EY

11/4/109

are going to be in the way of a new approach to a bridge in Bayside. We established an office there so as to get acquainted with those people and let them know what the problem was. We find that they live there, but they work in the most outlandish places, and there is no accounting for them. One man said, "I don't know why you bother me with this, the thing that we need is a crosstown artery in Lower Manhattan." And I said, "Well, what is your interest in that?" "I have to go to work in Hoboken and I have to be there at 6:30 in the morning. It is so crowded getting across there that I have to leave Bayside at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning." It's rather difficult to tell that man; he wouldn't listen to you if you did.

MR. MOSES: You and David have been working for some time also on getting a place for the nurses and the staff of the various hospitals in the East Side of Manhattan, and some of us have been trying to help clear space, marginal or ~~some~~ standard housing. Our problem is moving people. The fact is that the people don't want to move, they want to stay in the neighborhood. Talk about the parochial schools and the churches....

MR. MOSES: You've got two movements, Nelson. You've got a movement into urban areas, tremendous movements going on; you've got another movement from urban to suburban, but still talking about urban areas distinction. The fact of the matter is that they are using urban in the broad sense. In concentrations of people, the tendency is to move to urban areas from the open areas.

11/4/110

MR. NELSON ROCKEFELLER: Coming into the suburbs as against the heart of the city. That partly fulfills what Mr. Bascom was talking about. Incentives over a period of time would guide people to other places rather than uprooting them.

MR. BASCOM: You put it much nicer than I did--any way, I was not talking about specifically uprooting people and moving them to Hoboken who should have been there in the first place.

DR. BRONK: In your consideration, Bill, the radius of your fall-out which would produce 10's of millions of deaths in any reasonably conceived attack, you've got to have them live a hell of a long way from the city.

MR. BASCOM: I'm a little dubious concerning the fall-out.

DR. BRONK: A certain study was made that can't be discussed generally, but...

MR. MOSES: May I interrupt you again, there is one area in New York City and I apoligize for using New York as an illustration but I use it because I know more about it. Some intelligent regional planning might be carried out on Staten Island. Staten Island has about 200,000 people. It's a great big area that's relatively unpopulated because of its inaccessibility. Before our new bridge is built, before the real estate movement which, as a matter of fact has unfortunately already started, some of us are hopeful that we can persuade people about the things they ought to do--in other words,

LYJ

11/4/111

not to make the mistakes which apparently have been made in the past. You
could have the devil's own time selling that idea. You can bend people in
a certain direction--they don't bend easily.

MR. HALABY: Could I ask a question? We seem to be caught be-
tween a counsel of perfection and a counsel of despair. I didn't feel, Mr.
Moses, that you offered a constructive proposal except to the City of New
York. Now as I understood his perspective, he's talking about the whole
of the United States and I was wondering whether you had any thoughts
with respect to the other 90% that you wanted to save--New Orleans, San
Francisco, Chicago and one or two other places. That's only 60% but still
he is talking about the United States and you are talking about New York.
You are despairing and he is perfecting.

MR. MOSES: I'm not talking about New York. I'm using New York
as an illustration. As far as the State of New York is concerned, I've
been an official for 33 years; I know something about it. In the second
place, I've been a consultant in practically every large city in the United
States and some abroad. So have the boys who work with me. So don't
get the idea that we are talking just about New York City. I use illustra-
tions from New York because I happen to be most familiar with that city.
The notion that the same logic doesn't apply elsewhere is nonsense. And
it isn't a counsel of despair either. We are living under certain conditions
today and you want to be practical and make common sense, and talk about
things that might conceivably happen--all right, if you just want to draw

Cy

II/4/112

pictures, that's all right to do.

MR. HALABY: ...it doesn't appear to us. You make two particular
suggestions. One, wings on hospitals and health centers, etc.; second,
with respect to public ways such as between Grand Central and Rockefeller
Center. That might serve a multi-purpose as an access and a shelter.
Would you translate those into, let's say Albany, Syracuse?

