ANTHONY R. LEWIS

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

The startling fact about Homo Bureaucratis is that

he lives in a paper universe called The System,

and the real world of human beings seldom enters his universe.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT F. KENNEDY

RESEARCH CENTER

FROM: Chief, Improvements Branch, Readjustment Division TO: Branch Members DATE: 7. March 1984

SUBJECT: COST EFFECTIVE OPTIMIZATION OF INNER-CITY INTERACTION

STABILIZATION

1. Reference is made to the President’s speech of 1 March dealing with the necessity to solve the problems of inner city personnel and materiel interactions in a modern cost-effective manner utilizing state-of-the-art technology.

2. Reference is further made to the statement of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development reaffirming the role of the Department in the solution of the sub-stantive problems of our society and the need for additional funding in this area.

3. Reference is further made to the memo from the Center Director stressing the unique capability of this Center due to its history of university and industrial relations and its in-house facilities and staff.

4. In accordance with paragraphs 1-3, I would like all technical members of the branch to submit to me, by 14 March, their ideas as to how our branch can aid in the implemen-tation of these national goals.

a. It is not intended that any of these suggestions will be in fi-nal form.

b. Include estimates as to costs and man-hours to be com-mitted.

c. I would like to see new con-cepts: remember that the President has requested us to solve the problems—not their symp-toms.

Invest in America

Buy United States Savings Bonds

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT F. KENNEDY

RESEARCH CENTER

FROM: Gordon Rogers

TO: Chief, Improvements Branch

DATE: 13 March 1984

SUBJECT: COST EFFECTIVE OPTIMIZATION OF INNER-CITY INTERACTION

STABILIZATION (Branch Memo of 7 March 1984)

Keeping in mind paragraph 4c of your memo, the problem seems to naturally divide into the areas of materiel and personnel. However, the approach I suggest will be equally effective in both sections of the problem. (This will enable a saving in both procurement and adminis-trative areas.) The materiel problem is essentially the replacement of obsolescent and obsolete residential (and, to a very small extent, industrial), buildings in a controlled economical method.

Some of the major problems to be expected are: labor union regu-lations; local construction ordi-nances; lack of specialized tools/techniques.

All these essentially add to the time required to perform the task, adding to the cost. The current patchwork method also makes it extremely difficult to perform long-range, large-scale planning for slum clearance and urban renewal.

The personnel problem is closely tied into this with older buildings (which provide too many defense positions) making effective law en-forcement difficult. The unplanned city growth (especially in the use of narrow and short streets) hampers effective control of urban distur-bances and riots.

The obvious solution to all these problems is the selective use of low-yield tactical nuclear devices as the major components of a modern, effective slum clearance and riot control program. It is expected that sufficient devices can be transferred from the Department of Defense, at cost, in the initial stages of the program. Further downstream, alternate sources for the devices can be sought on a competitive bid basis, thereby decreasing costs.

The program could be run by the Department directly or as a contrac-tor to the states.

I estimate the first year’s program should run about $4,700,000 and involve forty man-years of technical and support staff.

Invest in America

Buy United States Savings Bonds

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT F. KENNEDY

RESEARCH CENTER

FROM: Chief, Improvements Branch

TO: Gordon Rogers

DATE: 19 March 1984

SUBJECT: Your Memo of 13 March 1984

Are you serious? You are proposing that we go into these areas and essentially eliminate them and their inhabitants without any warning. What you are proposing is adminis-trative murder—these are living hu-man beings. Perhaps you meant the whole thing as a joke; but, if so, it is in very bad taste. Regardless of how much money could be saved I don’t think anyone in this Department (or any other) would justify using the methods you proposed. If you have any sane suggestions in line with my memo of 7 March, I would like to see them.

A copy of this memo is being placed in your permanent personnel file.

Invest in America

Buy United States Savings Bonds

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT F. KENNEDY

RESEARCH CENTER

FROM: Gordon Rogers

TO: Chief, Improvements Branch

DATE: 21 March 1984

SUBJECT: Your Memo of 19 March

My proposal was made quite seriously and I believe that its scope comes within the charter of this Center. I would like to refer you to the pertinent sections of the President’s speech of 1 March (mention of some of these sections was made in the Division Memo of 7 March) calling for solutions to these critical national problems.

