V. Page 11, Lines 10-22 "The leasehold interest in any public space so leased, including any building, structure, or improvement constructed or erected therein, shall, in cases of nonpayment of real property taxes, nonpayment of special assessments for public improvements, and nonpayment of sanitary sewer service or water service charges, be subject to private, outright sale by the District, without any right in the lessee to redeem the leasehold interest so sold: Provided, that the proceeds from such sale in excess of such delinquent taxes, assessments, or charges, or a combination thereof, including any interest, penalties, and costs relating thereto, shall be paid by the District to the lessee, or to such person as he may, in writing, designate." If defaults in payment subjects lessee to the termination of his leasehold interest, the property will not be available for normal financing; this provision should be redrafted to conform with normal provisions for non-payment of real estate taxes and other special assessments, and with provision for notice to lending institutions where such loans are of record. VI. Page 13, Section 11, lines 4-12 "SEC. 11. Should such building or other structure not be so removed by the lessee or his successor in interest, the same shall be removed by the Commissioners, and the cost of such removal and the restoration to its former condition of the space formerly occupied by such building or other structure shall be assessed equally against the abutting properties as a tax, to be collected in like manner as is provided by section 6 of the Act approved March 1, 1899, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 5-506).” Line 9 should be changed with reference to abutted property to indicate that assessment should apply to the abutting property which enjoyed the lease and use of the public space. VII. Page 15, Section 14(2) lines 21-25 "The public space to be occupied by a portion of such building shall not extend beyond the street or alley frontage of that piece of property on either side of such street or alley which, in comparison with so much of the other piece of property as may lie directly opposite, has the smaller street or alley frontage." Should be redrafted for clarity. Some provision should be made to limit the use of public space so as not to unnecessarily interfere with neighboring property owners' rights. End of H.R. 12508. LANGUAGE OF BILL H.R. 12506 I. Page 6, Section 202, line 22 "SEC. 202. The Commissioners shall by regulation provide for the payment of rent for the use of public space as authorized by this title. The annual rent for such space shall be a fair and equitable amount fixed by the Commissioners from time to time in accordance with regulations adopted by them, generally establishing categories of use and providing that the rent for each category of use shall bear a reasonable relationship to the assessed value of the privately owned land abutting such space, depending on the nature of the category of use and the extent to which the public space may be utilized for such purpose, but in no event shall the annual rent for the public space so utilized be a rate of less than 4 per centum per annum of the current assessed value of an equivalent area of the privately owned space immediately abutting the public space so utilized.” This should be rewritten. This requires the rent to be at a rate of not less than 4 percent per annum of the current assessed value of "an equivalent area." This may not be fair for space or bridge area or other use of public space. The rental should be based upon its fair market value of such public space presented on or above the ground. End of H. R. 12506. STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE WASHINGTON URBAN LEAGUE AND THE WASHINGTON PLANNING AND HOUSING ASSOCIATION Mr. BATTLE. I represent the Washington Urban League. We would like to file our statement. Mr. DOWDY. It will be made a part of the record. (The letter and statement follow:) WASHINGTON URBAN LEAGUE, INC., Congressman JOHN DOWDY, Chairman, Sub-Committee Number Three, United States House of Representatives, DEAR MR. DOWDY: The Washington Urban League and several other civil rights and civic organizations, professional organizations and business groups desire to present a joint statement in support of H.R. 12507 and H.R. 12508 the Air Space Utilization Bills before your committee hearings Friday, October 20th. The groups will be represented by Mr. Eugene Ford, a member of the Board of Directors of the Urban League and the Washington Planning and Housing Association. Sincerely yours, DAVID RUSK, STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AIR SPACE UTILIZATION LEGISLATION Congressman Dowdy, Members of the House District Committee: I am Eugene Ford, a member of the Board of Directors of the Washington Urban League and The Washington Planning and Housing Association. I am here today to present a joint statement on behalf of these two organizations and several other civil rights and civic organizations, professional associations and business groups. We have joined together to express our general support for H.R. 12507 (The Freeway Air-space Utilization Act) and H.R. 12508 (The Public Space Utilization Act), which would authorize the District Commissioners to put the airspace above or below streets, alleys and freeways to uses compatible with our city's pressing needs. Should the District Government have the right to use air space to promote our city's orderly growth and development? This is the central question of air space legislation. Whether or not the community should approve or reject additional proposed freeways is not at issue here. Among the supporters of this testimony are groups who have opposed the proposed freeway system and groups who have supported it. This statement sets forth the common areas of agreement among our groups with regard to the need for air rights legislation. NEED TO USE AIR SPACE Our need to use air space comes from a simple fact: in the face of growing needs the supply