MR. MOSES: I'd translate it to apply in the case of hospitals, all
the hospitals which today in one way or another are getting federal aid. Or
if you like it better, all of those who are in one way or another, are getting
a big hand-out from the Ford Foundation which includes all of the smaller
hospitals in suburban and other communities. The hospital near where I live
on Long Island badly needs an addition, over and above what it has been
able to get.

MR. HALABY: I don't think any of that was for bricks and mortar --
to buildings on hospitals.

MR. MOSES: I happen to have been on one hospital board where
precisely that was done. (Jumble with everyone speaking at once)

MR. HALABY: What I'm referring to is that you couldn't get any
shelter out of that money. (More jumble)

CHAIRMAN: Shall we let Mr. Bascom make a few more comments here?

EYJ

11/4/113

MR. BASCOM: I want to say that I said I only reject certain cities "as a means of starting," simply because otherwise you end up talking only about New York when you discuss civil defense. Since New York represents such a large portion of the country--they can only talk about New York. Boston, New Orleans--I said that we would come back to those. As for the cost of shelters, I just heard about a project in New York which has a 700-car, two-level garage which cost $4 million dollars. And I calculate that a car takes up the space of about 2,000 cubic feet and by German standards during World War II, in which people were given one cubic meter of space apiece -- this comes to about 50 people per car. 700 cars--that is 35,000 people or roughly $100 a person if you shelter them similarly as the Germans were sheltered. Obviously, you couldn't get 35,000 people in the thing, but it seems to me that this agrees very well with what I said if you are talking about additional funds that might be put up by the federal government to help pay for these projects. There is one good reason for doing it. As for the cost of the Levittown shelters which has been estimated at 20 - 50% of the additional cost for Levittown. I am guessing that these houses cost around $12,000 each, and I think that shelters like the one I've indicated here might sell for $500 a piece. We will talk about 8% as a maximum instead of 20 - 50%.

MR. MOSES: I don't agree with you, and I don't think any builder would either. Just taking that figure out of the air--the figures we have to live with every day. I happen to be chairman of the slum clearance committee of New York. We are in a program now which is $600 million dollars--we've

11/4/114

learned something about building these different things.

MR. BASCOM: I'm just quoting your figures in using your own figures.

VOICE: I think Mr. Moses made the point of the question of ground conditions, drainage, etc., have a considerable effect on shelters underground location costs.

MR. BASCOM: I don't disagree. I just say that what we are talking about is more or less average costs. You couldn't use a shelter like this in many places but you could do something else better--perhaps for less money.

Anyhow, I don't immediately reject this question of adding 20% of the cost.
One person who agrees with me is a man in Arlington, Virginia who is putting
a shelter into a new housing unit as a sort of gimmick to sell the houses.
He estimated that this would add about 2% to the cost.

There are two other things which you said which I would like to make sure that I heard them right. You said any shelter program is unworkable. I wrote it down. The other is that we will just have to live with this problem. And I would suggest that we will just have to die with this problem if we don't do something about it.

MR. MOSES: That's conceivable too.

MR. WILSON: It seems to me a question of what the public wants and the value they place upon it. Mr. Moses has described the economics of many of the aspects of housing and public works, and the point in terms of the middle-income housing being at the brink or at the edge or threshold of

11/4/115

being too expensive already. It is a question of whether people are willing
to pay for the value of a shelter. Today I think it is quite clear they aren't,
because nobody has sufficient belief in it or confidence that there is either a
problem to be met or that the solution is worth the added cost -- and this
comes back to your education program. Unless there is national leadership
to set this in a framework of values that people are going to pay for, you can't
get off the ground. Is that correct?

VOICE: I add that the attitude doesn't exist that you point out.

MR. MOSES: I don't think that anybody responsible as a public
official, beginning with the President of the U.S., could afford to enunciate
a program of this kind even if he believed in it.

