GROWING NEW YORK CITY NEEDS NEW TU *NELi EXPRFSSIVAYS NEW SCHOOLS NEW PUBLIC BUILDINGS URBAN RENEWAL REHABILITATION coot tN*OR< vaooo COH Tenant Relocation by various Agencies Based on Total of 78,242 for the Period January 1, 1954 to October 31, 1959 A.R. FOREST, PIANOSCOPI CORP. NYC Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 https://archive.org/details/relocationinnewyOOnewy GROWING NEW YORK CITY 1 City of New York Office of the Mayor NEW YORK 7, N. Y. anthony panuch Special Adviser housing AND URBAN RENEWAL 15 December 1959 OFRCES 225 BROADWAY WH 3-3600 Dear Mr. Mayor: 1. I submit herewith the special report you requested of me on 6 October 1959, on what you aptly described as "New York's No. 1 Problem" — tenant relocation. Specifically, what you wanted to know from me was whether and how a central relocation bureau should be organized. 2. HOW a central relocation bureau should be organized is a relatively simple technical question. WHETHER it should be established raises a profound question of public policy, CAN a central relocation bureau provide a solution to New York's No. 1 problem? The answer, in my opinion, is NO. 3. Organizational gadgetry cannot cure a problem as complex and explosive as relocation. Of course, its ultimate solution lies in a massive increase in the City's supply of standard housing. But what is needed NOW is fair and uniform treatment for the people on whom the impact of relocation bears most heavily those whose homes, families and businesses must 1 uprooted because of New York's growing needs. 4. This special report recommends a ten point program of action which can be taken immediately to accomplish this objective. The measures proposed are designed to b'e readily integrated into the comprehensive program for housing and urban renewal which you requested for 1 February i960. The Honorable Robert F. Wagne, Mayor of the City of New York City Hall New York 7, New York Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old York Library MAYOR'S INDEPENDENT SURVEY on HOUSING AND URBAN RENEWAL J. Anthony Panuch, Special Adviser PROFESSIONAL STAFF \V. Bernard Richland General Counsel W illiam }. Dwyer, Jr. Executive Assistant Dean K. Boorman Urban Planning Assistant Meyer M. Kailo Chiej Management Assistant Oscar Kanny Public Information Assistant Robert E. Paul Legal and Legislative Assistant SECRETARIAT Mary M. Ryan, Executive Secretary Margaret M. Dwyer Katlierine Haskell Alma Houben Irene Rose Marjorie Sheridan Charles Appelman Consultant On Visual Presentation: Alexander R. Forest ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Special Adviser, while accepting sole respon- sibility foi (lie- contents and recommendations oi this report . grate! u 1 1 \ acknowledges the cooperation ( )IIk( ol the Mayoi Deput) Mayoi Cit) Administ i ator Budget Dire< k>i President oi the Cit) Council I he ( lomptrollei President ol the Borough < > t Manhattan President ol the Borough ol 1 he Bronx President ol the Borough ol Brooklyn President of the Borough <>l Queens President <>t the Borough ol Ri< lunoml Board of Estimate, Bureau ol the Secretai") Office ol the ( ii \ Construction Co-Ordinatoi Cit) Planning Commission ( ol I Ice on slum ( leal .iik e Commission on Intergroup Relations Depai tmenl ol Buildings Department ol Investigation Department of Public Works 1 )( ]). n tment ol Real 1' state Depai tment ol Welfare Law I >< | >. 1 1 Inicnt \l uni( ipal Reference 1 ibrar) 1 ax Department I i ban Renewal Board \ru ^ < n k ( i i \ Housing Authority New York City Transit Authority Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authorit) Port ol New x oi k Authorit) I he Association ol the Bai ol the City of New York Business and Professional Group — 87-97th Street Area Chelsea Community Council Inc. and assistance ol the heads and staffs ol tin- public agent its. civic and business organizations and indi- viduals listed below: ( ili/ens Housing and Planning Council Citizens I fnion ( ii\ ( lub oi New ^ oi k Communit) Set \ it e Sm iet) Hudson ( > 1 1 i 1(1 Institute for Public Service Morningside Heights, Inc. New York Cit) Council on Housing & Relocation Practices Urban I eague Women's Cit) Club ol New x oik. Inc. # ❖ * I he I lonoi able Stanle) M . Isaac s, Minority Leader. New York Cit) Council The Honorable Samuel Spiegel, Membei oj the Issembly, Slate ol New x 01 k The Honorable Lester Lazarus, Justice oj the Municipal Court, ( i i\ ol New ^ 01 k The Honorable Nathan Straus, Formei Administratoi of the I nited States Housing Authorit) M i . shi i le\ F. Boden, President Middle Income Housing Corporation Mr. |ules Englander, Apfel v Englandei Mr. John | 1 1 \ nes, President E i nest T. Bower, I ne . Mr. Abraham Kazan, President United Housing Foundation Mi . Philip I.apidus. President Urban Relocation Co.. Inc. Eugene Morris. Esq., Demov v Morris Harris L. Present, Esq., Legal Counsel for Relocatees Mr. Morton J. Schussheim. Committee for Economic Development Mr. Morgan 1). Wheelock, / ice President Braislin, Porter & Wheelock Mr. Louis Winnick, Executive Director Temporar) State Commission on Economic Expansion TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Summary of Recommendations 6 Part 1 How This Report Was Prepared: 9 An Effort in Government-Community Participation 2 Anatomy of Relocation 15 3 The Agencies Engaged in Relocation 23 4 Ten Problems of Relocation Administration 35 5 Conclusion and Recommendations 41 ANNEX 1. Executive Memorandum #67 47 2. Mayor's Letter of October 6, 1959 48 3. Proposed State Law 50 4. Proposed Local Law 51 CHARTS Effect of New York's Growing Needs on the Relocation Problem Inside Front Cover Title I Relocation Today 31 Relocation Aids Vary by Agency 34 Proposed Organization for Relocation in New York: Statement of Functions 52 Organization Chart Inside Back Cover -5- SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS A Ten Point Program of Action 1. Passage of a State Law which would enable the Board oi Estimate to enact a Bill of Rights for tenants in relocation, fixing schedules of tenant benefits and providing lor the regulation of relocation administration on a City-wide basis. 2. Enactment of a Local law by the New York City Council amend- ing the City Charter to authorize the appointment of a top-flight administrator as Deputy Commissioner for Relocation in the De- partment of Real Estate. 3. Reorganization of the Department of Real Estate to provide it with the personnel, administrative structure and managerial re- sources to enable it to carry out its expanded obligations and 1 unc- tions under the recommended State and Local relocation legislation. 4. Appointment by the Mayor of a Citizens' Relocation Board to ensure maximum citizen participation — by representatives of community and civic groups and leaders of minorities particularly affected by relocation — in advising the Deputy Commissioner for Relocation in the discharge of his newly established responsibilities. 5. Appointment by the Mayor of an Inter-Agency Relocation Co- ordinating Committee, made tip of top representatives of the City agencies directly concerned with and affected by relocation, to aid the Deputy Commissioner in developing a balanced relocation program for the City and in the scheduling of relocation. 6. Adoption by the Board of Estimate of positive policies, as specifi- cally recommended in this report, for the relief of small business- men displaced by relocation. 7. Adoption by the Board of Estimate of a policy vesting in the Department of Real Estate responsibility for and control over the scheduling of all demolition by the City in public works. 8. Adoption by the Board of Estimate of a policy authorizing the Department of Real Estate to provide social services to tenants affected by relocation. 9. Adoption by the Board of Estimate of a policy vesting in the Depart- ment of Real Estate the approval authority over the relocation contracts between Title I sponsors and their relocating agents. 10. Immediate adoption and maintenance on a permanent basis of a City-wide program of public information and education on the What, Where, When, Who, Why and Hoxv of relocation. Part 1 HOW THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED An Effort in Government-Community Participation Background of the Assignment Setting the Target Date of this Report Enlisting Public Participation and Support Evaluation of Existing Research Survey of Title I Relocation Practice Survey of Relocation Practice Outside of Title I Testimony of the Experts in the City Administration Testimony of the Experts Outside of the City Administration Hearing the Complaints of Tenants, Small Businessmen, and their Representatives Consultation with the Press Site and Slum Inspection Radio Program on Relocation Summarizing the Effort -9- Part 1 HOW THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED An Effort in Government-Community Participation Background of the Assignment On August 20, 1959 I was designated to surve) the Cit\ 's policies and programs in the field of hous- ing and urban renewal. A target date of Februar) I, 1960 was set for me to submit a report containing specific recommendations lor a comprehensive cit) policy and program of housing and urban renewal, together with proposals foi such organizational re- alignments and legislation as I regarded necessary to put the i e< ommended program into effect.* I immediatel) began intensive personal research into the subject. The Board of Estimate on Sep- tembei 17th appiopriated the hinds necessary to finance the survey. By Oc tober 1st my plans for the conduct (il the survey were complete; I had estab- lished the office of the survey at 225 Broadway: and was in the midst of the rec ruitment oi a small pro- fessional and secretarial staff. On Oc tober 6th I was unexpectedly requested to give absolute priority in mv survey to the subject of tenant relocation; and to submit an ' immediate" report on whether and how a central relocation bureau should be organized.! Setting the Target Date of this Report 1>\ October 15th the recruitment of my profes- sional and secretarial staff was complete; and I was in a position to adjust my plans for a study of hous- ing and urban renewal policies to include an inten- sive "in depth" survey that would form the basis for the special report on relocation which had been re- c | nested. My staff and I agreed that sixty days was the minimum time within which a report based on ' rhe Mayor's directive, Executive Memorandum $67 dated August 27. appears as Annex I ol this report, t The text ol the Mayor's lettei th appeals in full as Annex 2. "in depth" study of relocation could be done. 1 he target date fixed for its submission was December 15th. Enlisting Public Participation and Support Relocation in New York has been a topic ol controversy and agitation for the past five years. Though main studies and reports are extant, most deal with the pi obi cm on a (jutuililalive basis. As if people are numbers or lun^ible <>oods. The ap- proach has been this: there are so many people in so man) shuns: therefore, so man) standard apart merits must be buili o\ci the- next ten to lwent\ years, f ew have ever asked too muc h about what people want. Or what they should be entitled to when their homes and lives are uprooted; or had looked into the reasons why some relocation pro- grams worked well while others encountered stiff i esistance. In this kind of setting it was evident to me that no report I could possibly submit would be of any practical value unless — in addition to an objective and realistic evaluation of existing research — it were based on the maximum degree of official, civic, community, business and popular participation. This meant a time-consuming job, and one which could affect adversely our target date of December 15th. But it was a risk which I felt had to be taken to ensure the fullest possible public and official par- ticipation in the development of the report. Evaluation of Existing Research Analyses, reports and statistics on relocation prac- tice in New York are voluminous. Technical litera- ture on relocation policy and practice in other cities of the United States is massive. This data has been analyzed and evaluated by my staff and myself. - 10 - Some of the material is excellent. But most of the experience of other cities is of limited usefulness. Policies and methods that work in smaller cities - which do not have New York's problems of over- crowding and ill-migration of low-income minori- ties—are of little value in a world metropolis where, except for two boroughs, living space is on a "stand ins; room only" basis. Survey of Title I Relocation Practice The request for a report on relocation was trig- gered In resistance to the Perm Station South proj- ect in the Chelsea district of the city. This was a Title I middle-income cooperative housing devel- opment sponsored by the respected and experi- enced United Housing Foundation — a non-profit organization. It was clear that il a project of this character were given a bad name the Title I program in New York would be finished. Anything wrong with relocation on the site had to be corrected forthwith. On the other hand it was equally important — if relocation was being properly handled by the sponsor and adequately supervised by the Department of Real Estate that the fact be made known publicly. To determine the facts of the Penn Station South controversy we surveyed relocation operations on the site. We investigated into the background, ex- perience and record of the sponsor's relocation agent. I talked with members of the Watchdog Committee. The president of the relocation com- pany appeared before us. We surveyed the organi- zation, policies, methods, procedures and controls of the Department of Real Estate to determine the efficiency of its performance as supervisor of the re- location performance of all Title I sponsors and their agents. Survey of Relocation Practice Outside of Title I Most of the criticism of relocation over the past five years has arisen in connection with Title I projects, although these involved only 24% of the slightly less than 80,000 families relocated during that time. In the same period, the Port of New York Au- thority and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority accounted for less than 10% of reloca- tion. The Department of Real Estate, relocating tenants displaced by City public improvements, and the New York City Housing Authority made up the rest. Yet, public criticism of these operations has not been anywhere near as vociferous as that directed at Title I reloc ation which, ironically, pro- vides the most generous benefits to tenants. To find the "why'' of the difference in public at- titudes Ave surveyed the relocation policies and methods of all public agencies engaged in reloca- tion in New York City. These include the New York City Housing Authority, the Department of Real Estate, the Port of New York Authority, and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. Equally important, we obtained the on and off the record expert opinions of their executive and tech- nical personnel. Testimony of the Experts in the City Administration Operating Officials We consulted with Chairman Moses and the staff of the Slum Clearance Committee, its coordinating architects, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, and, as above indicated, with the Department of Real Estate. We conferred with Mr. William Reid, Chairman, and with Mr. Francis V. Madigan and Mr. Ira S. Robbins, members of the New York City Hous- ing Authority; and have considered reports and analyses prepared by their staff. We consulted with the Chairman and Executive Director of the Urban Renewal Board, who had worked out detailed plans for future relocation operations in connection with the West Side Urban Renewal project. We obtained expert opinions in writing from Chairman Moses of the Slum Clearance Committee, and from Mr. ]. Clarence Davies, Jr., Commis- sioner of the Department of Real Estate. We conferred with Mrs. Hortense W. Gabel, As- sistant to the