of available Central City land is shrinking. The National Capital Planning Commission's proposed "Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital" outlines what are the city's anticipated needs over the next two decades, for example: More space to provide offices, stores and factories for a 35% increase in employment (from 580,000 workers to 780,000 workers). Another 620 acres to provide school sites and playground space for another 40,000 public school children and replace the dozens of decaying, inadequate school facilities. A minimum of 220 more acres of developed parkland and playgroups to raise our recreation space to minimum needs. Above all, land to meet our present Housing Crisis for low and moderate income families; to rehouse the 91,000–153,000 households estimated to need public subsidy in order to occupy sound, uncrowded housing at rents they can afford; to replace 25,000 housing units beyond any humane hope of continued habitation; to provide for 110,000 new units needed by 1985. These are our anticipated needs with an estimated population of 950,000 people by 1985. Several recent statements have proposed revising the Comprehensive Plan to double the District's population twenty years hence. Such a goal would make even more imperative maximum effective use of city land and air space. Air Space would help provide for more intensive commercial and industrial development without allowing the continued erosion of residential areas by encroaching offices and factories. Air Space would allow new schools to be joined into educational complexes over existing roads and alleys (such as Cloethiel Smith's original plan for the Shaw Community School required). Air Space would allow the creation of new recreation areas and playspaces in densely-populated areas, where meeting recreation needs might otherwise come only at the cost of existing housing. Air Space would provide new sites for the construction of housing, whether for the rich or poor, as suggested in the District's Combined Housing and Transportation Plan. In addition, air space utilization helps link together housing developments, office complexes, educational parks, communities, which would otherwise be separated by a street, an avenue, a freeway, a railroad track, or surface rapid tansit. Many potential uses for available air space would also convert untaxed road, alley and freeway land into locally tax-productive properties to boost local revenues. To repeat, whether or not there are further freeways is not germane to the air space question. At present, there exists already in the city an untapped resourcesome 9,400 acres devoted to already existing roads, alleys, streets and freeway right-of-way. This represents one-fourth of the total surface areas of the District of Columbia. Much is undoubtedly unsuitable for air space development. However, even one per cent of this total represents an area the size of the Urban Renewal Area Northwest #1. We must through passage of this legislation provide the District Government with a tool necessary to exploit this resource. PROPOSES AMENDMENTS With regard to H. R. 12507 and H. R. 12508 we should like to comment on several specific points. First, we are gratified that the Freeway Airspace Utilization Act establishes a system of priorities for air space use in terms of our city's critical needs. Under that bill the District Commissioners must consider the use of air space, in order of priority, for: (1) municipal uses (low-income housing, schools, recreation spaces, city office buildings, vehicle parking); (2) public housing; (3) federal buildings' (4) privately-developed low and moderate income housing; (5) hospitals and social welfare facilities operated by non-profit organizations; (6) business purposes (office buildings, commercial structures, privately owned and operated housing). There may be differences within our various organizations as to the precise ranking of these priorities; individual statements may speak to that. However, such a priority listing, requiring the consideration of major public responsibilities first (schools, parks, government buildings, public housing, publicly-subsidized low and moderate income housing, etc.) is essential. Such a similar priority list is absent from H. R. 12508-The Public Space Utilizaton Act. It must be included. A public resource-our air space-must first be put to public uses. Second, there should be clearly defined the manner in which the Commissioners will reach a decision as to the determination of priorities with respect to any given opportunity for air space utilization. There is provided in the acts only the opportunity for public comment (the public hearing before the Zoning Commission). However, in such zoning hearings the public often must react after the alternatives have already been narrowed. The Commissioners should be required to establish a public dialogue on the uses of different air space opportunities as part of more comprehensive planning and wide-ranging consideration of alternative. Third, the process of citizen participation and public review of any specific project needs strengthening While not new air space development is a relatively unexplored field. Some cities have experienced notable successes; some cities notable failures. In air space development, there are complex problems of economic feasibility pollution and public health standards, design factors, and other issues, all of which should be subject to the closest public scrutiny. In addition to the Zoning Commission we believe that every other potential stage in the decisionmaking process the National Capital Planning Commission, the Fine Arts Commission, the Board of Commissioners themselves-should be required under the bill to hold public hearings on major projects. Public interest requires safeguards against poor planning, poor design or flagrant commercial exploitation of public air space to the public's detriment. Public interest also requires, however, that this tool be added to our methods of creating a better community. We