St. Paul recorder. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1962-07-20
Urban Renewed. A
Moral Challenge,
Article Claims


on which FILA. will insure a first
mortgage Of up to 80 per cent of
the cost Including a 10 per cent
profit for the builder developer
Recently, however, industrial and
commercial redevelopment ha s
been gaining in popularity with
operators, and an increasing pro-
portion Of federal and local funds
is being directed to that phase of
the program. The obvious moral
question: Is urban renewal a meth
cd by which slums are to be re-
placed with new middle-income
housing, or is 1t a publicly fin
anced gold mine for real estate
operators?
The Financing Formula
A closely related question con-
Germs the method of public fin
ancing. For the first IL years the
formula in use called for the local
public agency to pay one-third Of
the projects net cost, the federal
government two-thirds. Although
many people objected to the added
cost Of paying the freight to ship
those dollars to Washington only
to have them sent back" the
formula was generally accepted on
the ground that only through use
of federal funds would it be posi-
BILE to mobolize the financial re-
sources needed to set in motion a
program of such massive proper
tons as the housing situation re-
quired. Many observers maintained
that on both moral and practical
grounds an even larger proportion
of the cost should be assumed by
the federal government.
In the 1861 housing act the
formula has been slightly changed
AS more and more suburban com
munities became interested il
urban renewal, it was obvious tina
some communities could not fin
ance even one-third of the net cost
Thus an amendment was addet
; which provides that in larger cite
the local agency shall continue t
pay one-third of the net cost
while in suburbia Tor in any cit
with a population under $4,000
- the city will pay one one-fourtl
Thus those people who fled tn
central city to escape its financis
2 and social problems are now bein
y offered the advantages of urba
:. renewal at a bargain price. 1
e effect the federal government ha
d set up a discount house for sut
d urbanites interested in buying Ill
f ban renewal while continuing t
d charge the central city the FIJI
list price. Is not this an ethics
n question?
: Is SIum Clearance Really the
i Goal?
= Far more significant, from
I moral perspective, than the fir
n ancial question Though perhap
n less SPECTACULAR are others raise
e by the urban renewal process
e Take the selection Of areas 70
o renewal. The original program wa
g devised and approved by Congress
as a means of eliminating tn
q worst residential slums. Today
a little more than a decade later
> we find those slums being by
= passed and the emphasis placed o.
urban renewal as a means b.
4 which the tax base of the com
munity may be enlarged. Insteat
of using objective criteria for de
o ter1nining the worst slum areas a
r sites for the next renewal project
n planners more often select area.
}! which promise to attract the big
gest capital investment. Thus tn,
profit motive of the redevelope
is combined with the tax-consci
BUSINESS of local officials in de
!, termining which areas of the city
are to be renewed-a far cry from
the original intention on the bash
of which the program was sold t
Congress and the electorate.
s Or take the matter Of either
r participation, an integral elemen
in the mandatory seven-poin
e workable program" to be submit
: ted before a community can un
e dertake urban renewal: it has be-
e come pretty much of a dead Letter
: in many cities. All too often The
q real decisions are made by a select
r group of self-appointed business
e leaders and promoters who bring
to city hall a proposal which prom
e ises to clear some substandarC
0 buildings lat least enough to quail,
t ify for federal matching funds), tc
t increase the city's tax base, and
: incidentally to line the pockets Of
}. the shrewd redeveloper. Once the
y approval of city officials is secur.
0 ed, the only real remaining OBJ
lstacle is the federal urban renewal