Saving Community Development Block Grants
March 25, 2005
Since the president's budget proposal for fiscal year 2006 was released, I have been contacted by a significant number of people throughout the district. Many contacted me about protecting the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) and restoring its funding.
The CDBG Program was signed into law by President Ford in 1974. The program provides grant funding to local communities to support a broad range of community development activities by providing housing and economic opportunity for individuals with lower to moderate incomes. CDBG is currently administered by HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development). More than 1,000 municipalities receive money each year.
The administration's 2006 budget proposed consolidating 18 existing direct grant economic and community development programs, including CDBG, into a single office within the Department of Commerce. Each of the 18 grant programs would cease to exist as an independent program. The grants previously awarded under these programs would be consolidated in the name of a newly formed Strengthening America's Communities (SAC) Grant Program. The consolidation also called for a total budget reduction from $5.3 billion to $3.7 billion.
There was immediate widespread resistance to the proposed cuts to CDBG and the plan to move its oversight from HUD to the Commerce Department. Organizations including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities and the National Association of Counties, to name a few, spoke out against the proposal.
The cuts and changes would have an impact throughout Ohio's Third District. For example, I received a letter signed by each of the Highland County Commissioners, specifically requesting help to save CDBG and restore its funding. The letter notes the specific projects that Highland County has utilized this funding for serving low and moderate income households over the past several years.
Area projects include: downtown revitalization in the City of Greenfield; a Bushcreek Township community building; housing rehab; equipment and clothing for fire departments and life squads; and infrastructure projects that include: road surfacing, handicap accessibility ramps and exits, that give many people a chance at self sufficiency; storm sewers and water main replacements. And that is in Highland County alone. In Wilmington, one good example of utilizing CDBG funds is the rehabilitation of the building where the former senior center was located, which is now being used as the Clinton County Youth Council Center.
As a former mayor, I understand and appreciate the importance of CDBG. It was one of the most important federal partnerships that we relied on for funding in Dayton.
The administration correctly identified programs that are in need of reform and updating. However, the solution they have proposed in not sufficiently justified. HUD has historical successes in urban revitalization, while there is not a clear rationale for moving CDBG to the Commerce Department.
Many of my House colleagues shared my concerns and in the House budget resolution, $1.1 billion was added back to accommodate higher appropriations for programs such as the Community Development Block Grant. The resolution makes no assumption regarding implementation of the president's proposed Strengthening America's Communities Block Grant or transferring the Community Development Block Grant program from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Department of Commerce.
With a strong coalition of allies we have taken an important step to protect one of the strongest programs for local municipalities. In this specific area the budget resolution adds money back, in what is generally a very disciplined budget. My House colleagues realized that cities and counties throughout the country, like here in Ohio's Third District, rely on Community Development Block Grants to meet some of our most important local needs.
http://www.house.gov/miketurner/news/columns/3.25.05.shtml