Deputy Mayor. We conferred informally with and received the formal opinions of City officials whose agencies — while not responsible for relocation policies and - 11 - pra< tic e — arc vitally affected by it. I n this c ategory, to mention a lew, are: Chairman James Felt ol the Citv Planning Commission and Vice-Chairman Frank |. Bloustein; Commissionei Peter Reid) <•! the Department of Buildings, and his Deputy Com- missioner, Harold Birns; Commissioner fames Dumpson ol the Department ol Welfare; Dr. Frank Home, Kxeeutive Direc tor of the Commission on Intergroup Relations. Management and Budget Experts We consulted with Mr. Charles F. Preusse, the City Administrator. Mis office during the past sev- eral years conducted surveys ol relocation prac tices and operations ol the Bureau of Real Estate (pred- ecessor to the Department of Real Estate) when it was an agency of the Board of Estimate. We have had the benefit of informal confer cures with, and a formal opinion from, Budget Di- rector Abraham D. Beame on relocation policy and practice. Both the Budget Directoi and the City Admin- istrator have comprehensiv e knowledge of the City's operations. Their expert testimony did muc h to bring into proper loc us the opinions ol other city ( ifficials. Borough Presidents We have sought and formally invited the testi- mony of the Borough Presidents. Among these. Borough of Manhattan President Hulan E. Jack has borne the heaviest burden of the problem of re- location because of its enormous impact on the Borough of Manhattan. Mr. Jack's testimony was comprehensive in c haracter and extremely useful to our survey. In addition, Mr. Jac k and 1 personally surveyed the Penn Station South Site, and conferred with the Watchdog Committee and with complaining tenants. Testimony of the Experts Outside the City Administration Federal Experts M\ (General Counsel and I have conferred at length with Mr. Waltei S. Fried, Regional Admin- istrate] ol the Housing and Home Finance Agenc) ol the United States Government. I have conferred with Mr. Joseph P. McMurrav, a member ol the Shun Clearance Committee. His counsel, based on vast experience- in housing mat- tcis at the ledcial. State and ('ilv levels of govern- in cut , has been in \ a I liable to me. Civic and Community Leaders We made it a point to soli( it the views and co- operation ol leading (i\ir groups and community organizations with an interest in housing and re- location problems. In this category the contribu- t ion of the ( at i/ens Housing and Planning Council to oui woi k has been outstanding and sustained. We have also had valuable contributions from the Citizens Union, the City Club of New York, the Community Service Society, the Women's City Club of New York, and the Institute for Public Serv ice. The same is true of the United Neighbor- hood Houses, ol which Mr. Stanley M. Isaacs is President, and Miss Helen Harris is Executive Director. Sponsors and Private Relocation Experts We have conferred with sponsors of Title I de- velopments and, equally important, with their re- location agents. From them we obtained a clear picture of the enormous difficulties which private enterprise must shoulder when it assumes the bur- dens ol the relocation task as an incident of slum clearance or city redevelopment. The Social Scientists We have conferred with social scientists and ex- pel ts on the conservation of human resources, and have solicited their views on the treatment of persons dislocated by slum clearance and urban renewal. Lawyers and Judges On the subjec t of the most feasible way ol pro- tecting the tenants' rights in the process of reloca- tion, we conferred with leading lawyers who repre- sent those sponsors and institutional investors who have had extensive experience with and excellent - 12 - records in tenant relocation. Nor did we stop there. We have consulted with Judges of the Municipal Court who have had broad experience in reloca- tion problems. \I\ General Counsel and I attended the sym- posium of the Committee on Real Property Law of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, held on October 29, 1959, entitled, "The How and Why of Title I." Hearing the Complaints of Tenants, Small Businessmen, and Their Representatives My staff and I have spent many hours with ten- ants who had lost their homes, and small business- men who had lost their means of livelihood through relocation. We have listened to their complaints, their grievances, and their proposed remedies. There is probably no more skillful legal advocate of the tenant's cause in the courts and before the Cit\ administration than Mr. Harris L. Present. He and his associates requested a conference with me and were given as much time as they desired to pre- sent to me and my General Counsel the tenants' case in relocation. Mr. Present did so ably, comprehen- sively and with sincerity and conviction. Consultation with the Press In conducting our relocation survey I have fol- lowed the "goldfish-bowl" policy so far as members of the press are concerned. Any member of the Fourth Estate who chose to drop in at my office was courteously received and provided the information which he requested. Some members of the metropolitan press supplied me with suggestions which have proved invaluable to us in our work. I have made it a practice to brief the editorial writers of our great dailies as to luhat we were try- ing to do and how we were going about it. Site and Slum Inspections I have visited all Title I sites in the company of Slum Clearance Committee Chairman Moses and his staff. My staff and I have toured all of them on our own. We have interviewed people on the sites. I have personally visited slum dwellings in vari- ous parts of the City. I have had the sobering ex- perience of listening to slum families of varied race and creed — living under conditions of hideous squalor — plead vehemently with me to protect them against relocation. Radio Program on Relocation On Sunday, November 1. 1959 WRCA* radio presented a special program on "Relocation — New York City's No. 1 Problem." Audience response evidenced an intense interest in relocation. It also demonstrated a disturbing lack of information as to what relocation was all about. Summarizing the Effort There is nobody who can lay claim to being an expert on relocation — in or out of the City Ad- ministration—who has not had opportunity to give an opinion on the manner of its solution. It is note- worthy that these opinions reflect a wide variety of viewpoints. As to people who are not experts on relocation but who are affected by it . . . . . . Nobody — regardless of station, rank, color or creed — has been denied the right fully to express his view, and to be treated with courtesy. No one who has written me a letter which called for an answer on the subject of relocation (or anv other aspect of housing) has failed to get a reply by re- turn mail. This was as true of the nearly illiterate scrawl of the charwoman slum dweller as it was in the case of a university professor, or a Title I sponsor. Here, then, is a report on New York's No. 1 prob- lem developed with the fullest measure of official, expert, civic, business, community and tenant par- ticipation. Mi. [anies H. Scheuer. President of the Citizens Housing and Planning Council; Mr. Milton Bergerman, President Oi the Citizens Union; and Mr. Morgan Wheelock, Vice-President of Braislin, Porter & Wheelock, Inc.. an expert on private re- location, presented their respective views in a discussion led h\ Mr. Ben Grauer, Moderator. I confined m\ appearance on the program to a statement ol my general approach to the re- location problem. -13- Part 2 THE ANATOMY OF RELOCATION Symptoms vs. Causes What the Relocation Problem is NOT The Many Faces of Relocation Relocation is a Problem of Shelter Relocation is a Political Problem Relocation is a Human Problem Relocation is a Sociological Problem Relocation Discourages Private Sponsors Relocation Presents a Problem in Equitable Administration Relocation Requires Orderly Scheduling of Demolition and Construction Relocation is a Money Problem Relocation is a Problem of Public Education The Relocation Problem is Big and Here to Stay Relocation and Urban Renewal There is No Magic Formula Relocation: A New Approach -15- Part 2 THE ANATOMY OF RELOCATION Relocation* means the uprooting oi homes and families. It deprives small shopkeepers of their means of livelihood. It turns an uncounted number of individuals into displaced persons. It destroys communities. Nor is this all. In overcrowded New York where many low-income minorities fight desperately for lebensraum in slums and blighted neighborhoods, the mounting pressures of the City's needs trigger deepseated emotions into llaring and widespread resentment. Such emotional dynamite, if expertly propagandized, can be skillfully exploited by pro- fessional manipulators of minorities and merchants of discontent to frustrate and perhaps even paralyze any adecpiate housing and renewal effort. Symptoms vs. Causes Any meaningful attempt to find out WHY relo- cation is the City's No. 1 problem must begin with a hard look as to WHAT the problem — broken down into its component elements — really is. At this stage of the name it is idle and even dangerous to attempt to treat the symptoms of a deepseated malaise. An intellectually honest and politically realistic approac h (I use the term "political" both * The terra "relocation" as used in ibis report means moving residential oi commercial tenants who are displaced from their existing quarters .is the result ol action li\ public authority. Usually iliis public action is the .ic(|iiisiii<>ii and clearance of existing buildings i<> in. ike ua\ foi new housing, highways, schools and othei improvements, 01 to deal shims and blighted in deteriorating areas. in its Aristotelian and ballot-box sense) to the prob- lem of relocation must identify, face and progres- sively neutralize the causes that create it. This is the only way in which its manifold com- plexities can be seen in true perspective. It is the only way in which the effort necessary toward a gradual, step by step solution can be effectively organized. // is the only way in which the numer- ous elements of a complex problem can be reduced to manageable proportions. // is the only way in which a broad base of public understanding and community support can be effectively mobilized and sustained. What the Relocation Problem is NOT Relocation is not just a statistical problem of esti- mating how many dwelling units it will take to house say 500,000 families over the next fifteen years. It is not merely an administrative problem that can be solved by a new organizational chart, re- shuffling the functions and personnel of various agencies and departments of the City administrate in. Nor is it a problem that can be disposed of by tossing it in the lap of the City administration with a demand that the Mayor produce an immediate solution. In a democratic society which rests on public opinion, responsibility for a humane and mature -16- approach to relocation in New York rests on the entire community. Leadership must come from the City administration, but the moulders of public opinion bear an equally heavy responsibility. They must provide the two-way communication between the community and the administration which alone can make leadership effective and responsive to the popular will. For relocation is not just a sticky and unpleasant incident in the planning of the City's growth. At bottom it raises the question of how the impact of the City's sovereign power upon human lives and destinies is to be restrained, and its harshness tem- pered. This means striking an acceptable balance between public power and individual rights — a constitutional problem as old as the concept of due process of law and the Bill of Rights. It is one in which the force of enlightened public opinion can and should play a decisive role. The Many Faces of Relocation If New York City had a totalitarian form of gov- ernment, relocation would present no problem. Shuns could be cleared by the forced labor of the slum dwellers. The City could be renewed as last as available resources for that purpose could be di- verted from other City purposes. But, under our system of representative govern- ment, relocation presents as many problems as there are people affected by it. The tensions and con- flicts which it creates must be resolved or at least muted within the framework of our free institu- tions. Some of these are more acute than others, but in combination and in cumulative impact they make relocation New York's No. 1 Problem. Relocation is a Problem of Shelter The root cause of relocation is the pressure which slum clearance, urban renewal, highway and public- works construction place principally on the scarce living space available for the City's poorest inhabit- ants. Here is a thumbnail sketch of the situation: • The City's supply of housing includes some 280,000 slum dwellings and 100,000 overcrowded and progressively deteriorating housing units. • Code enforcement to prevent deterioration of even this dilapidated housing supply is caught on the horns of an ironic dilemma. The Department of Buildings has 300 inspectors to police some' l. r )(i,000 structures containing 1,800,000 dwelling units. On the other hand, if it had the personnel to conduc t a vigorous c ampaign of code enforce- ment, thousands of people would be thrown out on the streets. • Practically every public project — whether it in- volves arterial highways, public housing, slum clearance, public works, or urban renewal — nec- essarily reduces the immediately available sup- ply of housing lor low-income and middle-income families. • The in-migration of low-income racial minorities essential to the City's economy creates conditions of overcrowding which intensify existing pres- sures on the City's low-cost housing — public and private. • Only a relatively small portion of slum dwellers who lose their shelter through slum clearance, urban renewal, etc. are eligible for, or are willing to go into public housing. • The "vacancy rate" of standard apartments in the City is inadequate — far below the 3% deemed necessary to make relocation at the present pace of 15,000 to 20,000 families per year tolerable. The vacancy rate in Manhattan today is 0.4% . • Oxer 10,000 families on public assistance are now living in substandard housing. During the past 20 months, 1 1,000 families were relocated by the Department of Welfare. • Roomers, not entitled to relocation aids, intensify the City's problem of overcrowding by moving in with friends and relatives, many of whom al- ready live in substandard housing. Relocation is a Political Problem Relocation caused by slum clearance creates bit- ter and highly organized political resistance. Slum dwellers do not relish the idea of becoming DP's; small shopkeepers objec t to having their stores torn down. They organize. Neighborhood leaders, in- cluding lawyers and clergymen of all faiths, often -17- spearhead the protest. They march on City Hall. The press carries full accounts of the opposition. Feature writers play up — quite properly — abuses and blunders of the shun clearance operation. Civic groups, community organizations and settlement leaders call for reform. Confronted with a hostile public opinion and demands, the City administra- tion must make a choice: It can stand up and be counted for the cause of shun clearance and urban renewal, which is al- most certain to invite reprisals at the polls in the next election; or It can give up the idea of slum clearance when- ever there is expertly organized popular protest. Neither c hoice is palatable. But one thing is sine. Escape from this practical political dilemma does not lie in a promise that there will be plenty of standard housing for all — say ten years from now. Relocation is a Human Problem Forcing people to leave their old neighborhoods is probably the major source of bitterness and oppo- sition to slum clearance. Slums, after all, are neigh- borhoods and