It was not my intention to have any solutions performed in secret, as this could lead to the loss of innocent life and a decrease in the high es-teem in which this Department and Center are held by the general pub-lic. After an area is publicly selected for improvement, Emergency Urban Evacuation Notices can be served on all persons living in the area under the construction title of the Federal Urban Transit Act of 1977. This will give all decent law-abiding citizens in the improvement area no less than forty-eight (48) hours to relocate elsewhere. They would, of course, have first option to rent new housing (if any) in the improved area after improvement operations.

Since all people residing in the country have their addresses listed in the National Data System, Emergency Urban Evacuation Notices can be sent to all the inhabitants. I would also like to point out that since both failure to report changes of address and failure to comply with an Emergency Evacuation Notice are felo-nies, we have what is essentially a self-selecting system which will pre-serve law-abiding citizens and no others.

I hope that with these points made clear you will see fit to approve this suggestion and pass it on to the Division Chief for consideration. In any case I should point out that even if you do not approve this suggestion, since it deals with an issue designated as a “National Priority Issue” it must be forwarded as called for in the Civil Service Regulations (105.8) and the Internal Operation Instructions of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (RA25-3(c)).

Invest in America

Buy United States Savings Bonds

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT F. KENNEDY

RESEARCH CENTER

FROM: Chief, Improvements Branch

TO: Chief, Readjustment Division

DATE: 28 March 1984

SUBJECT: Proposed Program for COST EFFECTIVE OPTIMIZATION OF INNER-CITY

INTERACTION STABILIZATION

This proposal is being forwarded to you as a “National Priority Issue” under section 105.8 of the Civil Service Regulations and Section RA25-3(c) of the Internal Operating Instructions of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

This proposal has not been approved by the Branch Chief, Improvements Branch.

Although it should be obvious that this proposal is contraindicated on moral and humanitarian grounds alone, I have included a list of technical objections which should be sufficient grounds for rejection of this program.

Enc: technical objections, list

Invest in America

Buy United States Savings Bonds

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT F. KENNEDY

RESEARCH CENTER

FROM: Chief, Readjustment Division

TO: Gordon Rogers

DATE: 2 April 1984

SUBJECT: Proposed Program for COST EFFECTIVE OPTIMIZATION OF INNER-CITY

INTERACTION STABILIZATION

The Division has received and re-viewed your proposed program and has found the following problems involved. It is our opinion that any one of these would be sufficient to cause rejection of this program.

1. What percentage of the buildings in potential improvement areas are industrial? This is extremely im-portant as it would lead to a less-ening of the city’s tax base.

2. What provisions will be made for the exacerbation of the housing shortage since the decrease in de-mand will not be concomitant with the temporary supply decrease? (As-suming proper action with regard to the Emergency Urban Evacuation Notices.) 3. What damages could occur in neighboring nonimprovement areas? How can we predict overlaps and er-rors? What tolerance in “slop-over” can be allowed in both personnel and materiel?

4. What containment is necessary under the terms of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty?

5. What would be the added costs if it becomes necessary to prevent the dispersal of fallout? Or, of the reimbursement of affected areas, if this is more economical?

6. What specific problems will there be with labor unions? Will it be better to retrain the people involved or to pension them off’?

7. In order to demonstrate cost effectiveness we will have to run a pi-lot program. Outline briefly, with especial reference to selection of areas and parameters, such a plan for effectiveness-result comparison.

If you cannot satisfy the problems listed above by 9 April 1984, I shall have no choice but to reject your proposed program.

cc: Improvements Branch

Invest in America

Buy United States Savings Bonds

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT F. KENNEDY

RESEARCH CENTER

FROM: Gordon Rogers

TO: Chief, Readjustment Division

DATE: 9 April 1984

SUBJECT: Your Memo of 2 April 1984

1. Data from the 1980 census indicate that in potential improvement areas less than four percent of the structures (floor area) are classified as industrial. Of these, more than ninety percent are over sixty (60) years old and are considered to be inefficient.

2. The problems of temporary housing may be met as provided for under the Federal Transit Act of 1977. Those people who cannot relocate independently (through family, friends, or private agencies) are to be provided for by the Federal Govern-ment either in the Ecology Improvement Relocation Camps or as Urban Inductees (quasi-voluntary) in the Armed Forces or the Peace Corps.

3. With state-of-the-art techniques in nuclear devices, we can, by pattern shaping, reduce the error to less than twenty feet (approximately an average city street width). The greatest error will result from emplacement of the devices. If we can hand emplace, this will be eliminated. The accuracy of emplacement via remote delivery is estimated as twenty feet (ground) or fifty feet (air). (All uncertainties are root—mean-square.) Since the areas immediately adjacent may also be in need of improvements within a short time span—it is not expected that in most cases this will prove a problem.

