Evening star., 1962-05-09
LETTERS TO THE STAR

Z AK
RedeVeIopment
In a recent letter Miss Su-
zanne Stallings quoted very
impressive figures on how
much more blighted areas
cost the taxpayer in police,
fire department, health and
welfare services. She does
not, however, quote any per-
centageS on how redevelop-
ment has helped to correct
this situation. 1t has in fact,
helped remedy the situation
not one iota.
AS witness the elaborate
slums (built at the taxpayers
expenSe) in the Southwest
area Of Washington. They still
look Just as dirty and un-
cared for as the houses that
were torn down. There has
been no reduction in the
amount Of money the tax
payer provides for police pro-
lection Git still is one Of the
worst precincts in the city,
nor, has there been any re-
duction in health and welfare
services. Which all goes to
prove one thing: it is the
people who live in the slums
that make the slums and as
long as they refuse to change
their way Of living there will
always be slums.
Helen M. SOuder.
= = q .
, Miss Stallings has missed
the whole point Of the "anti-
renewal" argument: that the
operation. as conducted, is
destroying the rights Of In
dividuals to own and possess
real property inviolate
against ell corners. In any re-
newal-threatened area, ones
title in fee simple, ito have
and to hold, to himself and to
his heirs and assigns for
ever" has become meaning
ess-almost a farce.
AS all interested parties
are well aware, the initial
renewal" project in South
west Washington condemned
properties and RACED struc-
lures wholesale and indis-
criminately, like a giant
scythe clipping every blade
and reed in its path. per
haps that area deserved it;
who can say?) As citizen pro-
tests mounted, subsequent re-
newal projects have become
more "selective," with the
"better buildings left stand
ing, and only the real
Slums" sold out from under
their owners ''in fee simple,
and heirs or assigns forever"
presumably, the fortunate
owners Of the better build
ings" have retained their "fee
simple" rights = for the
moment)
; It would have been possi-
BILE to conduct slum- clear
ance and renewal projects in
such manner as to protect
citizens property rights, in
the vast majority of these
cases. Within the framework
OF existing regulations for
minimum standards Of prop
erty maintenance, a better
job could have been done to
force owner compliance; and
or programs could have been
worked out for the making
Of loans - or even outright
grants TO owners, for the
purpose Of property renewal
or renovation.
Remember that urban re-
newal," as it actually works,
does indeed grant money to a
property owner" = to a
third party" the contractor,
who moves in with his re-
newal bid. The "windfall"
accruing to the redevelop-
ment contractor Is Of stupen-
dous monetary value, and
largely at Government ex-
pense.
Meanwhile, the property
rights of q thousand others
because they didn't have the
money for the instant prop
erty ''face-lifting" demanded
have been wantonly and
unconstitutionally violated.
(And, how long win the con-
tractor retain his rights" to
the rebuilt structures, once
this program has been gen.
orally accepted by the great
mass of citizens everywhere?)
Most of us like neat, clean
cities; few win argue in favor
Of the breeding places Of hui
man trash. But-''by their
fruits We shall know them;
and the fruits" of urban
renewal" make it abundantly
clear that the program is q
scheme to promote social
isrn-in-disguise.
Gilbert J. Brockman.