communities. They teem with people who like the place in which they live for simple but deep-rooted reasons . . . Because they like being near their family, their friends, their church or the little grocery store that gives them credit when times are bad. They know there is a terrible hous- ing shortage in New York: that it is hard to find a place they can afford. Or they may have a little business which is their livelihood. A new neighborhood can frighten those who are old, or poor, or sick or disabled, or can't speak English well. And if this new neighborhood is a public housing development, its "institutional" look is frightening. Moving into it is an emotional shock accompanied by the loss of the feeling of neighborhood, of community, of belonging. Relocation is a Sociological Problem The "Lost Persons." The City assumes no re- sponsibility for the rehousing of transient popula- tion — ol roomers or lodgers. But recent activities have unhoused thousands of these persons and de- molished hundreds of rooming houses, many of which served a decent and necessary commercial housing func tion. These DP's will swell the over- crowding of the most dilapidated portion of the City's housing inventory. Integration. Large scale displacement of minor- ity households has had a sharp impact on the racial patterns of the c ity. Relocation agencies are handi- capped because many landlords will not accept minority tenants despite laws to the contrary. Other landlords are busy changing the occupancy of their buildings from white to minority. These practices intensify the normal difficulties of intergroup relations. "Problem Families." Comparable in gravity to the problem of integration is the matter of problem families. The term covers a wide range beyond the hard core, socially destructive families. It includes the large, low-income families that landlords auto- matically identify as problem families; the families newly come from rural areas, not yet city-broke; the old, the disabled, the sick; the bad housekeepers, (he bad rent-payers. Finally — in the case of public housing — there are families with technical obsta- cles to eligibility (for example, no marriage certifi- cate, no citizenship papers, no rent receipts); and the non-cooperative families who cannot adjust their habits to the pattern of public housing management. In general, the community has not accepted any responsibility for social education and services to relocatees. The question remains: What kind of social and educational services, if any, should be provided by the City for families with substandard living habits who are indiscriminately transplanted by City action to standard dwellings in the private market, thus destroying neighborhoods and com- munities which the City will ultimately be forced to rehabilitate? Relocation Discourages Private Sponsors It takes two or three years after a slum clearance project is unofficially announced before the actual work of relocation can begin. During this period — when the area is being considered for redevelop- ment and prior to the decision of the Board of Esti- mate and transfer of title to the sponsor — the owner attempts to save all possible expenses. If violations -18- are placed on his building, he manages to dcla\ enforcement by pointing out that the property is being considered for condemnation. The owner knows that the award which he will get for his building in the condemnation proceed- ing will depend not on whether the building has been kept in good condition but rather on the ability of his lawyer. Nor is he conc erned with what happens to the tenants in the building. It is imma- terial to him whether the private sponsor encoun- ters resistance from the tenants when he assumes possession. T hus, by the time a site is transferred to the private sponsor, the opposition to the project has been well organized; violations are filed against the buildings; the tenants are fully mobilized to resist relocation. The local political leader, the social worker, and often even the clergy, join to raise the cry that the project is a crime perpetrated against the poorer families in the area. They do not deny the build- ings are old and substandard, but in general their proposed solution is lor the sponsor to build elsewhere. Relocation Presents a Problem in Equitable Administration At the present time there are several public agen- cies operating in the field of reloc ation. These in- clude, in addition to the Department of Real Estate (which relocates families from sites of public works and supervises private relocation by sponsors under the Title I program) the New York City Housing Authority, Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Author- ity, and Port of New York Authority. Each of these agencies follows different policies and procedures. Financial or other assistance that the relocatee gets depends on the policy of the agency which happens to be conducting his particular relocation. This creates confusion and hostility among the tenants. The agencies are placed in an unequal bargaining- position in competing for desperately scarce hous- ing for the families they must relocate.* * For a chart showing the various fiscal aids, assistance oi benefits extended to tenants l>\ the agencies engaged in relocation, see page 34. Pan 3 contains a detailed analysis of the respective policies, practices and methods ol all agencies engaged in relo< ation. Uniform financial assistance and other benefits are essential to a relocation program. They are im- portant in expediting site clearance and as a finan- cial aid to relocatees. Properly administered, they also represent the leverage by which better housing for relocatees can be secured. There can be no equitable administration of relocation until and un- less such uniformity is established and maintained. Relocation Requires Orderly Scheduling of Demolition and Construction At present there is no agency to give over-all at- tention to the physical plans, the location and im- pact of various projects, or the time-scheduling of the several agencies which c lear slums or produce housing. The lack of coordinated scheduling of projects intensifies the pressure on the existing sup- ply ol standard and substandard housing and makes almost impossible any effective phasing or program- ming of relocation operations. The demolition of existing buildings by private builders to make room for so-called luxury apart- ments sets up additional pressures on the low-cost housing supply. This impac t has reached substan- tial proportions on Third Avenue and lower Sixth Avenue. Relocation is a Money Problem At the present time, the cost of relocating a fam- ily runs anywhere from $300 to $600. For example, the United Housing Foundation reports that the cost of relocating 1,488 site families in 1958-1959 on the Seward Park site averaged $349 per family. By contrast, its present relocation cost for 2,500 families at Penn Station South is averaging 3500 per family. The Foundation's President, Mr. Abra- ham Kazan, as a result of his experience with the conduct of relocation on the Penn Station South Title I project, wrote me as follows: ". . . As I see it, the relocation problem will grow more and more 1 costly in the future and the task move and more difficult." Relocation is a Problem of Public Education Probably the most dillu ult aspect of reloc ation is the job of educating all segments of the communi- - 19 - tics affected In slum clearance and urban renewal. J he) musl understand why relocation is necessary; the\ imisi know their rights and exactly what the ( at \ can and will do to see them through the pain- ful experience. That this can be done has been demonstrated b) the outstanding record ol the Port of New York Authority which recently completed the relocation ol over 1,800 families from the New York City ap- proaches to the George Washington Bridge. Whethei thai "one-shot" performance can be mat( hed b\ any ( '.it\ agency or by a private sponsoi is anot 1 1 ei matter, rhe Pori Authority's suc< ess w as due parti) to its efficient management, but mainly because of its expertly conceived and superbly exe- cuted program oi community and public educ ation which was begun some two years before the actual i elc k ation. The Relocation Problem is Big and Here to Stay The City Planning Commission estimates that not less than 500,000 families must be relocated il there is to be an adequate program ol city renewal, rebuilding, code enforcement and neighborhood conservation. Assuming a fifteen-year period for realization of this program, the burden of relocating 500,000 families would dwarf the effort of the past five years, during which almost SO, 000 families were relocated. The program envisaged by the Commis- sion max not be achieved. But a City housing and renewal program of substantial proportions is a must. An inescapable consequence ol any suc h pro- gram is the fact that Relocation will remain New York's No. I Problem for the foreseeable future. Relocation and Urban Renewal The City ol New York needs 4 .SO. 000 units of new housing right now !* For W hat? Not to build a Utopia but simply to replace the existing 280,000 slum dwellings; to provide fixing space for 100,000 overciowcled households: and to build up a mini- ' Statistics on \cw York City's needs are nol satisfactory, lint in the Fall ol 1958 a joint estimate l>\ the New ^ <>i k State Depart- ment ol Housing and the Department ol ( it) Planning agreed on this minimum Figure. mum :>'/ f vacanc) reserve of 50,000 standard apart- ments to make relocation tolerable."!' lo accomplish even this hunted objective, with the best possible- coordination and phasing, certain inesc apable lac ts must be faced: • These minimum needs cannot be met In con- stitution on vacant land. Enough vacant land simply docs not exist. • Even il there were enough vacant land on which this housing could be built the effort would do little to furthei the rehabilitation ol the City, so indispensable to its social and economic stability. • At the average rate ol construction for the past live years there has been a net addition to the City's housing stock of roughly 20,000 units per year. This means il would take the City more than 20 years to produce housing it needs NOW. • I he job c an be done only by an expertly con- ceived, energetic and sustained drive to renew and revitalize developed areas of the City which are now slums — commercial or residential — and those areas which have succumbed to bli«>ht and deiei ioration. • The inhabitants of these areas must be relocated to make way for the new . ( lean and safe struc- tures w hie h must be built. • I'nless all of the relocated tenants receive fair and uniform aid and assistance in the relocation prot cvs, regardless of which agency does the relo- cating, the social and political tensions created will defeat even a minimum urban renewal effort. There Is No Magic Formula For the reasons I have briefly described and others too numerous to mention here, there is no magic formula — no patent remedy that can solve tfie awe- some relocation problem. Setting up a huge new bureaucracy in the form of a central relocation bureau (whic h would consolidate all existing relo- cation operations) could not possibly provide an answer. At best, it would complicate a complex t ["here are no figures on the city-wide vacancy rate since the 1950 Federal Census which showed such rate to be 1%. -20- problem and jeopardize any rational attempt at its solution. At worst, and in determined hands, such an agency could readily lend itself to the socializa- tion of all housing in the City. Nor is there any escape in postponing urban re- newal. Because of the desperate shortage of housing, the City has not been able to enforce the building and occupancy codes. This has been a windfall for slum landlords up to now — but stringent enforce- ment must come sooner or later. If and when that time comes, hundreds of thousands of families may be made homeless. Urban renewal, in the case of tenant relocation, hastens the inevitable day of reckoning. But it has the compensating advantage of providing housing that is desperately needed. Relocation: A New Approach Though the problems of relocation in the long view are inseparable from those of urban renewal, they are essentially different in character. Each set of problems presents its own massive complexities. Each requires different policies, different legisla- tion, different organizational structures and above all. different types of leadership and public educa- tion for their ultimate solution. Relocation is not concerned with the macro- economics of urban renewal. It is concerned with people. The cost of an adequate urban renewal program for New York may run into the hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars. By contrast, the cost of a fair, equitable and humane policy of relocation can — at most — involve a few million dollars a year. Aside from social function, scale and cost, there is another profound difference between the two programs. Urban renewal is primarily a sustained promotion effort concerned with subsidies, tax abatement and private investment. Relocation is a matter of day to day administration and human re- lations. Each program requires a different type of inspiration, managerial skill, professional back- ground, leadership and communication ability. There are three principles which are controlling in any effort to establish a fair, equitable and hu- mane administration of relocation in New York City: First: The City must accept responsibility for fair, equitable and uniform treatment of all whose lives and livelihoods are adversely af- fected by the thrust of its sovereign power in eminent domain. Second: As a matter of sound public policy it makes no difference whether that sovereign power is exercised in the cause of slum clear- ance, urban renewal or public works. There must be equality before the law for all. Third: Once these principles are established by legislation or otherwise, the City administra- tion must accept responsibility for supervising compliance by all agencies responsible for relo- cation in New York City. Parts 3 and 4 of this report contain an analysis of the how, who, -what, where, when and why of the present administration of relocation. Part 5 sets forth the remedial measures which can and should be adopted immediately. -21 - Part 3 THE AGENCIES ENGAGED IN RELOCATION Sources of Relocation New York City Housing Authority Colossus of New York City Relocation Relocation Administration Tenant Relocation Benefits Department of Real Estate Scope of Relocation Relocation Administration Tenant Relocation Benefits Port of New York Authority Scope of the Washington Heights Relocation Relocation Administration Tenant Relocation Benefits Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority The Relocation Operation Tenant Relocation Benefits The Slum Clearance Committee: Title I How Title I Operates Origin of the New York Method Case History in Title I Relocation Title I Relocation Benefits and City Supervision What Happens to Families Relocated Under Title I How Good Is Relocation Under Title I ? -23- Part 3 THE AGENCIES ENGAGED IN RELOCATION Sources of Relocation The reloc ation impacl in New York Cit) has been generated princ ipally in li\e separate sources: 1. THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AU- rHORITY which constructs public housing and is required to relocate tenants from their sites. 2. DEPARTMENT O I REAL ESTATE whic h relocates tenants from City-owned property to make way for schools, playgrounds, highways and other public improvements. 3. TRIBOROUGH KRIDGE AND TUNNEL- AUTHORITY which has been assigned bv the Board of Estimate the task of relocating tenants on the sites of arterial highways and bridge approaches related to facilities under its jurisdiction. I. THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHOR- ITY which relocates tenants from the- sites of its improvements and fac ilities. 