Evening star., 1963-04-29
Revomping Urban Renewal

4Hc OlSCIlCI OOnHnlSSlOnerS muSL
approve any urban renewal project In
Washington before it can begin. They
also must contribute to its financing.
Yet they have virtually no control over
the basic processes Of urban renewal
operation. And this augmentation of
authority encourages an atmosphere Of
indecision and procrastination which is
responsible at least in part for the fact
that the wheels Of urban renewal In the
city today are barely turning.
This is the basic problem at which
the White House is shooting with its
proposed reorganization plan. Essen
TALLY, the present Redevelopment Land
Agency would be shifted as an entity to
the District government. The present
RIA citizen-member board Of directors
would disappear, with its place taken by
the three city Commissioners sitting as
a newly constituted board Of man
ayers" The Commissioners in short,
would be boss And this, we think, would
be good thing.
The fault in the present system is
not entirely with the system itself 1t
could work-if all those involved were
determined to make 1t work, and II each
were willing to assume his proper share
Of responsibility. The fact Is, however,
that this has not been the case. Among
both RIA and District Building officials
there Is a certain amount Of bullhead-
edness. Both are familiar with the art of
bureaucratic delay. And both, when it
has suited their purposes for one reason
or another, have practiced it. They have
been able to do so because there was no
one, to put it bluntly, who knocked their
heads together and told them to stop.
The effect Of the White House plan
on the Commissioners, therefore, would
be two-fold. 1t would give them the au-
thority they ought to have in view Of
their responsibility for urban renewal.
And, it would force them to assume a
role Of leadership which no one-the
Commissioners included-haS been either
willing or eager to assume before. This
portion Of the reorganization plan serves
useful purpose, and we support it.
Before sending its plan to Congress,
however, the administration should re-
consider the very questionable section
which would strip the National Capital
Planning Commission down to a weak
and Intellectual role
What is wrong with this? 1t is rath-
er silly, in the first place, to freeze out
the capable staff of renewal planners
which the NCPC has developed only
within the last few years. And we have
little doubt that this would happen
that the District Building very soon
would develop a full-fledged planning
staff Of its own, and that the NCPC
staff soon would find itself with nothing
to do. The NCPC already is working,
moreover, on comprehensive plan for
the city, geared to the needs Of 1885, an
essential part Of which will be urban
renewal planning on both city-wide and
individual neighborhood levels.
No doubt there would be a differ
ence II Washington were an ordinary
city. But Of course 1t is not. And as for
mer NCPC Chairman Woodruff noted
in opposing similar proposal two years
ago, urban renewal will reShape the
face Of the Nations Capital for many
years to come" In planning such de-
velopments here, conflicts inevitably
arise between the Federal interests and
the purely municipal interests in WASH
ington. Is 1t sufficient to leave the set
tlement Of such conflicts solely In the
hands of municipal officials2 We do not
believe that either the White House or
C0nOraee u0l1Id Nora DO so