Slayton, William L.

English

Harding School of Theology

Harding UniversityScholar Works at HardingJohn Allen Chalk: Personal Correspondence John Allen Chalk2-5-1963From: William L. Slayton - letter enclosedWilliam L. SlaytonFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.harding.edu/hst-chalk-personalThis Letter is brought to you for free and open access by the John AllenChalk at Scholar Works at Harding. It has been accepted for inclusion inJohn Allen Chalk: Personal Correspondence by an authorizedadministrator of Scholar Works at Harding. For more information, pleasecontact scholarworks@harding.edu.Recommended CitationSlayton, W. L. (1963). From: William L. Slayton - letter enclosed. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.harding.edu/hst-chalk-personal/1285HOUSING AND HOME FINAN C E AGENCY URBAN RENEWA L ADMINISTRATfON !1'.11 hi11gto11 25, I) . C \, I 1 1 .I , I February 5, 1963 TO: All Iocal PUblic Agencies 1'RON: Urban Reneval. Com.1.Hioner SUBJ: Rep~ to POAU Charge• Becauae ot the recent charge• by Protestant and Other• tbited tor Separation ot Church and State that the Urban Renewal Adminiatration and local renewal acencie• have shown preJudice in the •election ot developers , we have telt it necessary to prepare a reply . A copy ot the rep~ 1• enclosed . Some inquiriea have been •de about the charges, and you may teel tree to uae tht• letter or~ parts ot it tor replying to 1nquir1e• made about the POA.U charges in y0ur community . Enclosure (Reprint lfo. 18) /"': J I HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY URBAN RENEWAL ADMINISTRATION Mr. Glenn L. Archer, Executive Director Protestants and Others United for Separation of Church and State 1633 Massachusetts Avenue, N, W. Washington 6, D. c. Dear Mr. Archer: Washington 25, D. C. January 18, 1963 I am writing to you because I have become rather concerned in recent weeks about charges leveled against several federally assisted programs, particularly those involving urban renewal, in your magazine Church and State and the publication Urban Take-Cver. I feel that these charges are unwarranted on the basis of the ascertainable facts, and that they may lead to misunderstandings of the purposes, operation, and accomplish-ments of the urban renewal program. Particularly disturbing are the following charges: (1) through urban renewal Roman Catholic churches obtain land at much less than othe r developers and less than its real value; (2) the urban renewal program benefits the Roman Catholic Church at the expense of other religious and lay groups; and (3) Roman Catholic churches receive preferential treatment from urban renewal officials and agencies. I would like to point out that the urban rene'W8.l program is one vhereby the Federal Government provides financie.l and technical assistance tc, cities to help them remove the causes ~nd effects of alums and blight, and to ebuild slum and blighted areas in a· nee with local lans. In a program of clearance and redevelopm~nt, such lands are ought at fair market value, cleared, and readied for redevelopment by the city. The difference between this cost and the selling price of the land is offset by city and Federal funds, with the Federal grant usually a.mounting to two-thirds. It is important to emphasize that the difference between the pdce paid by the city for the land and its clearance, and the price pa.id by the developer is in nowise a subsidy, or gift, or grant to the developer. The city buys land and buildings, the developer buys only land. The city assumes the cost of buying and clearing away the blighted Rtructures as part of the cost of rebuilding for a better community. In disposing of cleared urban renewal land, cities may do so through a variety of vays, including competitive bidding on price alone, negotiation, or design competition. The exact roetb0d j s chosen by the city 's re-development agency, in accordance with the city' s interests and practi ces . s i I 2 In every case you have cited involving disposition of land through urban r enewal, t he develope r has paid the full val ue of the l and i n relation to its highest and best use , as determi ned by independent appraise rs . The churches mentioned have paid at l east the same p r ice , some times more , than any other develope r--private builder, city school, etc . --would have had to pay to obtain the land. I n responding to some of the specific charge s in your two publications, I shall quote from court dec i s i ons in the cases of Fordham University and St . Louis University. As you know, the cities involved and the Federal Government were upheld i n every case concerning selling of urban renewal l and to these two schools. I believe you will agree that l egal decisions rendered after full hearings of what both sides consider to be t he tacts should hav~ value in this discussion. Thus, I fi nd I must di ffer wi th your statement in Urban Take- Over : "Where Protestant and J ewish groups have been tentative or have i nsisted on paying the comme rcial or f a ir marke t value for the land they acquired, Roma n Catholic priests have p lw1ged with enthusiasm into the progr am, grabbing every acre they could get, payi ng nothing or as lit tle as possible for it." Or , whe r e in t he same publication is the statement, " . .. New York City, where a tremendously va l uable si te a t Lincoln Square f e ll to Je s uit Fordham University . The schoo ~ paid only a fraction of the fair value of the l and .. , " As you ma y know , this cha rge , among ot:1e rs , was made dur ing severo.l court actions involving F0rdha m Uni·1ersi ty and its urban renewal activitie1, , I n o