5. THE COMMITTEE ON SLUM CLEAR- ANCE which initiates urban redevelopment under Title I of the Federal Housing Act of 1949. The relocation operation is carried out by sponsors of Title I projects. An e xamination of the relocation policies and op- erations of the five agencies in their different public functions is required before a meaningful appreci- ation of the relocation impac t on the people affected by it can be achieved. The following tabulation shows the number of families which have had to be moved by these agen- cies since 1954. FAMILIES RELOCATED IN NEW YORK CITY January 1, 1954 — October 31, 1959 Dept. of Slum Clear. N. Y. C. Trib. Br. & Port of R. E. Comm. Housing Auth. Tunn. Auth. N. Y. Auth. Total 1959 1,345 3,818 6,732 995 95 12,985 1958 1,840 5,393 3,562 1,589 1,153 13,537 1957 2,736 1,990 3,965 185 499 9,375 1956 3,830 1,993 5,946 132 - 11,901 1955 4,118 3,034 7,130 309 - 14,591 1954 2,403 2,705 9,786 932 27 15,853 Total 16,272 18,933 37,121 4,142 1,774 78,242 % of Total 21% 24 % 48 % 5 % 2 % 1 00 % -24- The New York City Housing Authority Colossus of New York City Relocation The Housing Authority* accounts for a substan- tial portion of the relocation load in New York City. It has constructed and has under its jurisdic- tion by far the largest complex of public housing in the nation. The Authority's program for the fu- ture contemplates a continuance of large-scale construction. In providing reloc ation services and benefits, the Authority is controlled by State statutes in regard to City and State-sponsored projects, and by Federal law and regulations in regard to Federal-sponsored projects. Since January of 1954 the demolition and con- struction activities of the Authority have displaced a total of 37,121 residential tenants and 3,473 com- mercial tenants — an average annual relocation load of almost 7,000. During the first 9 months of 1959 there were 7,334 tenants (residential and commercial) relocated from sites acquired by the Authority. It is currently en- gaged in the clearance of twenty-four public hous- ing sites upon which there are over 9,000 residential tenants and over 800 commercial tenants. Sched- uled acquisition of new sites will increase the cur- rent rate of relocation. Relocation Administration The Authority carries out relocation and man- ages site property through its own staff working out of special offices established on each site. The Authority early notifies tenants of its pro- gram of relocation and the aids which it will pro- vide. Members of its relocation staff visit and interview each tenant; and record upon Site Occu- pancy Record Cards detailed information of the site apartment occupied by the tenant, the compo- sition of the tenant-family, his housing needs, and * the New York City Housing Authority is a public corporation established under the New York State Public Housing Law. It consists of a Chairman who is appointed by and holds office at the pleasure of the Mayor; and two other members appointed In the Mayor for overlapping terms of five years. It constructs, maintains and manages all public housing projects in the City, including those financed b\ the City, the stuti- and the Federal < .o\ eminent. facts relating to the tenant's eligibility for public housing. As the Authority's demolition schedule proceeds, the relocation operation increases its tempo. Non- relocated tenants are served with orders requiring them to show cause why writs of assistance should not be granted to the Authority requiring the Sher- iff to evict. The court grants the requested writs but stays their execution for periods of from two to six months in order to permit orderly relocation. The Authority has under its control a large reser- voir of living space. Approximately 0,000 vacancies occur each year in its existing projects and almost 6,000 new units are built each year. Consequently, during the past six years the Authority has been able to pro- vide a partial solution to its relocation problem by drawing upon its own public housing re- sources to relocate 31.6% of its site tenants. In addition, the Authority has placed 2.1% of its relocatees in rehabilitated tenements under Au- thority jurisdiction, and 3.7% of its relocatees in its own deferred site buildings. Thus, a total of 37.4% of tenants living on sites ac- quired by the Authority have been relocated to Authority-controlled living space; the balance relo- cated themselves. Tenant Relocation Benefits Direct financial relocation benefits paid by the Authority to or on behalf of site tenants are limited by law. They include actual removal expenses — up to $200 for residential tenants, and up to S500 for commercial tenants; and finder's fees to licensed real estate agents — ranging from $150 for 3i/ 2 rooms or less, to $250 for larger apartments. In actual practice, residential moving expenses paid range from $40 to $100. depending upon the size of the apartment. Rebate of the last month's rent is also allowed to the residential tenant, provided that the total of suc h rebate and moving expense cannot exc eed $200. -25- Department of Real Estate The Department of Real Estate is responsible foi relocating tenants from the sites of public improve- ments other than housing and other than those seg- ments of the City's arterial highway program which have not been specifically assigned by the Board ol Estimate to the Triborongh Bridge and Tunnel Authority. It is also responsible tor the supervision ol relocation by private sponsors or their agents from the sites ol Title I projects.* The Department ol Real Estate is the newest ol the City's departments of government. Established by statute in l!). r >!), the Department assumed the functions and activities ol the Bureau ol Real Estate' ol the Board ol Estimate which had been aptly de- scribed as "real estate owner, building manager, rental agent, broker, mortgage lender, mortgage servicing company, appraiser and accountant" in regard to the Citv's vast real estate holdings. The Department is empowered by statute to pro- vide relocation services to tenants upon City-owned property within its jurisdiction but only as author- ized by the Board of Estimate; and, as so authorized, to pay for or on behalf of its tenants, bonuses, mov- ing expenses, finder's fees and any redecorating expenses for apartments into which tenants are relocated. Scope of Relocation In the period January 1954-October 31, 1959. the Bureau (now Department), cleared from sites of City improvements a total of 16,272 residen- tial tenants. In recent years the direct relocation load of the Bureau has declined to a point where in 1958 it relocated only 1,840 tenants. And early in 1959 the Board of Estimate specifically assigned to the Triborongh Bridge and Tunnel Authority the relocation of tenants from the sites of certain major arterial highway projects in connection with the construction of the Narrows Bridge and Throgs Nec k Bridge. It is anticipated, however, that the re- • rhe Department's role in this respect is described more full) in the discussion ol Title I. p|>. 29-.'?3. location load ol the Department will increase as presently planned school and other improvements are undertaken. Relocation Administration The Department manages all City-owned prop- erty not assigned to a department oi other agency of City gov ei nment. Property acquired by the City loi a public improvement, or property owned by it and reserved foi such improvement, is under the management ol the Department until the improve- ment is scheduled foi construction. Nevertheless, the Department does not relocate- site tenants until the agency ol government in w hose jurisdic tion the public improvement icsts, informs the Department ol its intention to construct, and its schedule of demolition work. At that point the Department can do one of two things: engage a private relocating agent by a for- mal contract, approved by the Board of Estimate, which sets forth all terms including tenant benefits; or undertake the relocation of site tenants with its own staff. As in the case of the New York City Housing Authority, tenants who fail to move are served orders to show cause why writs of assistance should not be granted to the City requiring the Sheriff to evict them. Courts, in appropriate cases, stay the issuance of writs of assistance for periods of from two to six months to permit orderly relocation, de- pending upon the urgency of the public improve- ment and the demolition schedule. Tenant Relocation Benefits Financial aids to and for the benefit of tenants vary depending upon whether the Department per- forms the relocation operation itself, or through a private relocation agent. ft the Department itself does the relocation, the only direct benefit it extends to the tenant is a bonus payment ranging from $.100 to S500, de- pending upon the si/e of his apartment. -26- Although the statute establishing the Department authorizes the payment of finder's fees, moving expenses and decorating costs of the apartment to which a tenant is relocated, that authorization becomes effective only upon the adoption of a schedule of benefits by the board of Estimate. As yet such a schedule lias not been adopted. In relocation contracts entered into between the City and private relocation agents, the scale of bene- fits provides for bonus payments ranging from $300 to $500; finder's fees of up to $200; and decorating costs of $25 per room: plus actual moving expenses. The Port of New York Authority The Port Authority* has conducted and com- pleted two major relocation operations. The first of these involved the construction of approaches to the Lincoln Third Tunnel. The second was an out- standing job in connec tion with the major highway improvements involved in the construction of a second deck to the George Washington bridge, the improvement of access facilities to the bridge, and the erection of a bus station — all in the Washington Heights area of New York City. The Authority had learned a great deal from its Lincoln Tunnel relo- cation experience. It applied a new approach. The Washington Heights relocation operation was ac- complished a year ahead of schedule and in an at- mosphere of excellent community relations. Scope of the Washington Heights Relocation The Washington Heights operation involved the acquisition of 77 improved parcels; including mul- tiple dwellings, private houses, looming houses, commercial structures, and government and institu- tional buildings. In addition to this acquired prop- erty there w ere also invoked five apartment houses previously acquired by the Port Authority. On the site there were 1,818 families (approximately 8,000 persons) and 109 commercial establishments. * The l'oii ol New York Authority is a public corporation, established by compact between the State of New York and the State of New Jersey. As a bi-state instrumentality, the Port Authority is not subject to control bv either state acting alone Both states must concur in legislative action dealing with the Port Authority's powers and operations, and its proposals are subject to veto by either the Governor of New York or the Governor of New Jersey. Property within the City of New York cannot be acquired by the Port Authority without the consent of New York Citv acting through its Board of Estimate. Relocation Administration: The Value of a Community Relations Program About a year before the commencement of the Washington Heights operation, the Port Authority prepared an outline of the program and set up a group to prepare a detailed "Tenant Relocation Instruction Manual" for the guidance of the relo- cation staff. An elaborate community relations program was instituted to prepare the neighborhood for the relo- cation activities in prospect, and to deal with cur- rent community problems while relocation was in progress. Long before the operation was scheduled to get under way a circular letter was sent to about 5,000 real estate brokers in New York City, inviting them to enlist in the program and informing them of the schedule of fees which the Port Authority would pay for their services. Four months before the vesting of title to the area slated for acquisition, a site office was estab- lished; site tenants were moved out of buildings ow ned by the Port Authority as a result of prior ac- quisitions. Shortly thereafter, two site offices were established which were open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays, and occasionally on Sundays and holidays. Several weeks prior to the vesting of title to the property involved, Port Authority employees visited every tenant in the site buildings; informed them of the phasing of the projects; obtained and re- corded full information in regard to the tenant's family, its apartment needs, the rent it was prepared to pay, and other relevant particulars. At the same -27- time cadi tenant was handed a form notice, setting forth the schedule of benefits whic h the Port Au- thority was prepared to offer tenants to aid their relocation. Three months prior to the scheduled demolition date, the tenants ol the buildings scheduled for demolition received formal 30-day termination no- tices. In cases in which the tenants failed to move within the 30-day period, orders to show cause were procured looking towards the issuance of orders lor their removal. In suc h eases the courts — alter taking evidence in each case — granted an order requiring removal of the tenant, hut stayed its execution to a date in the future which would permit orderly relo- cation and not interlere with demolition sc hedules. Tenant Relocation Benefits Bonuses paid by the- Port Authority to the self- relocating tenants ranged from $100 if the tenant moved more than one year after the taking of title, to $200 if the tenant moved within four months alter the taking ol title. Moving expenses were limited to $25 per room; decorating expenses to $30 per room with a maximum of $210. Finder's lees paid by the Port Aut hoi il\ wc i e a maximum of $150. Commercial tenants received uo direct relo- cation benefits from the Authority. The Authority has no present plans for other major operations involv ing reloc ation in New York City. The Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority At the recpiest of the Citv Construction Co- ordinator, the Authority* was designated by the Board of Estimate to act on behalf of the City in relocating tenants from site areas of some of the arterial highway projects under its jurisdiction. In the absence of such action the task would have re- mained the responsibility of the Department ol Real Estate. Triborough, acting as the City's agent in arterial highway and bridge approach projects, has con- ducted several relocation operations — principally in connection with the Narrows Bridge and Throgs Neck approaches, and with Clearview, Horace Harding and Prospect Expressways. From January 1954 to October 31, 1959, the Authority has had control over the relocation of approximately 4.142 tenants. Fhe Authority has no present plans for major improvements which would require relocation of tenants. The Relocation Operation Immediately upon acquisition of the site prop- • l his Authority iv .i public corporation established lor the pur- pose \ the Hoard of Esti- mate upon application of the sponsors, and based upon a set return on the cost. -29- subject to the approval of the Shun Clearance ( !