urge the Senate to approve air space utilization legislation for the District of Columbia. American Institute of Planners American Veterans Committee Archbishop's Committee on Community Relations D.C Chapter, National Association for the Advancement of Colored Greater Washington Central Labor Council National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials Thomas Payne, Chairman, Metropolitan Citizens Advisory Council Washington Planning and Housing Association Mr. FRASER. What is the basic position you take on these bills? Mr. BATTLE. Basically, the Urban League is in favor of the bill in the statement which has been filed with your committee. Mr. Dowdy. Dr. Herbert Wood, Planning Committee, Brookland Area Coordinating Council; is he here? (No response) Mr. DOWDY. If he has a statement, it will be made a part of the record. Mr. Pryor? STATEMENT OF BERNARD W. PRYOR, PRESIDENT, BROOKLAND NEIGHBORHOOD CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Mr. PRYOR. I will be glad to file my statement. We are against any air rights building in Washington. I am right in the path of the beautification of Brookland, and naturally I want to conserve my Brookland area which has a type of neighborhood like the old New England homes. Mr. DOWDY. Your objection goes to the freeway part of the bill, rather than what would be actually downtown Washington? Mr. PRYOR. The freeway and the air rights. Mr. DOWDY. The air rights over the freeway? Mr. PRYOR. Yes. Mr. Dowdy. Your statement will be made a part of the record. Mr. PRYOR. Honorable Chairman, I am Bernard W. Pryor, President of the Brookland Neighborhood Civic Association, Inc. It is my desire to express the will of the people or citizens of our neighborhood to object to the construction of Air Rights apartments being built in the Brookland area or any area of the city affecting the health of the people. The destruction or death of a city can be accomplished in many ways-such as Freeways, masses of concrete being constructed or air rights which through pollution could destroy the ones who had to live under those conditions. The idea of air rights over proposed freeways was presented to the D. C. Highway Department last year suggesting that this method of housing would take care of the displacement of homeowners and people uprooted by the freeways. Oh no! No person or family of people who had lived close to the earth and enjoyed the pride of living in a place they could call their own (even paying taxes) could comfortably live in one of these type of buildings. This suggestion was made to the Highway Department by Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, Engineers and Architects to satisfy the people of the center leg of the inner-loop who were mostly renters. A large high rise apartment building, called Bridge Houses, was constructed over the George Washington Freeway by the New York State Division of Housing a few years ago. When the Division of Air Pollution Control in the Health Department measured the air pollution in the apartments they found a heavy concentration of air pollution, heavier or more dense in the lower apartments than in the upper ones, caused by fumes and gases from automobiles and truck traffic below. Mr. Arthur Benline, Commissioner of New York (who was contacted via telephone on January 13, 1965; phone 566-2717; address, Department of Air Pollution Control, 15 Park Row, New York City, to obtain this information) said he definitely objected to the building of such high rise apartment buildings over freeways due to the excess concentration of air pollution from automotive traffic below and such a building was highly undesirable. They did not condemn the building after the builder agreed to make certain adjustments-such as building conduits under the building to help remove the heavy density of pollution from the lower floor apartments and installing air conditioning in each apartment to help filter the fumes and advising the occupants not to open the windows. Despite all this, Mr. Benline said the building still remained highly undesirable for living and no more such buildings over freeways would be approved in New York. We suggest that Washington, D.C. oppose the building of Air Rights Apartments over Freeways, but that model cities be our greatest concern. This area could be revitalized to accommodate the masses of residents in need of livable homes that need only redesign or remodeling such as has been done in Georgetown and Capitol Hill. The planners have made use of the existing homes by remodeling and utilizing them to accommodate people in a neighborhood manner. The Brookland Area has a different atmosphere; like that of an old New England Town which we hope to preserve in order to give the whole City of Washington its part of the real beauty of the Nation's Capital. Therefore, we oppose any building of air rights apartments over freeways in the District of Columbia. Mr. DOWDY. That is all the witnesses we have on the list. If we determine after examining your statements that we need any of you to further testify, we will let you know and set a time. We appreciate your coming this morning and your assistance in giving information about the pending bills. Thank you. Also, we have for the record a statement filed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, and a letter from Mr. Joseph Nichols. (The documents referred to follow :) STATEMENT OF ACHILLES M. TUCHTAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Mr. Chairman and Members: My name is Achilles M. Tuchtan. I am Chairman of the Board of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and a member of the City Council of Rockville, Maryland. I welcome this opportunity to express to you my support for the legislation now before this Subcommittee and to inform you of similar support from the local elected officials and highway department representatives of this area. The Council of Governments is the cooperative organization of the District of Columbia and the fourteen other major local governments of Maryland and |