ne of thee, Justi c e Desmond of' "the Court of .Appeals of Nev York> ruled "Fordham Un i ve :-si ty e.c;ree :i as sponso r to bid , for t h e t "Wo-b lock pa.rt set aside for educatiomi.l p ,;rposes ,. a';; l east :~2,241,610, or $7 per squa re foot, which was hi 9·e r t ban the 're c: se value' fixed by any o f the several appra i sals . '' ... what the c ity bough "':- is not t!'": e sa.r.le as what Fordham bo light . The r-: 1 ty b0ught.. l and a nd buildin~s. F'o rd.ha.".l bought the s ame property , but suoject t o its agre ement to r.:i.:>.e t he ouild ings, relocate the tenants , and use t he clea:·e d }.a;id for a co J.legia1~e campus and buildings only . What Fordham 'W'B.S paying for wus the ,·e_i se value o f the l and , There l o ••• no di spute of the fact . .. that the :i,7 per square foot wh ich Ford.hair; t1greed tc bid , vas a t least equal to thP reus ~ ,al.ue as establi sr: ":d by ?cf:',£-ral appraisals, a ll of whi c '1 r epor ted fj_gu1 e s lo;.,er ~har. $'7 .1:'t:r <Jqua re foo t .,; 'H""ban re newal ' p rc.)p;rar.J was :~0,1.:::e t ·,re o. e.r.ci ~ xec uted w:. th the an·\· ·•ir,r:ed purpc,i;.1-• ·~'f expanding the -:ampus of .JP S\ d t. St. J.Juis Un iversity ." Ar.ti.tal l y , th~ r ,")le l 3 played by the University was a minor one ; i ts purchase was 22 out of the entire 465 acres i nvolved in the Mill Creek project. For this acreage, St. Louis University pa.id $535,800. The University had long been interested in land in t he pro j ect area, since the area borders the University ' s campus , a.nd it a lrea.dy owned one a.ere in the project area on which it had a building. Three other points in connect~on \11th the sale of urban renewal land to St. Louis University a.re of i nterest: (1) the University agreed to demolish, at its own expense, the present building which it owns in the project area; (2) the Unive~sity agreed to sell part of its presently-owned land to a nearby bank f or parking purposes, in order to comply with the urban renewal plan; and (3) in the Mill Creek project area the St. Louis redevelopment a3ency has also accepted as redevelopers other churches, and the Christian Board of Publication, which has made a considerable expansion of its properties, and has also reserved land for the St. Louis Board of Education. Urban Take-Over also ~laims that in t he sale of l.and to Duquesne University in Pi t tsburgh, ttnotbing was said ab0ut competitive bidders for the land or about reimbursing the government." Here we have another instance of a prospective developer with an interest in land adjoining its campus . Si.nee expansion was needed for educational purposes , the Urban Redevelopment Auth0~ity of Pittsburgh deemed the University to be a logical redeveloper and nego+,j_a t ed with the school for 22 acres of land. The price paid by the Unive r sit:, was -$954, 000, slightly more than the higher of two independent appraisals. Many other scho•)ls and ·churches bestdes those mentioned here have benefi tted f rom •_i_rban : enewa1 2.r::ti vi ties in thei_r cities. In Norfolk, Virginia, for example, t:t:e ci-.:.y has been instnunental in clearing out blight from a~o llnd St. Paul's E;>iscopa.l Church, Freemason Street Baptist Church, and Bute Street Bapti st Church, as well as p-::·oviding room for expansion and parking f ac:Uities fo :s these chm·,!hes. In the same city, urban renewal a ctivities l1e.Ye p -._·ovic:.ed ne· .. s:Ltes f or a number of other churches, includi ng St. P:;i ·. ,·1 ' ·' M~t,-noist Church, 36.nl: Street Baptist Church, and Christ .Pe:atccostal Chw.·cb.. In Lowell, M::i.ssachusetts, t :1e First Union Methodist Church, located in a rundown area scheduled for clea. ;·ance and reb ~1ilding for a shopping center, was given a choice of stayi:1.g i n the a r ea 0 :· IDO\'i!'lg. The Church decided tc st.~y, ,.f11e ""e ·t.,) Jay it 1-.e.s the 2.dvantage of the shopping center's parkir1g lo-:. In San Francisco, the 0cal redevelo ment agency worked closely with the loca cha ter of t he National Co uw::il of t he r , c es o ri st, as well as with other church groups o decide which churches woul occupy the 3 c~urch sites in the Dis.monrl Heights project area. Every church listed in the telephone d:1. !'ectory ·.ras given an opportunity to . '. make an "Offer to Purchase" at fair market value . When the responses exceed the number of sites, the agency called a conf'erence of the interested . churches , to help devise a Just and responsible method of conferring the sites on 3 of their number. 4 In the Southwest Project area in Washington, D. c., land has been ll&de or is being ma.de available to Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic , and Bethel Tabernacle Pentecostal churches . If you examine the list of agencies and organizations engaged in developing urban renewal land for institutional purposes--schools, churches, and hospitals--you will find a tremendous range of religious denominations and secular interests . We have never discriminated against any group in favor of~ other group, and, to the best of our knowledge neither have local agencies pursuing urban renewal objectives . As American citizens and responsible government officials we adhere rigidly to this policy. I trust this letter will be of service to your readers in evaluating urban renewal, both as a national policy and a local program. Sincerely yours, -1 II 

From: William L. Slayton - letter enclosed

https://scholarworks.harding.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2291&amp;context=hst-chalk-personal

From: William L. Slayton - letter enclosed

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Harding School of Theology