< »mmittee. This is how the method at tually worked in a case where both management and relocation were com- bined under the direction of ;i private relocation and management agent: • Immediately upon the acquisition ol the site by the sponsor, the relocation and management agent established a Site Office operated by a Site Manager and his staff. It found 2,622 families and 238 commen ial tenants on the site. • An immediate survey was made on the site area and complete data in regard to eac h tenant was obtained showing the number of persons in each family; the number ol rooms in the unit: the rental paid by the family; utilities; and the fam- ily's apartment needs and choice ol an area for relocation. This information was recorded on Site Occupancy Record (lards. • A listing service was established in the Site Otlice to advise each site tenant ol available suitable apartment opportunities. • Real Estate brokers and agents were solicited and offered finder's lees ranging from SI 00 to $150 for each apartment into which tenants could be relocated. • A Housing Authority representative was sta- tioned at the Site Office to take and check appli- cations by site tenants for apartments in public housing projects. • Employees of the Real Estate Department were stationed at the Site Office to supervise the activi- ties of the private relocation agent. • Charts were prepared subdividing the site into areas and priorities assigned to each area based upon the demolition schedule. Tenants in the area to which top priority had been accorded were notified that the area was about to be cleared and requested to relocate themselves if possible. They were informed of the bonuses and payments which would be made to assist them in this. • At the same time, an application was made to the State Rent Commission loi Certificates of Evic- tion in regard to tenants in the area selected lor priority.* • As apartments became available as the result of the operation of the listing services and the elloi ts ol private real estate agents and landlords, they were ottered to site tenants with the highest priority. • II the tenant found the apartment satisfactory and it passed inspection by a representative of the City's Real Estate Department, arrangements were made for the tenant to move into it. Title I Relocation Benefits and City Supervision Title I is the only program in existence in wliicJi the relocation of site tenants to .standard apartments is required by law. A tenant benefit in Title I relo- cation which is not available in any oilier relocation program is the inspection by the Department of Real Estate oj apartments to which tenants relocate, to ensure that the apartment is not substandard.^ An apartment must represent decent, safe and sani- tary housing, reasonably within the tenant's means. If, however, a tenant relocates himself to housing which the Department of Real Estate finds does not comply with these standards, he is not entitled to relocation benefits, other than moving expenses. Nevertheless, the private sponsor remains under ob- ligation to offer such a tenant proper housing and to bear the expense of moving the tenant into it. The Department of Real Estate supervises the re- location operations of all Title I sponsors, and the cost of that supervision is borne by the sponsors. The supervision is detailed and comprehensive and • Customarily, the State Rent Administrator issues a certificate of eviction within 60 da\s after the application and makes it effective 30 days after the date of its issuance. When the cer- tificate of eviction becomes final, summary proceedings are instituted in the Municipal Court against all tenants in the area selected who had not relocated themselves. Thereafter, a final order is granted containing a 30-day stay. This final order contains a further condition staying the issuance of a warrant of eviction until a further order is made by the court upon five da\s' notice to the tenant and proof by the sponsor that adequate efforts to relocate the tenant had been made and that the tenant had unreasonably rejected them. f A substandard apartment is one which lacks central heating, a private toilet and bath, and certain other minimal requirements. 30 TITLE I RELOCATION TODAY -31 - continues to the final inspection of the housing into which the tenant is relocated. The sponsor's ex- penses arc subje< t to audit by the City Comptroller. AVERAGE RENT PER ROOM BY METHOD OF RELOCATION FORDHAM What Happens to Families Relocated Under Title I: A Recent Sample A breakdown ol the destinations ol tenants relo- cated from the Lincoln Square and Seward Park Projects during the period 1958-1959, is shown in the following tabulation: LINCOLN SQUARE SEWARD PARK (Performing Artsl (Fordham) Families (No. I 1,647 1,158 1,288 Manhattan 54.5% 57.6% 72.2%* Bronx 12.0% 9.2% 5.0% Queens 5.9% 9.1 % 2.6% Brooklyn 9.4% 8.5% 17.0% Richmond 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% Other 9.7% 11.9% 3.1% Unknown 8.3% 3.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% * Includes 65% relocated to Lower East Side. Types ol housing into which tenants were relo- cated from the Fordham and Performing Arts seg- ments ol the Lincoln Square project are shown in the following tabulations: No. of Families Surveyed Before After Public Housing 104 $ 9.70 $14.00 Sponsor Found 217 13.00 15.40 Self Relocated 445 14.06 19.80 Total 766* " 766 families of the 1,032 relocated were surveyed, or about 74% of the families. PERFORMING ARTS No. of Families Surveyed Before After Public Housing 182 $12.04 $11.85 Sponsor Found 457 15.72 14.67 Self Relocated 521 14.19 21.10 Total 1,160* ' 1,160 families of the 1,309 relocated were surveyed, or about 89% of the families. Further studies showed that both on Fordham and the Performing Arts sections the families relo- cated had increased the size of their living quarters, reducing the number of persons per room, and had purchased other services not enjoyed before reloca- tion. Apparently, Avhile rent cost had increased, the families on the whole ended up enjoying better housing than before they were displaced. How Good Is Relocation Under Title I? Background of Title I Relocation Relocation in New York is not new. Prior to World W ar II, public improvement programs con- sisted of two phases, the acquisition of the property and ilic physical construction of the project. Ten- ants were given notice to vacate after the property was acquired and they were required to find their own accommodations. Since World War II the problem of tenant relocation has become one of major importance and it is now generally accepted that public works involve three phases: (1) prop- erty acquisition; (2) tenant relocation; and (3) construction. The comprehensive three-year study entitled Urban Redevelopment Problems and Practices* edited by Coleman Woodbury states: "The passage of the Housing Act ol 1949 firmly fixed a definite responsibility on the public agen- cies proposing projects for construction under Title I of the Act. It required them to face the problem of relocation and cope with it. Relocation took its place as co-ecpial with site clearance." Title I of the Act of 1949 introduced into the law, the most advanced provisions for relocation of displaced tenants. As a condition of approval and »rant of Federal funds, the Act provides that: * The l'ni\eisii\ of Chicago Press (1953) (Pg. 143). -32- ". . . there be a feasible method for the temporary relocation of families displaced from the project area and that there are or being provided, in the piojeu area or in other areas not generally less de- sirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial buddies and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families displaced from die project area, decent, sale and sanitary dwell- ings equal in number to the number of and avail- able to such displaced families and reasonably accessible to their places of employment." Title I provides the most generous financial bene- fits to displaced tenants in relocation. Yet its ad- ministration in New York City, despite the fact that it has produced by far the largest and most im- pressive Title I program of improvements in the United States, lias been under c onstant criticism. Evaluation of Title I Relocation in New York The administration of Title I in New York has been criticized on a variety of grounds w hich are not germane to this report. But much of the criticism has been directed at the conduct of relocation under Title I by private sponsors. A by-product of this has been the demand for a "central relocation bureau." To this aspect of the criticism we have given par- ticular attention in our survey. In doing so, we considered carefully the majority and minority* opinions of the members of the City Planning Com- mission in its comprehensive report on Tenant Relocation, submitted to the Board of Estimate in 1954. We also took into consideration the 1955 report of the Sub-Committee on Tenant Relocation of the Mayor's Committee on Better Housing. The Chairman of that Sub-Committee was Minority Leader of the New York City Council, Stanley M. Isaacs. As indicated in Part 1 of this report we made a survey of the operations of the Department of Real * The minority of the City Planning Commission recommended that the Board of Estimate establish a Central Relocation Bureau to coordinate the City's relocation program. It also rec- ommended the construction of 45,000 dwelling units annually for the next ten years. This, it was estimated would require the expenditure of §150,000.000 annually or about $4,500,000,000 in ten years. A program of this size probably woidd entail the re- location of ovcy 150,000 people unnuully. Estate in its role of supervisor of relocation by pri- vate sponsors in Title I projects. This covered the period beginning in 1958-1959 when it was being drastically reorganized from a Bureau reporting to the Board of Estimate, into a Department* of Real Estate reporting to the Mayor, up to the present time. Within this period, we found no evidence of lack of vigilance on the part of the Department of Real Estate in superv ising the relocation work of sponsors or their agents. Such infractions of regu- lations as did occur were promptly acted upon when detected. What we did find was that relocation was bedeviled by the virtually insoluble, substantive problems described in Part 2 of this report and the multiplicity of serious but soluble administrative problems discussed in Part 4. Nor have I found any substantial reason of a policy or other character why a Title I private spon- sor should be regarded as constitutionally incapable of doing the job of relocation either directly or through an agent. The present provisions of Title I contracts as developed by the Slum Clearance Committee, the Department of Real Estate and the Corporation Counsel, with respect to the sponsor's obligations in relocation, are explicit and compre- hensive. They are susceptible to efficient super- vision by the Department of Real Estate. f In my opinion, it would be difficult in the present stage of Title I development in New York to have a repeti- tion of sponsor or relocation agency irresponsibility such as that which occurred in Manhattantown and cither early Title I projects. * The reorganization was initiated by Mayoi Wagnei and the City Administrator. Simultaneously, Mr. fames Felt (then Chairman of the City Planning Commission) was appointed Director of the Bureau of Real Estate to launch the reorganization which was completed by his successor, the present Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate, Mr. J. Clarence Davies. M\ Executive Assistant. Mr. Dwyer, played a key role in the reor- ganization as Deput\ Director of the Bureau of Real Estate under Mr. Felt, and as Deputy Commissioner in the Department of Real Estate under Mr. Davies. fin the reorganization ol the Cii\\ 1 clot .11 ion function proposed in the recommendations of this report, the role of the Depart- ment of Real Estate in coordinating and supervising relocation policy and practice on a City-wide basis is greatly expanded. Its reorganization is proposed to enable it to discharge its enlarged responsibilities. -33- RELOCATION AIDS VARY BY AGENCY SLUM CLEARANCE COMMITTEE * TITLE I NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY • PUBLIC HOUSING % RENT REBATE PRIORITY AR. FOR EST, PLANOSCOPE CORP. NYC INSPECTIOI M -AGENCY 1 OUNDAPT. Fl! NDERS F EE DECORATION EXPENSE i i The New York City Housing Authority on June 16, 1959 began a cautious use of finder's fees, decorating expenses and inspection of agency-found apartments. About 75 tenants have been so relocated against a current monthly average volume of 1,000 families. The Department of Real Estate has at times in the past contracted with private firms for relocation, offering the same aids as the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority contracts. -34- Part 4 TEN PROBLEMS OF RELOCATION ADMINISTRATION Size of the Relocation Problem Lack of Uniformity in Tenant Aids and Assistance (Residential) Administrative Confusion and Bad Tenant Relations The Hardship which Relocation Imposes on Commercial Tenants Inadequacy of Project Programming and Coordination No Focal Point of Relocation Responsibility Lack of a Public Education Program in Relocation The Special Problem of Welfare Clients Costs of Relocation Sources of Relocation Funds -35 - Part 4 TEN PROBLEMS OF RELOCATION ADMINISTRATION The (en basic problems oi relocation administra- tion, in my opinion, arc these: • Si/e of the problem — present and potential. • I .ark of uniformity in the i reatment of resident ia I tenants in relocation. • Administrative confusion and bad tenani rela- tions. • Hardships which relocation imposes on commer- cial tenants. • Inadequate programming ol housing and other public works to minimize relocation impact. • Lack of a fixed point ol responsibility to establish relocation polities, including uniform benefits, and having the power to supervise compliance on a city-wide basis. • There is no city-wide program ol public educa- tion established by the City, with the fullest de- gree of participation by civic "roups, community organizations, universities, schools and all media of communication on the WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY, WHO and MOW of relocation. • Special problem of Welfare clients. • Costs of Relocation. • Sourc es of Relocation Funds. Size of the Relocation Problem Over 78,000 families w ere relocated in New York City from January 1. 1954 to October 31, 195!). On our opening chart (inside front cover) we show why this relocation was necessary and the extent of each agem v's operations in the process. An urban renewal program of minimum ade- quacy — simply to replace 280,000 sub-standard dwellings, provide living space for 100,000 over- crowded homes, and to build up a minimum 3% vacancy rate of 50,000 standard apartments over the next ten years — will substantially increase the size of the relocation problem and intensify its I fusions. Lack of Uniformity in Tenant Aids and Assistance (Residential) Lac k ol itniloi mit v in the aids and assistant i ex tended to tenants by the various agencies engaged in i eloc at ion shows up to a disturbing degree in the tabulal ion at page 37. Here are a lew samples ol the inequalities that c reate tenant resentment : • A tenant relocating himsell from a five-room apartment receives a bonus ranging from $21 11 1 to .S. r )00 depending upon which agency is responsi- ble for the site. He receives a bonus ol $ 125 from a Title I sponsor; $200 from the New York ( it\ Mousing Authority or the Port of New York Authority : and $500 from the remaining agen< ies. • A tenant located in a dwelling about to In- de- molished to provide for the construction ol a New York City Housing Authority project, can obtain his actual moving expenses uj> to $100. The tenant ol a near-by building slated lor re- placement by a Title I project can receive up to $200 lot moving expenses. • A tenant subject to relocation by the Department of Real Estate from a building slated lor demoli- tion to make way lor the construction ol a new- school receives no aid in finding an apartment and nothing lor mov ing expenses; while a nearb) tenant relocated by the Department of Real Es- tate through a private relocator retained by it receives such aid, and in addition, his actual mov - ing expenses. • A tenant relocated from the site of a highway im- provement rec eives nothing lor the redecorating of the apartment into which he is moved, if the relocation is done directly by the Department of Real Estate. But if he is relocated by the Tri- borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority or b) the Department of Real Estate ac ting through a pri- vate relocator lm an identical purpose, he re- ceives an allowance for the redecorating ol (he -36- RELOCATION AIDS TO RESIDENTIAL TENANTS BY AGENCY Title l N. Y. C. Trib. Br. & Type of Aid Sponsors^ ' 1 Dept. of Real Estate Housing Auth. Tunn. Auth. Port Auth. or Assistance Direct Contract Direct Contract Direct SELF RELOCATION Bonus $2754500 $300-$500 $300-$500 Rebate last month's rent plus moving expenses 5200 Max. $100-$500 $200 Max. Moving Expense Govt. Paid $200 Max.