DR. JOHNSON: The U.S. is spending $5 to $7 billion a year on an
active defense which will be pretty ineffective. You can say that, but the
fact of the matter is that we are spending this amount to do something that
will be less than effective. These don't jibe! The country as a whole, is
spending a lot of money to accomplish essentially the same purpose. It is
now in the process of deciding on a new system for coming into being with a
warning time between zero to 10 minutes that is going to do in a different
direction if we are to have any defense against the Soviet thermonuclear
attacks. The problem isn't to accept the present, conservative attitude that
you can't do it--but find out how to do it if we are going to have a more
effective defense for that $5 - $7 billion a year that we are spending now.

C y j

11/4/116

MR. MOSES: Do you hold that what is being done on the military
basis is wholly ineffective?

DR. JOHNSON: I didn't say that. It is less effective than a passive
defense system.

MR. MOSES: I don't agree with that at all. You couldn't get one
person out of a hundred to agree with that.

DR. JOHNSON: That may be so. Then I'm the one out of a hundred
because I know something about it. And you don't.

MR. HALABY: Well, Mr. Moses, could I ask you if there is any group
in this state that is a competent group, figuring out how to get at this problem.
How to estimate these costs accurately?

MR. MOSES: Estimate what?

MR. HALABY: How to estimate the costs accurately--there is a big
gap between your $3400 and his $500, for example. As far as I know there
is no one working on it in this state, which is supposed to be a leadership
state. And if the problem has been as thoroughly ventilated as you say, with
all sorts of pictures drawn, two plus years ago, by the governors of four
states in the metropolitan New York area, and the mayors of the principle
areas and nothing is being done even to study the problem thoroughly, do we
have to live with this?

11/4/117

MR. MOSES: I don't know whether that statement is correct. I don't know whether it is or not. There are a lot of people working on this whole atomic problem. There are a lot of people working on war and on peace, and some of them highly intelligent people, some of them with United Nations, some of them in Washington, some of them in the states. I've listened to what I perceived to be some highly intelligent people. I happen to have a friend in Canada who has been working on the Arctic Defense business, one of the top people in the world in this field. He makes a lot of sense to me-- I don't think what he is doing is foolish; I think he knows what he is doing. If this stuff they are doing is going to be effective, I don't know, I'm a layman. When you say who's working on it in the first place, there's a lack of interest on the part of the natural leaders in the community whether they be political or otherwise in this thing because they don't think it is workable, to begin with. And they are not going to give a hell of a lot of time to something that they don't think is workable.

MR. HALABY: This is an intuition. This is a hint of wishing that there is nothing that you can do. Who is trying to provide facts to document or contradict that intuition? Two years ago a group put together a study on this problem and I recall very vividly one of the people we consulted with saying, "What we need here is a fellow like Moses, and the staff that he could mobilize to work on the problem." But there isn't any Moses working on this problem. There never has been in this state; and there is no sign that there will be. I can't understand why not.

11/4/118

MR. MOSES: I have other things to do which I consider to be more productive. That's the reason why. There are plenty of people around who in my opinion are studying this thing and working on it, but they are not going to get into devoting their time to figuring out a system of disposition, whether its chasing people out of town in an emergency or persuading them to move out if they don't want to. They are going to get into building shelters on a huge scale if they don't regard this as practical. They just won't give their time to it. The result is that you get to people whose intentions are the best, but seem to some of us to lack practical experience. That doesn't mean that when they reach the Pearly Gates that they won't get an accolade that will be denied to us.

DR. SMITHIES: May I say something about the question of cost. It has occurred to me that this is quite crucial to the argument. I'm not saying that we should build shelters or not, but we ought to realize the cost at the outset it seems to me. What Mr. Moses said about the garage does correspond broadly to what I've heard about garage construction in Chicago. And also a garage in Boston--purely exteriors. I've made similar calculations as Mr. Bascom but I used square feet rather than cubic feet. This amounts to about $6000 dollars a car, and the car takes about 300 square feet and that's about $20 a square foot. The real question is how many square feet do you need for an individual? It seems to me that Mr. Bascom assigns 50 individuals to a car, is extraordinarily optimistic. Even the theater requires 10 sq. ft.

This shelter problem is a problem where first of all, people might have to stay in them for a week or two weeks. And secondly, we would need ever