project area residents at renewal
meetings and tensions are on the rise. The mayor refused
to appoint a highly qualified member of the Triangle Improvement
Council to one of two vacancies on the Renewal Authority,
even though this lndrvldual was supported by a petition with
several hundred names and had the support of the Charleston
Intra-City Council of Neighborhoods.
5. Lack of Approval By Local Governing Body, The Proposed
Urban Renewal Plan has never been properly approved
by the City of Charleston.
Resolutions required by RHA 7206.1, Chapter 2, Section
2 of the Renewal Handbook were never properly passed by
the Charleston City Council. The Charleston City Council approved
Part #l of West Virginia R-21 only on the condition
that a special committee, Including Negro residents of the
City, work out unresolved objections to the project and report
back to the Council wlthin 60 days. Mr. Phelan was a
party to this agreement. Unfortunate, the officrals on the
commrttee refused to agree to any compromises with the community
representatives, and no report was ever returned to
the Councrl. A rrinority report has, however, been prepared
by the president of the Triangle Improvement Council, Incorporated.
Consequently, the conditron upon which the plan
was passed has never been fulfilled and the approval is
negated.
The Council was not allowed to see the relocation
plan at the time of the public hearing before the Council.
One councilman requested a relocation plan and was given a
1968 version that claimed hundreds of rent supplement units
were built in 1968, which 1s not, of course, a fact.
There has, in addition, been material changes rn the
relocatron section due to a new (and we also suggest inadequate)
relocation survey.
1
APPENDIX III
Page 29
In addition, members of the Council were denied the
right to question the URA members at the public hearing and
at later meetings and thus were not adequately informed when
they finally voted their conditional approval. It should be
pointed out that all testimony at the hearing, on West Virginia
R-21 was opposed to the plan as proposed, and that this
opposition came from many varied group and individuals. We
submit the only reason conditional council approval was finally
granted was because Triangle Improvement Council President,
William Preston, agreed to such approval based on his
(at that time) belief in the good faith of the gtspecial committee"
that all concerned understood would reach acceptable
compromises on the points of concern to those who testified
against the project.
6. Failure of Workable Program
APPENDIX III
Page 30
Summary
Charlestonus Workable Program should be reconsidered and
certification withdrawn until material defects are corrected.
1. The failure of the City to perform in the area of
codes and code enforcement is known to HUD and has already
jeapordized certification of the program.
2. The total failure of the city to perform in the area
of citizen involvement should result in decertification until
actual steps are taken to activate and allow citizen involvement
in the manner required by HUD and required in the Urban
Renewal Manual.
3. In light of the totally inadequate relocation plans
for not only the Triangle Urban Renewal Plan as discussed
above but all of the other public improvement projects and
code enforcement, and particularly all of these activities in
combination - - we believe that certification for the Workable
Program must be reconsidered.
A. Failure in Codes and Code Enforcement Community Renewal
Plan Not Approved
3
Charleston has failed to meet the requirements concerning
codes required in Chapter 3 of RHA 7204.1? Qn August;21,
1969, Samuel Hawthorns of the Region #2 Workable Programssection
wrote l%yor Dodson about deficiencies in itsbuilding
code9 plumbing coc'e, housing code, and electrical code. 7
About the building code he stated, "Our review indicates that
certain provisions nationally recognized as Model Code st@ndards
are missing from Charleston's local Building Code.'l
Concerning the plumbing code &. Hawthorn said, "The following
deletions of Eaodel Code Standards should either be corrected
or justified." He commented on the city"s housing code, "Our
review indicates that certain provisions nationally recognized
as tide1 Codes standards are missing from Charleston's Housing
Code."' The electrical code drew this comment, "Prior to next
recertification the Electrical Code must be amended to require
the repair of existing hazardous wiring and electrical apparatus
. "
APPENDIX III
Page 31
We submit that the criticisms of Charleston*s workable
program submission by your assistant Regional Administrator
for Program Coordination and Services are of such magnitude
in the areas of codes,, citizen participation, and relocation
as to require reconsideration of your recent recertification
of Charleston's "workable program."
A comparison of this letter and Mr. Hawthorn's letter of
3-l-68, notifying Charleston of its original deficiencies
shows that in roughly 1 l/2 years the city has done very little
toward meeting HUD requirements in these areas, which
conflict with the traditions of Charleston's decision makers.
This background indicates little hope that the city will take
affirmative action on Mr. Hawthorn's recommendations. It
also raises grave questions as to how your regional office
could recommend recertification at all.
It should be added that Charleston's Community Renewal
Program has never been approved, even by the Planning Commission,
although its approval was one of ti. Hawthorn's original
requirements.
B. Failure in Citizen Involvement
The Citizens Advisory Committee and its Urban Renewal
Subcommittee for Charleston have never been involved in any
of the planning of either West Virginia R-17 or West Virginia
R-21. Nor have they been allowed any significant role in commenting
on these proposed projects before they were finalized.
Neither group has had the opportunity to vote its approval on
the Triangle Project, it should be added. This is lack of
activity, by the C.A.C., is referred to be the Region #2 office
of HUD in its recent correspondence about the Charleston
"'workable program." This lack of citizen participation
surely is a violation of both urban renewal and workable program
requirements and is likely a major reason the Triangle
Project is such an unworkable mess as now proposed.
Cl. Failure in Relocation
Please refer to the discussion above regarding relocation
for the Triangle Urban Renewal Plan. That Charleston
has no intentions of living up to its relocation housing
code, and other "workable program" obligations is well illustrated
by tiyor Dodson's recent fantical criticism of your
APPENDIX III
Page 32
Region #2 office for pointing out the city's "workable programD9
shortcomings. His statements indicating that he feels
the city can ignore the "workable program" requirements set
forth for the future because he has forced MY. Hawthorn to
back down on his code criticism, is typical of the intent to
ignore Federal requirements one can reasonable infer from the
current city administration under the present circumstances,
aanwhile, the city has continuing difficulties relocating a
handful1 of victims of housing code enforcement. Also in a
recent hearing before a Federal Court the West Virginia State
Road Commission was forced to list housing scheduled for
clearance by urban renewal and places of ill repute as relocation
resources for displacees from its proposed highway
projects. The SRC did a poor job of relocating persons to be
displaced by expansion of the state offlces in Charleston in
1967 and some of these families have yet to be displaced and
relocated at this late date.
The city has been only reluctantly granted certification
due to the very serious flaws in codes and code enforcement.
With the added knowledge of the failure in the Citizen Involvement
Section and the Relocation Section we belie@ that
certification must be withdrawn if the "workable progra-m" is
to have any real meaning. 1 '
APPENDIX III
Page 33
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above we respectfully request that
the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
allow us to present our evidence and arguments at any
time or any proceeding to prove further the allegations made
herein.
At the same time, because we believe that the material
presented herein constitutes sufficient grounds, we request
that the Secretary might, in lieu of further hearings reject
the application of West Virginia R-21 for urban renewal assistance
Charleston will after all, be hard put to properly
carry out its Government Squre Project (W.VA, R-17) under
present conditions.
Another possibility would be that they Secretary return
West Virginia R-21 to the Charleston Renewal Authority without
approval, spelling out conditions for changes in the plan
adequate to meet the objections here raised and requiring
positive action by the CURA to take the vacant West Virginia
Water Company land for an Open Lands Program to provide an
early source of relocation housing.
Further we request that Charleston's Workable Program,
previously certified for 1969-1970, be recalled and decertified
pending correction of the material deficiencies therein.