< 2 > none none Included in Bonus none $25 per room Decoration Expense none none none none none $30 per room ff O 1 A A ^ p/ 1 U Max. Inspection of Apt. yes no no no no no AGENCY FOUND APT. Finder's Fee $150 Max. 13) $200 Max. $250 Max. includes Decoration Expense 14 ' $1 50 Max. $150 Moving Expense $200 Max. (3) Actual Cost $100 Max. $250 Max. includes Decoration Expense $25 per room Decoration Expense $ 1 00 Max. (3) $25 per room Included in Finder's Fee Included in Moving Expense 530 per room $21 Max. Bonus none (3) none none none $100 Inspection of Apt. yes (3) yes yes yes yes RELOCATION TO PUBLIC HOUSING Moving Expense $200 Max. none Actual Cost Included in Bonus Actual Cost $25 per room Bonus none none none Rebate last month's rent plus moving expenses $200 Max. none $100 Priority yes yes yes yes yes yes Ml Individual sponsor relocation activities supervised by the Department of Real Estate. (2) Deducted from bonus. 13) Department is developing schedules to provide these aids but does not intend to pay bonus for agency found apartment. 1 4 ) On June 16, 1959, The New York City Housing Authority began use of finder's fees, decorating expenses and inspection of Authority-found apart- ments. To date approximately 75 tenants have been relocated by the use of finder's fees out of a current monthly average volume of 1,000 families. apartment into which lie is relocated. There can be no satisfactory solution to the prob- lem of relocation — even at its present pace — until and unless tenant aids and benefits are made uni- form, as a matter of law, on a city-wide basis, regard- less of the agency that does the relocation. Administrative Confusion and Bad Tenant Relations To the tenant about to lose his home, there is nothing more important than the way in whic h the bad news is conveyed to him. This is evident, for example, in the simple but important matter of in- formational notices sent to the tenants. The Port of New York Authority and Tribor- ough Bridge and Tunnel Authority provide clearly written, simple, comprehensive statements. In Title 1 projects, however, three types of notices are sent to each tenant: a general statement by the sponsor, a similar statement by the Department of Real Estate, capped by a frightening certificate of eviction from the State Rent Commission. This goes on despite the fact that as far back as June 1955 the Subcommittee on Tenant Relocation of the Mayor's Committee on Better Housing, un- der the chairmanship of the Honorable Stanley M. Isaacs recommended : -37- "In the case of public improvements requiring relocation of tenants living on the site thereof, the policy recommended is thai suc h tenants should be advised at the earliest possible moment with respect to: (a) Why it is necessary to clear the site; (b) When they will be required to be off the site; (c) What theii legal l ights are as to staying; (d) Whether thev are entitled to go into pub- lic housing; (c) What help thev ma) expect t<> receive in locating other housing; (f) What financial assistance they can expec I to receive to help them in moving." Lac k of uniformity of procedures not only makes administrative efficiency impossible but actually creates popular hostility against relocation. The Hardship Which Relocation Imposes on Commercial Tenants The problem most difficult to solve is that oi the' commercial tenant in a site building which is con- demned. Since January 1, 1 954 over 10,000 tenants have had their businesses dislocated. (See tabula- tion below.) Commercial leases, as a rule, contain a clause under which the lease automatically terminates when the building is condemned. In such a case the owner gets the full award; the tenant gets nothing - not even the value of the term of years he ex- pected to enjoy his lease. Trade-fixture awards made to commercial tenants in condemnation pro- ceedings are minimal, and in no way reflect ade- quately the tenant's actual loss. Where the commercial tenant happens to be a small proprietor of a retail or service establishment the results of such dislocation can range from crip- pling financial loss to outright ruin. To be sure, a small c ommerc ial tenant oc c upying a loft can move his operation without substantial loss to his busi uc ss. but the proprietor of a neighborhood retail in service store, il forced to move from a site, loses his business completely. The only exception is the i .u c- instan< e w he n he c an obtain comparable space in the immediate neighborhood and so retain at least some ol his c ustomers. Inadequate Relocation Benefits. Right now, the only benefits received by commercial tenants dislo- cated by public improvements or government- activated improvements is the payment of actual removal expenses. This in the case of Housing Au- thority projects is limited to $500. In Title I proj- ects he- ge ts up to S.'i.OOO. In all other projects he ge ts nothing. • The actual moving expenses of a small retail or service establishment are generally less than §500; but the removal expenses of a large commercial establishment occupying space in a loft building on a site to be demolished can run into many thousands of dollars. • Neither the $500 paid by the Housing Authority, nor the $3,000 paid by the Title I projects, ade- quately compensate for this kind of moving expense. No Compensation for the Loss of Good Will. More significant however is the lack of compensa- tion for the actual value of a business destroyed by dislocation. The rule-of-thumb sales value of a small retail business is generally based upon a mul- tiple of its receipts. This multiple varies in the case of each business; but as a rule, the value of a going COMMERCIAL RELOCATION IN NEW YORK CITY January 1, 1954 — October 31, 1959 Dept. of Slum Clear. N. Y. C Trib. Br. & Port of R. E. Comm. Housing Auth. Tunn. Auth. N. Y. Auth. Total 1959 371 649 602 126 16 1,764 1958 565 844 457 237 73 2,176 1957 428 304 436 86 20 1,274 1956 575 490 550 76 - 1,691 1955 514 390 575 97 - 1,576 1954 371 434 853 23J T9 1,908 Total 2,824 3,1 1 1 3,473 853 128 10,389 -38- retail business in a good neighborhood can be read- ily determined. However, as in most other jurisdic- tions, New York courts decline to recognize damages for loss of good will by I e nan Is whose leases are terminal ed in condemnation proceedings. The courts take the view that this does not constitute taking of property without due process of law under the Federal and State constitutions. Some Exceptions to the Rule. But there are cir- cumstances in which commercial tenants on prop- erty taken by eminent domain are compensated for the losses which they actually sustain, and more. A striking example is provided in New York City's acquisition of property outside the City for water supply purposes. Here, in contrast to what it does for its own small businessmen, the City, in dealing with the businessmen outside the City must pay them generous aiuards based upon their busi- ness losses. In these cases: • A person indirectly affected adversely by the tak- ing of land for water supply purposes (in Dela- ware, Sullivan, Orange or Ulster counties) is legally entitled to a substantial award notwith- standing the fact that his property is not actually acquired by the City. • An employee of a business establishment who loses his job as a result of New York City con- demnation of property outside the City for water supply purposes receives the equivalent of six months' wages. Should New York City decide to extend to its own small businessmen the benefits which it has been required to give their counterparts in the up- state water supply area, the cost would be a serious matter in any program of urban renewal. It would also raise the question whether and to what extent such costs should be shared by the City and the Federal Government in any such program. Inadequacy of Project Programming and Coordination One of the basic problems in relocation is the programming and scheduling of housing projects and public works to assure that (1) excessive dis- ruption is not caused in any one area at any particu- lar time; and (2) in cases where public or other housing is to be built, that it will be ready at the right time and place to provide maximum reloca- tion assistance. It is essential that projects are pro- grammed and their construction scheduled in a way that will not create intolerable pressures on a given area. Programming is important for another reason. There is mounting evidence of widespread deteri- oration of old housing, and gross overcrowding of such tenements and other dwellings throughout the City. This has arisen from a combination of cir- cumstances, but undoubtedly one factor has been the displacement of families at a rate which makes it impossible for them to be absorbed into the ex- isting supply of satisfactory housing, new or old. Already this process may have resulted in the crea- tion of new shim areas. Certainly it has intensified the overcrowding in present slum areas. Such a process, if left uncorrected, will result in the crea- tion of new slums at a faster pace than old slums can be eliminated. Relocation operations must be coordinated at the local level — in neighborhoods — where two or more projects are being carried out under different agen- cies. At the present time, there is no effective mech- anism for such coordination. No Focal Point of Relocation Responsibility Agitation for a central relocation agency to take over and consolidate all relocation operations in the City has resulted from the problems which I have outlined. This notion is delusive. It is a mis- take to think that any particular form of organiza- tion, whether centralized or decentralized, will provide "the answer" even to the administrative problems which bedevil relocation now. Any organization — whether it is of a business or government character — is nothing more than a vehicle through which policies are administered, de- cisions made, and operations audited in compliance with policies as established. It can be ruined by w^ell-meaning people applying unsound policies. For relocation, what is needed are wise policies, -39- sound organization, and above all the right people - people sympathetic to the plight o] those human beings whose homes, lives and businesses arc up- tooled through no fault oj theh own. Lack of a Public Education Program in Relocation There has been a complete absence of communi- cations between the City administration and the people on the subject ol relocation, which reflec ts and contributes to the confusion ol polic y and ad- ministration which now exists. Unless and until an educational program is de- vised by the Administration that reaches the "grass loots" of the City where relocation hardships strike most heavily, the populai resistance to it will con- tinue to mount and invite professional exploitation. The Special Problem of Welfare Clients In addition to the major problems of relocation ad in i nisi i til ion listed, there is the peripheral one of providing housing services for clients of the Depart- ment of Welfare. These number 350,000 who are adversely affected by the shortage of c ity housing. Welfare Commissioner Dumpson's letter to me highlights this problem, and proposes that the City: "Remove from the Department of Welfare all responsibility for providing housing services. This is not, under the law, a Department of Wel- fare function. Its legal responsibility in relation to housing is to provide the necessary funds to meet the cost of the recipient's housing needs." This, however, affects the total housing problem and is not a relocation problem within the scope of this report. Costs of Relocation Variations in the cost of relocation by the several agencies reflect some difference in operating effi- ciency. But to a greater extent they result from two fa< tors: The services given to the tenants and the relocation payments made. The Housing Authority has the lowest cost of any of the operating agencies; but it also has avail- able to it the largest reservoir of housing in which to relocate tenants. Conversely, relocation done by private agents under contrac t to the Department of Real I- state and the' Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority has been relatively cost ly; but these agen- c ies are required to provide intensive apartment- locating effort and liberal bonus payments. Reloca- tion in Title I projects has also been relatively costly. But again, its sc ale of payments to tenants is high. The comprehensive relocation effort of the Port of New York Authority resulted in high relo- cat ion c ost . Available figures show that nine selec ted projects ol the New York City Housing Authority covering the relocation of 17,280 families, averaged SI 28 per family in relocation costs. In five Title I proj- ects, involving 5,662 families, the average cost per f am i K was S.!27. The Department of Real Estate, in 28 projects relocating 5,600 families by private re- locators, averaged S489 per family. The Port of New York Authority's Washington Heights proj- ect averaged $599 per family. Sources of Relocation Funds All relocation costs are borne ultimately by the tax-paying public, but the sources of funds are varied: • In Title I projects, moving expenses are paid by the Federal Government; other payments are made by the sponsors and charged against site rental revenues. The net cost of the relocation operation is of course reflected in the amount which the sponsor is willing to bid for the property. • The Housing Authority operates with a com- bination of Federal, State and City subsidies. • In relocation programs carried out by the Depart- ment of Real Estate, direct costs are borne as part of the capital cost of the particular improvement, i.e., highways, schools, etc. to be constructed on the site. The same is true of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority and Port Author- ity operations. • For arterial highways, funds are provided largely horn Federal and State highway aid and from the operation of toll-paying bridges and tunnels. -40- Part 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusion The Semantics of "Central Relocation" Three Alternatives of Organization Recommendations A Ten Point Program of Action Part 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSION The Semantics of "Central Relocation" My staff and I have given intensive study to the best, the most practical and the most economic solution to the ten problems of relocation adminis- tration. I have carefully considered the question whether a central relocation bureau* should be established and how it should be organized. We have found in the course of our survey that many well-meaning people, unfamiliar with the- massive complexities of the problem, call for the immediate establishment of a "central relocation bureau," but are wholly unable to define the func- tions of the bureau whose creation they demand. Even the experts on relocation, inside and outside the City administration, are unable to agree. Our review of numerous and conflicting opinions and proposals coupled with our own analysis of the problems of relocation administration in New York City and the techniques of relocation in other large cities, led me to the inescapable conclusion that the agitation for a central relocation agency was put- * A centra] relocation "bureau" in the strict sense of the term is line in which the central relocation bureau would assume, con- solidate and peiloim diiecth with ils own stall the relocation functions <>l all agencies engaged in relocation in the City. ting the cart before the horse. In other words . . . the establishment In the City of fair, equitable and uniform