Number 3. Number of units in completed federally financed public housing projects— for each congressional district,' as of June 30, 1968-Continued State and congressional district of units Michigan: of units Number 3. Number of units in completed federally financed public housing projects— State and congressional district State and congressional district Number of units 3. Number of units in completed federally financed public housing projectsfor each congressional district,' as of June 30, 1968-Continued 1 Prior to congressional district boundary changes for the 91st Congress. Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development. 32, 455 1,354 APPENDIX B Hon. ROMAN C. PUCINSKI, OFFICE OF THE MAJORITY LEADER, Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education, House of Representatives, Washington, D.O. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I enclose a letter and attachments which I have received from Mr. Robert G. Murphy of the Fallbrook Union School District, California, located in the now unrepresented District of the late Congressman James B. Utt. Since you are holding hearings on H.R. 16307 and H.R. 16384, the Impact Aid Reform Act of 1970, I thought you might be interested in Mr. Murphy's excellent statement. You will also note that he has volunteered to appear before the Subcommittee if it is determined that this would be helpful. DEAR SIR: I fully realize that this district is not a part of your immediate constituency. But, after hearing you speak in January and noting your intense interest in education, I have decided to write to you concerning the above noted matter. You are also aware, I am sure, that this district is temporarily without direct representation in the House, as a result of the untimely death of Congressman James B. Utt. The "Impact Aid Reform Act of 1970" (H.R. 16307) as introduced by Congressman Pucinski, has in general done an excellent job in amending some of the so-called objectionable features of the impact aid bill. It does, however, omit one former section of the law that is quite important-Section 2. Section 2 of the present legislation deals with school districts that have an impact because of a substantial loss in assessed valuation due to Federal acquisition of Real Property and subsequent removal from the tax rolls. This concept was one of the basic principals on which impact aid was originally established. (See p. 3, Report #2287, Feb. 20, 1950 attached.) Section 2 of Public Law 874 is probably the most fair of all the sections in the law in that a school district must have a substantial loss of assessed valuation in order to qualify (at least 10% since 1938) for aid and the district must also demonstrate a continuing burden. This section is the life blood or some small rural area schools as well as the large districts in this country. Some do not even qualify under the other Sections of the law. The De Luz School District of California is a good example. This district is a remote one-school of about fifteen students. They could not qualify under Section 3 of Public Law 874 but did obtain help through Section 2 as they had lost 81% of their assessed value when Camp Pendleton was purchased. Without Section 2, or a similar Section in the new Reform Act, these districts will face total financial disaster. |