Operators of many of the businesses displaced have low incomes. This fact can be seen in the studies of income received by businesses prior to displacement. It also is reflected in a review of the rental payments made by businesses prior to displacement.

Recent research studies and testimony before the subcommittee 2 have shown that many of the businesses displaced have low incomes and some have very low incomes. As a supplement to the studies and testimony, the subcommittee, in cooperation with the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency and the Internal Revenue Service, evaluated incomes for businesses displaced in an urban renewal project area of Washington, D.C. (app. F). The income data were compiled by IRS to show the earnings of businesses. The data were reported by IRS to the subcommittee in a manner that would protect the identity of businesses involved.

Some 211 businesses were displaced from the study area during the approximate period 1959 through 1960. Most were proprietorships. Many of the businesses in this urban renewal area relied heavily on neighborhood trade. Three-fourths of the businesses had occupied rented property.

Earnings before displacement were less than $10,000 for threefourths of the 74 proprietorships for which complete data were available in this special business income study. Half of the proprietorships displaced by this urban renewal project had earnings of less than $5,000. Thirty percent of the proprietorships had earnings of less than $3,000. By contrast, complete data available on 31 corporations displaced by the urban renewal project showed that three-fourths had average earnings in excess of $10,000 with most of these being considerably greater than $10,000.

An evaluation of rental payments made by businesses displaced by Federal-aid highways shows that many had paid rentals of less than $100 per month prior to displacement. It is likely that the earnings for many of these businesses were low.

Federal-aid highway projects were selected for analysis by the Bureau of Public Roads to provide a representative picture of the amount and distribution of rentals paid by businesses prior to displacement. In all, 544 businesses were analyzed. Of these, 432 were in urban area projects and 112 were in rural area projects. The projects covered displacements by Interstate, primary, and secondary Federal-aid highways.

Approximately 39 percent of the businesses displaced in urban area projects paid monthly rentals of $100 or less, 22 percent being $75 or less. Approximately 59 percent of the businesses displaced in rural area projects paid monthly rentals of $100 or less, 42 percent being

1 For example, see reports by William N. Kinnard, Jr., and Zenon S. Malinowski, "The Impact of Dislocation From Urban Renewal Areas on Small Business," the University of Connecticut, July 1960; John P. Alevisos, "An Effective Program for the Relocation of Businesses From Urban Renewal Areas," Massachusetts Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Public Affairs of Boston College, July 1963; and Basil G. Zimmer, "The Effects of Displacement and Relocation on Small Business," prepared by Brown Univer sity, under the Small Business Administration management research grant program, Quadrangle Books, Inc., 1964.

See, for example testimony by John P. Alevisos, Sidney Goldstein, William N. Kinnard, Jr., and Basil G. Zimmer at hearings before the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition of the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, 88th Cong., at Boston, Mass., and Providence, R.I., Feb. 27 and 28, 1964.

$75 or less. A breakdown of the number and percentage of businesses for urban and rural area projects is presented below:

Businesses displaced in selected Federal-aid highway projects, showing rental payments they made

I. EXPERIENCES OF DISPLACED FARMS IN PAST ACQUISITIONS

Farm operating units displaced or caused to incur expenses in moving or realining personal property numbered approximately 1,731 per year in the immediate past. Approximately 1,369, or 79 percent of these, were owner occupied. The table below provides a breakdown of the unrounded data for farms.

Farm operating units displaced in past or caused to incur expenses in moving or realining personal property

Most of the farm operating units displaced or caused to incur moving expenses were reported under federally assisted programs. Those under the federally assisted programs were almost entirely highway takings in which the farm operator was not fully displaced, but was caused to incur expenses in moving or realining personal property of the farm operating unit.

Most of the displacements of farm operating units under direct Federal programs were caused by acquisitions of the the U.S. Army Engineers. A breakdown of acquisitions by the various agencies is shown below: .

Farm operating units displaced per year in past or caused to incur expenses in moving or realining personal property

1 Takings in which the farm operation usually was not physically displaced but caused to incur expenses in moving or realining personal property of the farm operation.