policies applicable on a City-wide basis to all tenants displaced by the exercise of the City's power of eminent domain is the con- sideration ol primary importance. The kind of organization necessary and appropriate to carry out or supervise compliance with the policies established is secondary. An organization, whether it is of a business or governmental character, is nothing more than a vehicle through which policies are administered. Any organization, whatever its form, can be ruined by the wrong people trying to apply sound policies, or by well-meaning people applying the wrong policies. To the extent that the problems of relocation in this City are soluble by administration, the answer must be found in fair, equitable, uniform and hu- mane polieies administered by competent person- nel sympathetic to the plight of human beings whose homes, families and businesses are uprooted through no fault of their own. Given the right policies and the right people, the organization of relocation in my judgment should -42- be decentralized to the maximum extent possible «iiid placed in the hands of qualified private reloca- tion firms, operating under the strict supervision of the City administration. The reasons for my conclusion go to the heart of our free institutions. Relocation is a problem as broad and as complex as the population profile of the City itself. Any rational approach to its solution must enlist the confidence, acceptance and vigorous participation ol all elements of the community through the dy- namics of our free institutions, political and eco- nomic. Specifically, any meaningful effort by the City to deal effectively with the problems of relo- cation recjuires the mobilization of the energies, experience and management know-how of private enterprise and all-out community effort. Three Alternatives of Organization Starting with the assumption that a uniform City- wide relocation policy would be established by law. applicable to all agencies engaged in relocation in New York City (except the Port of New York Au- thority which would require New York and New Jersey legislation) the question remained hoiv and where the responsibility of administering it should be organized. There were three alternatives: (1) to establish a new City agency; (2) to transfer the function to the New York City Housing Authority; or (3) to reorganize the Department of Real Estate and provide it with the managerial resources to do the kind of job that I regard as neces- sary and desirable. I dismissed the first alternative as unrealistic and administratively undesirable. But I gave serious consideration and intensive study to the second which several relocation experts, inside and outside the City administration, strongly recommended as a logical and desirable solution to the problem. The reasons advanced were persuasive. To begin with, the Authority has the largest and most extensive experience with direct relocation of any public agency in the City. It has a competent and experi- enced relocation staff. Its relocation organization, methods and procedures have met the test of time. Its costs of operation are reasonable; and it controls a large reservoir of public housing. Chairman Reid and his colleagues, Messrs. Robbins and Madigan, are experienced administrators and sensitive to the human problems which relocation entails. My Ceneral Counsel and I fully explored the matter with Chairman Reid and his colleagues. Messrs. Robbins and Madigan, and the technical experts of the Authority. But, after mature reflec- tion, I concluded that the Authority was not the place to establish the kind of relocation function that I regarded as necessary and desirable. My rea- sons are these: • For the foreseeable future, the substantive and administrative problems of relocation will per- meate every facet of the City's redevelopment effort. They require a sensitivity and flexibility of lesponse by the City administration which might be prejudiced by placing the responsibility for the administration of relocation in an agency beyond the direct and immediate control of the Mayor and the Board of Estimate. • Furthermore, the administration of relocation on a City-wide basis by the Authority with its own relocation staff would militate against the partici- pation of qualified private relocation firms in t he- relocation effort. • Finally, the Authority is charged with functions and activities of significant import to the City's future. Its energies should not be diverted from its major task of building the low-income hous- ing which the City so desperately needs. I have elected what I consider the best, the most practical and the most economic form of organiza- tion—consistent with our free institutions — to supervise, coordinate and enforce on a City-wide basis, compliance with a fair, uniform, and equit- able relocation policy to be established by law.* In the recommendations which follow I spell out a detailed Ten Point Program of Action by which my proposals can be made effective immediately. • The legislation which I recommend for this purpose, il en acted, would require the New York City Housing Authority to conform to rules and regulations and to schedules of uniform tenant benefits in relocation; bu( is not intended to affect ii-. internal administrative methods or to require the discontinu- ance of its existing direct relocation operation. -43 - RECOMMENDATIONS A Ten Point Program of Action Specifically, I Recommend: 1. Enactment oj A State Law Which Would En- able the Board of Estimate to Provide A Bill of Rights For Tenants in Relocation. A Draft oj the Proposed Bill is Included in This Report as Annex >. • What The Proposed Stale Law Will Do. The law will vest broad powers in the Commissioner of Real Estate, subjec t to the approval of the board ol Esti- mate, to fix tenant relocation benefits and to regu- late relocation administration on a City-wide basis. The law affects the New York City Housing Au- thority and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority and, therefore, requires enactment by the State legislature. The law, when enacted, will squarely impose on the Commissioner ol Real Es- tate the full responsibility for implementing Un- tenants' BILL OF RIGHTS as established by the Board of Estimate. It will give him broad powers to carry out his responsibility, because: • The Commissioner is required to establish relo- cation services for occupants of City-owned build- ings under his jurisdiction. • The Commissioner is required, subject to the ap- proval of the Board of Estimate, to establish a sched- ule of uniform minimum relocation payments to be made to or for the benefit of tenants required to be relocated. • The schedule must include bonuses, moving ex- penses, redecorating expenses and finder's fees. As indicated above, it is applicable not only to relocation operations conducted by the Depart- ment of Real Estate but also to operations con- ducted by the Housing Authority, the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, and Title I sponsors. • In addition to establishing a schedule of uniform minimum benefits, the Commissioner is author- ized to establish such other benefits as he may find necessary, depending on special circumstances. • The Commissioner is required, subject to the ap- proval of the Board of Estimate, to adopt Rules and Regulations controlling relocation practices and procedures in the- City. • The Commissioner is empowered to schedule and coordinate the tenant relocation operations of all agencies and persons subject to the Regulations. In order to provide lor adequate polic ing of re- location, the Commissioner is authorized to ex- amine, investigate and inspec t relocation operations of all agencies, public and private, which are sub- ject to his Rules and Regulations. 2. Enactment oj a Local Law by The New York City Council Amending the City Charter to Au- thorize The Appointment of a Deputy Commis- sioner F01 Relocation in The Department of Heal Estate. A draft of the proposed bill is included in this report as Annex 4. • What The Local Law Will Do. Unlike the exist- ing provisions of the City Charter (which limit the choice of the present sole Deputy Commissioner of Real Estate to persons in the real estate field) the qualifications prescribed for the Relocation Deputy require that he shall have had broad executive or administrative experience and training which, in the opinion oj the appointing officer, specially equips him to perform the new relocation junctions and responsibilities of the Department. The pur- pose of this provision is to afford the Mayor and the Commissioner of Real Estate a wide range of choice in selection of a Relocation Deputy with the quali- fications necessary to carry out the obligations of his exacting and newly created office. 3. Reorganization of the Department of Real Estate to provide it with the personnel, administra- tive structure and managerial resources to enable it to carry out the expanded obligations and functions under the recommended legislation. A chart depict- ing the proposed organization of the Department of Real Estate appears on the inside back cover of this report and facing it is a detailed statement of allo- cation of functions and responsibilities in the new — If — organization. Assuming prompt passage of the rec- ommended state and local legislation, the proposed reorganization plan w hich has been developed in the fullest detail by my staff and myself can be put into effect by the City Administrator and the Budget Director, when approved by the Mayor and the Board of Estimate. 4. Appointment by the Mayor of a Citizens' Re- location Board to ensure maximum citizen partici- pation by representatives of community and civic groups and leaders of minorities particularly af- fected by relocation in advising the Deputy Com- missioner for Relocation. The functions of the Citizens' Relocation Board are described in the statement of functions facing the organization c hart on the inside back cover of this report. The Citi- zens' Relocation Board if carefully selected, should serve admirably as the initiating and focal point of a program of public education and two-way com- munication between the City administration and the communities affected by relocation. 5. A ppointment by the Mayor of an Inter-Ageni y Relocation Coordinating Committee, made up of top representatives of the City agencies directly con- cerned with and affected by relocation to aid the Deputy Commissioner in developing a balanced re- location program for the City. The membership of the inter- Agency Relocation Committee is listed on the organization chart on the inside back cover of this report, its mission would be to provide the day- to-day machinery of inter-agency programming, co- ordination and scheduling of relocation activities which does not now exist. The functions of the Coordinating Committee are listed in detail on the page facing the organization chart. The need, at the policy level, for coordination and scheduling of construction projects on a City-wide basis, and the appropriate form of organization for that purpose, will be the subject of my final report. 6. Adoption by the Board of Estimate of Positive Policies for the Relief of Small Businessmen Dis- placed by Relocation. This should include the fol- lowing measures: • Establishment of a City-wide policy of planning and designing public improvements to provide maximum opportunity for the placement of small business firms displaced from the site of the improvement. • Adoption of a City-wide policy to stimulate the design of housing projects, whether public or publicly assisted, to include small stores and shops (as well as the large chain stores and supermar- kets), to preserve the small neighborhood store as a community institution. • Adoption of a City-wide policy in highway right- of-way acquisition to include excess condemna- tion in order that incidental pieces of marginal land could be used for small business commer- cial development wherever appropriate to the neighborhood. • Establishment of priorities for displaced firms in new commercial locations on City public housing and public improvement projects. • Encouragement of loans by private lending agen- cies, the Federal Small Business Administration, and from other sources, to enable displaced firms to reestablish themselves. • The City Department of Commerce and Public Events should advise and assist small business- men on relocation; and maintain a City-wide clearing house on site and market data to provide the professional relocation guidance beyond the means of most small proprietors. 7. Adoption by the Board of Estimate of a Policy Vesting in the Department of Real Estate Responsi- bility for and Control Over the Scheduling of All Demolition by the City in Public Works. • The Why of this Recommendation . The Depart- ment should be charged with responsibility for demolishing buildings whose tenants are relocated by the Department itself. The reason for this rec- ommendation is to enable the Department to clear a site as soon as its buildings have been vacated. The technicpie of progressive scheduled demolition has been successfully employed as a matter of stand- ard practice by the New York City Housing Author- ity and on some Title I sites where the population density is high. 45- The preseni handling <>l demolition by several City agencies should be ended immediately. The pro< edure is < umbersome, ineffective and costly. Ii involves changing orders <>n the main construction contra< i and othei forms of duplication and waste. In addition, lack of coordination between site a< quisitions, relocation and construction lias created situations where vacant buildings have been stand in« for years on partially < lea] ed sites. Even <>n sites completely cleared of residential tenants, vacant buildings have been left standing foi as long as two years. These < i eate nuisances, providing opportuni- ties foi juvenile delinquency and inviting vandal- ism and ( i line. (S. Adoption by the Board oj Estimate <>\ a Policy I 'est ing in the Department oj Real Estate the Au thority to Provide Social Services to Tenants Af- fected by llehx ation. • The Why o) this Recommendation. Relocation < auses famil) uprooting and to many it creates set i ous sociological problems. Relocation to strange new quarters is an emotional shock to those who are aged or infirm, and to mothers ol small children. Availability of a social worker at a relocation site would tend to minimi/e these tensions, and to elim- inate a lac tor which produces muc h ol the existing bitterness among relocatees, c ivic . community and religious groups. !). Adoption by the Board of Estimate ol a Policy Vesting in the Department of Real Estate the Ap- proval Authority Over the Relocation Contracts Between Title J Sponsors and their Relocating Agents. • The Why o\ this Recommendation. As the agency responsible for the supervision of relocation under Title I contracts, the Department should have the power ol approval ol the relocation contracts be tween a Title I sponsoi and the relocation firm se- lected l>\ him to carry out the relocation ol tenants from the project site. This power is now lodged in the Shun Clearance Committee In the Board ol Estimate. II). 