In a few cases we may have just such a problem and then a choice arises between a decrease in the yields used, necessitating additional manual clearance at the peripheries, or the reimbursement of survivors and/or legatees in the surrounding areas in the case of nonoptimum emplacement. Which will be more economical will, of course, depend upon the details of each specific case. A small contract to a consulting firm to develop a choice algorithm would be in order here.

4. Semantically, this is not a test. I think we will still be abiding by the spirit of the treaty, since these events will not be directed against anyone, but will be of a specific corrective and constructive purpose.

Recent ur-ban developments in other countries lead me to believe that our successes in this program will be quickly imi-tated elsewhere. Possibly, later projects could be done on an international basis—with due regard to security.

5. It is not expected, in the major-ity of cases, that containment in ad-vance will be practicable due to the possibility of criminal elements. Present device design indicates that major fallout components will be neutron-activated environmental ar-tifacts. Calculations indicate that proper emplacement can eliminate up to seventy-six percent of the specific activity present twenty-four hours after the event.

Reimburse-ments to the surrounding areas are covered under Title 7 of the Federal Urban Transit Act of 1977.

6. Studies of documents and speeches indicate that a lump-sum payment to the union(s) retirement fund plus assurance of employment on rebuilding projects in the improved areas will be adequate.

Possibly a contract with the national unions involved would be desirable.

7. This will involve a pilot program. In order to gather necessary background data we should construct (probably at the Nevada test site) a selection of the different building styles which would be encountered in major cities in their potential improvement areas. These would then be staffed with personnel transferred from the Departments of Defense and Labor (proper backgrounds, et cetera, to be computer-selected). Costs for personnel would be on a per capita-per diem basis and would be extremely low under the Universal Conscription Act of 1979. If this phase is to be extended as data from cities are obtained, per-haps some of the personnel tempo-rarily evacuated (see paragraph 2) would volunteer for this assignment knowing that it would aid in the improvement of the lives of their socioeconomic class.

These data will enable us to construct algorithms for the choice of cities as tests for this program and to eliminate effects due to the differing urban matrices in which the individual improvement areas are em-bedded.

I trust that this fully answers the questions you raised. I request that this proposed program be forwarded to the Center Director as a “National Priority Issue” under Section 105.8 of the Civil Service Regulations and Section RA25-3(c) of the Internal Operating Instructions of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and in accordance with the expressed desires of the President in his speech of 1 March 1984.

cc: Improvements Branch

Invest in America

Buy United States Savings Bonds

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT F. KENNEDY

RESEARCH CENTER

FROM: Chief, Readjustment Division

TO: Director, Robert F. Kennedy Research Center

DATE: 13 April 1984

SUBJECT: Proposed Program for COST EFFECTIVE OPTIMIZATION OF INNER-CITY

INTERACTION STABILIZATION

1. Herein is forwarded a proposed program in the area of Cost Effective Optimization of Inner City Interaction Stabilization as a “National Priority Issue” under Section 105.8 of the Civil Service Regulations and Section RA25-3(c) of the Internal Operating Instructions of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Center Directive XLR-2527-003.

2. This proposal is in response to the Center Memo of 7 March 1984.

3. This proposed program has not been approved by Chief, Improvements Branch nor Chief, Readjustment Division.

4. It is felt that this proposal is highly immoral and that it be rejected.

cc: Improvements Branch

Gordon Rogers

Invest in America

Buy United States Savings Bonds

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT F. KENNEDY

RESEARCH CENTER

FROM: Director, Robert F. Kennedy Research Center

TO: Chief, Readjustment Division

DATE: 18 April 1984

SUBJECT: Proposed Program for COST EFFECTIVE OPTIMIZATION OF INNER-CITY

INTERACTION STABILIZATION

1. In view of both the public state-ments of the President and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the fact that this area has been designated a “National Priority Issue” I do not think that we can reject this proposal on any other grounds than deficiencies in the technical aspects.

2. The following major questions have not been answered by the proposed program document: 2.1 Control of devices to be used in this program is by AEC and/or Defense. Is it feasible to set up a liaison program to handle transfers of this magni-tude?

2.2 How will the actions of the recalcitrant element in the potential improvement areas af-fect the proper emplacement of devices, bearing in mind that at least forty-eight hours’ notification will be given?