Many of the farm operators displaced or caused to incur moving expenses did not receive moving cost or other resettlement expense payments. This fact is based on an evaluation of the number of farm operations displaced or caused to incur moving expenses and the number of moving cost payments made to displacees for the same time period.

There were 1,731 farm operating units per year in the immediate past that were displaced or were caused to incur expenses in moving or realining personal property of the farm. During the same period, there were 498 moving cost payments per year, or only 29 percent as many payments. Displacements and payments under direct Federal and federally assisted programs are shown below. As in the previous tables of this section, unrounded data are used.

Displacements and moving cost payments per year in past

1 If we include those farm operators who had time to file (an additional 32 per year) then the percentage would be 8.4 percent.

As we have seen earlier, there are emerging State programs for paying those farm operators caused by Federal-aid highways to incur expenses in moving or realining personal property of the farm. Consequently, data on past moving cost payments do not fully reflect the proportion of displacees who will be covered in the future.

A review of current moving cost payment programs for Federal-aid highways and of future farm displacements shows that approximately 716, or 53 percent, of the 1,350 farm operating units per year caused to incur moving costs will not be covered by moving cost payment programs. The remaining 634, or 47 percent, will be covered. A breakdown of the approximate number and percentage of farm operators who will incur moving expenses because of Federal-aid highways and who will be covered by programs for paying moving costs is shown below.

Availability of relocation payment programs-Farm operating units caused to incur moving expenses by Federal-aid highways per year

For all programs, approximately 3,660 farms per year will be displaced or cause to incur moving costs in the future, but approximately 800, or 22 percent, will not be covered under current moving cost payment programs. Most of these not covered will be displacees in Federal-aid highway projects. Expected displacements per year are shown below, with a breakdown of future displacements covered by current moving cost payment programs. Unrounded data are used. Availability of relocation payment programs-Farm operating units to be displaced per year or caused to incur expenses in moving or realining personal property

Approximately 22 percent of the farm operations displaced by acquisitions for direct Federal programs discontinued their operations upon being displaced. Of the 558 farms per year displaced under direct Federal programs, approximately 123 discontinued upon being displaced. Approximately 97 of these were owners and 26 were non

owners.

Data on discontinuance were not obtained for farms affected by federally assisted programs. Most of these farms were affected by Federal-aid highway takings in which the farms generally were not physically displaced, but instead were caused to incur expenses in moving or realining personal property. Research on the effects of highway takings shows that the serious disruption of a farm, such as the taking of the entire farmstead or the serious segmentation of the farm, can induce the operator to discontinue and to allow the remaining land to be purchased or rented by other farm operators. For example, a study by the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture disclosed that farms crossed by a segment of Iowa Interstate Route 35 showed a higher rate of disappearance over the study period than did a control group of farms not crossed by the highway. During a 3-year period, 13.8 percent of the farms crossed by the highway ceased operations and their remaining lands were purchased or rented by other farm operators. During the same 3-year period, 6.1 percent of the control-group farms discontinued.

1 Raymond D. Vlasin, William C. Pendleton, and James L. Hedrick, "The Effects on Farm Operating Units of Land Acquisition for Controlled-Access Highways." U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service Bulletin 69, June 1962.

J. LEADTIME FOR FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY DISPLACEES IN PAST ACQUISITIONS

The table below provides a representative picture of the time provided for Federal-aid highway displacees to plan and accomplish their moves. Data in this table relate to urban and rural Interstate projects, selected by the Bureau of Public Roads in each State, in which there was substantial displacement during the period October 23, 1962, through March 31, 1964.

Advance notice to persons displaced by selected Interstate highway projects during the period Oct. 23, 1962, through Mar. 31, 1964, of the date possession of real property would be required

K. RELOCATION PAYMENTS-AVERAGE AMOUNTS AND RANGE IN SIZE

Average amounts of relocation costs payments and the range in size of payments were determined for the various agencies. Data were obtained on payments for moving costs only and payments for moving costs plus other allowable costs to families and individuals, to businesses, and to farms. In some instances, the data are based on an eval