1 in mediate Adoption and Maintenance on a Permanent Basis o) a City-Wide Program oj Public Information and Education on the \\ hat. Where, W hen. W ho. Why and How o) Relocation. • W hat the- Recommendation Means. Because of the explosive chara< ter of the problem of relocation, no program for its administration, no matter how e\pei I Iv c one eh ed or how intelligently c arried out, can possibly succeed unless it has a broad base ol public understanding, acceptance and support. This means a massive effort in city-community panic ipation under the leadership of the Mayoi as the ( :luel Executive ol the world's greatest metropo- lis. The proposed structure of the Department ol Real Estate as reorganized will serve as a point of departure for such a program. I>ut to be truly effec- tive, it must be expanded under the Mayor's leader- ship to take hold in the institutional pow ei structure ol the community. In the last analysis, the degree of public under- standing and acc eptanc e of the hardships of reloca- tion w ill depend on two factors. The first of these is the educative power of all communications media, of our educational system and the leaders of all segments of public opinion. The second de- pends on the quality of the City administration's empathy for and its ability to communicate effec- tively with the people on whom the burden ol relocation rests most heavily. -4G - ANNEX 1 City of New York Office of the Mayor NEW YORK 7. N. Y. August 27, 1959 EXECUTIVE MEMORANDUM #67 TO: Commissioners and Heads of all City Departments and Agencies FROM: Hon. Robert F. Wagner, Mayor of the City of New York SUBJECT: Special adviser on housing and city renewal On August 20, 1959, with the approval of the Board of Estimate, I designated J. Anthony Panuch, Esq. as my special adviser on Housing and City Renewal to conduct an extensive review of the City's functions, policies, programs, plans and operations in publicly aided private housing, slum clearance, tenant relocation and neighborhood conservation, to confer with City, Federal and State officials, and to submit to me not later than February 1, 1960 a report containing specific recommendations for a comprehensive City policy and program affecting housing and urban renewal. City and all Commissioners are directed to extend the fullest cooperation to Mr. Panuch, and to make available promptly records, data and personnel so that the vital objectives will be fully realized. This project is of outstanding importance to the Mayor -47- ANNEX 2 City of New York Office of the Mayor New York 7. N. Y. October 6, 1959 - maq Mr. J. Anthony Panuch 225 Broadway New York, New York Dear Mr. Panuch: This is in relation to your recent assignment to investigate and draft new proposals in connection with the various housing, slum clearance and urban renewal and conservation programs carried on by various agencies of the City government, coupled with the problem of relocation of persons affected by those, and other public programs, such as highways, schools, public buildings and parks, for example. You and I have understood from the start that you would make your recommendations as to possible organizat ional changes with complete independence of thought, and at the earliest date possible, with February 1st as a target. This remains our understanding. Nevertheless, there is one aspect of your survey which in my judgment, demands an absolute priority, and therefore I am taking the liberty of requesting it, since it lies within the scope of our original agreement, and in no way interferes with the independence of judgment requested of you. I refer, of course, to the problem of relocation. In a city such as ours, with virtually no vacant land in the core of the city itself, any new public improvement — in fact, any private improvement, involves displace- ment of the prior occupant, be he owner or tenant. In the case of public improvements, the owner has to yield, whether he likes it or not, to the public right, the power of eminent domain. The tenant likewise has to move. Both the existing statutes and the moral obligations of government to be the government of all of its people require it to assume the responsibility of relocating the person displaced from his home or business. This is a problem which has grown slowly, but steadily, with the pace of renewal of our housing plant and our business plant so necessary for the continued vitality of a Metropolitan City like New York. -48 - -2- Mr. J. Anthony Panuch October 6, 1959 And as it has grown slowly, so has the re-location process. When the renewal program got underway, there were still places to which a slum tenant could go on his own initiative, even though sometimes it was another slum. As the program accelerated, the problem of finding another place to live, decent or indecent, has grown. Today, as the renewal program reaches full speed, the problem of relocation has become the No. 1 problem of New York. I have worked patiently on the matter. It has been the subject of innumerable discussions. Many, many steps have been taken to insure better procedures, and greater protection for the people being dislocated against their will. Many recommendations have been made for a central relocation bureau. There have been excellent reasons, mainly financial, why the city did not embark on this scheme earlier. Today, our problem in connection with relocation is so great that the financial reasons can no longer be allowed to control. What I am asking you to do is to give me an immediate report just as fast as your doing a proper job permits — on whether and how it should be set up. estate business today, whether it likes it or not, because no one else was doing the job, and since it is a job that has to be done, it is our business to see that it is done the best way it can be done. In my judgment, the city is up to its neck in the real Sincerely yours, Mayor -49- ANNEX 3 AN ACT TO AMEND THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK IN RELATION TO THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF REAL ESTATE OF SUCH CITY TO ESTABLISH RELOCATION li F.N EFFFS AND AIDS The People o\ the State o) New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section E Section 11 52c- 1.0 ol the administrative code oi the city of New York, as added by chapter three hundred nine ol the laws of nineteen hundred fifty-nine is hereby repealed and reenacted, to read as follows: §1152c-1.0. RELOCATION OF TENANTS 1. The commissioner shall have the power and it shall be his duty to: (a) Provide and maintain tenant relocation services for tenants of real property which he is authorized to maintain and supervise. Such services shall consist of such ac tivities as he may deem necessary, useful or appropriate for the relocation of such tenants, including but not limited to the gatheiing and furnishing of information as to suitable vacant accommodations, the making ol studies and surveys for the purpose of locating such accommodations and the provision of facilities lor the registration of such accommodations with the department by owners, lessors and managing agents of real property and others. (b) Subject to the approval ol the board ot estimate, fix and promulgate and from time to time amend a sc hedule of uniform minimum payments to be made to or for the benefit of and to aid in the relocation of tenants, and a schedule of such other payments to be made to or for the benefit of and to aid in the relocation of tenants as he may determine. Such schedules shall be applicable as herein provided and shall include but need not be limited to payments to be made to such tenants to induce their voluntary removal, moving expenses and expenses of redecorating accommodations to which such tenants are relocated and payments to persons for the services of finding accommodations to which such tenants are to be relocated. (c) Subject to the approval of the board of estimate, adopt and promulgate and from time to time amend rules and regulations in regard to relocation practices and pro- cedures, applicable as herein provided. (d) Schedule and coordinate the tenant relocation operations of agencies, public corporations, persons, firms and corporations to which the rules and regulations promul- gated pursuant to this section are applicable. 2. The commissioner shall have power to: (a) Let contracts for the painting, decorating, repair or renovation of accommoda- tions to which tenants of real property which he is authorized to manage and superintend are to be relocated and contracts for the furnishing of removal services to any such tenants. -50- (I)) When authorized l>\ the board of estimate, let contracts for the furnishing ol services, payments and benefits deemed necessary, useful or appropriate for the purpose of assisting in the relocation of tenants of property which he is authorized to manage and superintend, provided that payments to be made to or for the benefit ol such tenants shall be those fixed and promulgated pursuant to paragraph (b) of subdivision one. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the schedules promulgated pursuant ti> paragraph (b) of subdivision one of this section and the rules and regulations promul- gated pursuant to paragraph (c) of subdivision one of this sec tion shall, to the extent to which they are not inconsistent with any federal act or regulation issued pursuant thereto, be applicable to every agency and public corporation engaged in the relocation of tenants, including but not limited to the department, the New York city housing authority and the triborough bridge and tunnel authority, and shall also be applicable, as therein provided and to the extent to which they are not inconsistent with any federal act or regulation issued pursuant thereto, to every person, firm or corporation w hose relocation activities are subject to the supervision of the department pursuant to section H52c-3.0 of this code. 4. The commissioner shall have the power to investigate, examine and inspect reloca- tion operations which are subjec t to the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to this section. 5. The commissioner shall semi-annually submit to the mayor and the board of esti- mate a detailed report on tenant relocation activities in the city and recommendations in regard thereto and shall coordinate the efforts of and consider the reports, recommendations and suggestions of public and private agencies and civic groups in regard thereto. §2. This act shall take effect immediately. ANNEX 4 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CHARTER IN RELATION TO ESTABLISHING A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR RELOCATION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE Be it enacted by tlie Council as folloivs: Section 1. Section eleven hundred fifty-one of the charter is hereby amended to read as follows: §1151 DEPUTY: RELOCATION DEPUTY The commissioner may appoint one deputy, who shall have had at least ten years of experience in managing, selling or appraising real estate. The commissioner may also appoint a deputy in charge of relocation, -whose ability to discharge the junctions imposed upon the commissioner by law in relation to tenant relocation shall, in the commissioner's opinion, have been demonstrated by relevant executixl Estimate and the Mavor, through the Commis- sionei <>l Real Estate, on .ill relocation matters. • ( .11 1 \ out city-wide relocation policies adopted l>\ the Board o£ Esti- mate .ind the Mayor. • I'i omulgatc c i l\ w ide i cloc a I ion Miles, regulations, .mil procedures to implement poli< ies adopted. • Develop standards for i elocated apartments and inspec t tor compliance. • \|)|)io\e relocation contract between private sponsot and relocating agent, • ( oordinate, schedule, and expedite relocation ol site tenants resulting from piil)li< improvements, public housing, publicl) aided private housing, code enforcement and othei causes. • Manage, maintain, relocate and demolish acquired properties foi pub Ik improvements directly 01 l>\ contract with private real estate firms. • Supervise relocation activities ol private sponsors. • Vudil foi compliance the relocation practices ol \ relocation. STAFF ASSISTANCE TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER: PROGRAM PtANNING. • Develop. ie\ieu. and evaluate, on .1 c out inning basis, the residential and commercial city-wide relocation program. INFORMATION PROGRAM. • Develop informative and educational material foi tenants, community and ci\ic groups foi each site and foi the public in general. ADMINISTRATIVE ANAtYSIS. • Develop organization, policies and procedures foi the citv-wide relo- c a 1 ion program. • Review, on continuing basis, organization and procedures to develop [be most eltective. efficient and economical operations. • Develop an effective management reporting system. SERVICE UNITS TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER: RESEARCH AND STATISTICS. • Develop a research program to include the types, composition, income ic nl. ds. ol families relocated and where and at what lentals tbev aie ic loc ated. • Maintain appropriate statistics: analyze and submit reports on reloca- tion data. • ( onducl research and recommend techniques to Ik- included in the re- loc a I ion progl am . ACCOUNTING. • Maintain required accounting procedures; and maintain appiopiiate 1 ost data. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. • I'i ov ide administrative and clerical services. FIELD OPERATIONS. DIRECTOR OF RELOCATION. • Direct and supervise the city-wide relocation program in the held. • Coordinate the scheduling ol relocation and demolition of condemned proper! ies. • Determine relocation services in conformity with established policy. • Maintain central vacancv listing. • Provide social and welfare relocation services to sites. • Audit relocation practices ol citv agencies for conformance to standards. • Manage condemned properties. • Relocate tenants directl) 01 bv private contract. • Supervise private sponsors' relocation activities. FUNCTIONAL SPECIALISTS UNDER THE DIRECTOR. SOCIAL AND WELFARE RELOCATION SERVICES. • Assist in relocating tenants with social and welfare problems. • Assist the site stall in relocating welfare clients. • I lain ic location stall to refer tenants to appropriate social and wel- fare agencies. • Provide consultative services, to other City agencies concerned with re- location ol tenants with social and welfare problems. • Rev iew Welfare cases where excessive rents are paid and unusual hard- ship exist and recommend the use of aids to relocate them. FIELD SERVICES: SITE MANAGEMENT AND RELOCATION OF CONDEMNED PROPERTIES. • Manage properties. • Relocate tenants. • Cei tilv tenant pa) ments. • Inspect apartments. SITE MAINTENANCE OF CONDEMNED PROPERTIES. • Maintain buildings. • Make repairs. • lb ov ide c ustodial sei v ices. TITLE I SUPERVISION. • Supervise relocation activities of private sponsors to insure contractu- al compliance. • Inspect and certify apartments. • Ensure compliance with federal regulations. • Certif) bonus and moving payments. • Resolve disputes between tenants and sponsor. DEMOLITION. • Coordinate demolition scheduling with relocation and construction schedules. • Arrange foi demolition of condemned vacated buildings. CENTRAL VACANCY LISTING. • Maintain a central listing ol vacant apartments. • I'lovicle such listing to Citv agencies relocating tenants pursuant to the established priorit) . • Negotiate with brokers, agents, and landlords to obtain vacancies. • \d v ei tise lor v ac anc ies. • Develop sources I01 obtaining vacancies. See fold-out for chart . . . but in the final analysis the success of this RELOCATION PROGRAM will depend on the men and women who administer it. PROPOSED ORGANIZATION FOR RELOCATION IN NEW YORK CITY Citizens' Relocation Board BOARD OF ESTIMATE MAYOR COMMISSIONER OF REAL ESTATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR RELOCATION Inter-Agency Relocation Coordinating Committee « STAFF UNITS Program Planning Information Program Administrative Analysis SOCIAL t WELFARE RELOCATION SERVICES ,, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ACTING THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF REAL ESTATE ADVISES THE BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND IMPLEMENTS ITS POLICIES ON CITY WIDE RELOCATION MATTERS CENTRAL VACANCY LISTING SERVICE UNITS Research & Statistics Accounting Administrative Services ' DIRECTOR OF RELOCATION OPERATIONS Functional CITV WIDE AUDIT OF RELOCATION PRACTICES Operational TITLE I SUPERVISION Specialists RELOCATION SCHEDULING t COORDINATION Units SITE MANAGEMENT t RELOCATION SITE MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DEPUTY MAYOR- NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORII INTERGROUP RELATIONS SLUM CLEARANCE COMMITTEE URBAN RENEWAL BOARD A R FOREST, PLANOSCOPE CORP NYC