2.3 In the construction of any selection algorithm, it is essential to include the factor that any population readjustments due to the program should not decrease the present Adminis-tration’s representation in the Congress.

3. Please have Mr. Rogers report to me with answers to the problems in paragraph 2 before 25

April 1984.

cc: Improvements Branch

Invest in America

Buy United States Savings Bonds

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT F. KENNEDY

RESEARCH CENTER

19 April 1984

Dr. J. Moriarty (Code 21-5) Defense Nuclear Agency Washington, D.C. 20301

Dear Jim:

We’ve got a possible program go-ing here in line with the President’s speech of 1 March setting up the in-ner-city problems as a National Priority Issue. Before we can go ahead with formal requests for liaison I’d like to talk to you informally about it. Please give me a call on FTS or Autovon soonest.

Gordon Rogers

Invest in America Buy United States Savings Bonds

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT F. KENNEDY

RESEARCH CENTER

19 April 1984

Col. S. Moran (Code RM-37) United States Atomic Energy Commission Washington D.C. 20545

Dear Sebastian:

In regard to the President’s speech of 1 March setting up the inner-city problems as a National Priority Is-sue, I think we’ve got a possible program here that would be a natural for cooperation between our two agencies and would be to all our ad-vantages. Give me a call on FTS and we’ll talk it over before we do any-thing formal about it.

Best to you and Irene.

Gordon Rogers

Invest in America Buy United States Savings Bonds

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT F. KENNEDY

RESEARCH CENTER

FROM: Chief, Readjustment Division

TO: Director, Robert F. Kennedy Research Center DATE: 25 April 1984

SUBJECT: Proposed Program for COST EFFECTIVE OPTIMIZATION OF INNER-CITY

INTERACTION STABILIZATION (Your Memo of 18 April 1984) Mr. Rogers has spoken informally to the appropriate persons in both the Defense Nuclear Agency and the Atomic Energy Commission and we have been assured of the support of both agencies in fulfilling the pledges of the President in his rais-ing of the inner-city problems to a “National Priority Issue.” (See attachment A for confirmatory memos.) See also attachment B giving details of remote emplacement in the event that access to the potential improvement area is denied to lawful authorities by recalcitrant elements.

See also attachment C spelling out the constraints to be placed on the selection algorithms as specified in paragraph 2.3 of your memo of 18 April 1984.

Since I see no possible way to prevent this program from being actua-lized in my present position, I wish to tender my resignation from the Department.

cc: Improvements Branch

Gordon Rogers

att: A—confirmatory memos from DNA, AEC

B—legal brief and details of re-mote emplacement C—mathematical constraints on selection algorithm Invest in America Buy United States Savings Bonds

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT F. KENNEDY

RESEARCH CENTER

FROM: Director, Robert F. Kennedy Research Center TO: Acting Chief, Readjustment Division DATE: 3 May 1984

SUBJECT: COST EFFECTIVE OPTIMIZATION OF INNER-CITY INTERACTION

STABILIZATION

This is to authorize you to proceed immediately with the subject program as defined in our previous communications. Below is a quote from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development concerning this program: “This program will be in keep-ing with the finest traditions of our country and will reflect most fa-vorably upon the Department and upon the Robert F. Kennedy Research Center and upon those individuals directly involved.”

cc: Improvements Branch

Gordon Rogers

Invest in America Buy United States Savings Bonds

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT F. KENNEDY

RESEARCH CENTER

FROM: Acting Chief, Improvements Branch TO: Chief, Procurement Branch DATE: 7 May 1984

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

Procurement Request for Study for the Cost Effective Optimization of Inner-City Interaction Stabilization 1. It is requested that a contract be negotiated with a commercial source to perform the efforts described in the attached work statement and performance schedule, exhibit A.

Invest in America Buy United States Savings Bonds

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

ROBERT F. KENNEDY

RESEARCH CENTER

Issue Date: 4 June 1984

Subject: Solicitation No. HUD84-2101R

Title: Cost Effective Optimization of Inner-City Interaction Stabilization Due Date: 9 July 1984, 1700 (local Washington, D.C. time) Submit to: Negotiated Contracts Procurement Branch

Department of Housing

and Urban Development

Gentlemen:

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Robert F. Kennedy Research Center, solicits your organization for a proposal for a study aimed at defining the requirements for, and the economics of, the use of low-yield nuclear devices in the optimization of in-ner-city interaction stabilization.

This solicitation is covered by the following documents …