THE STATES m EN EBIBAN DEVELOPMENT: TOWARD PROVIDM A WOMAN PAW OF W W MICHEGM STATE HERBERT David R. Seihert 1m THESVS ‘ LIBRARY A . Michigan State University ABSTRACT THE STATE'S ROLE IN URBAN DEVELOPMENT: TOWARD PROVIDING A WORKABLE PATTERN OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT by David R. Seibert The states occupy the fundamental legal position in relation to the deve10pment of urban areas in the United States. This is because the powers of the local units of government in urban areas are dependent upon provisions in state statutes and constitutions. Thus, as the ultimate repositories of all local powers, the states, especially their legislatures, can control the structure and function of local government in urban areas. The states also exert an important influence on urban deve10pment by directly pro- viding a number of services and facilities; they also have major tax resources and revenue powers from which they pro- vide direct financial assistance to local units of government. It is clear that the states are in a unique and powerful position permitting them to make a constructive contribution toward meeting current governmental needs in urban areas. Available evidence also indicates that some important governmental needs in urban areas are rapidly emerging. The dynamic actions of our society have resulted w David R. Seibert in a dilemma concerning the performance of urban functions by local units of government; on the one hand, there are certain governmental functions which reqiure areawide plan- ning and implementation-~air pollution control, water supply and sewage disposal, land use planning and control, and transportation are examples; on the other hand, there are certain governmental functions which require local plan- ning and implementation--fire protection, public education, refuse collection and diSposal, and police protection are examples. The present structural forms of local units of government do not allow the effective performance of area- wide urban governmental functions. This means that impor- tant urban needs--high cost, politically explosive, area- #. wide needs-~are not being effectively dealt with in our rapidly expanding urban areas. It is only now that some of these urban needs are being planned for on a scale ap- proaching the total urban area. The success of such plan- ning is, however, dependent upon the effective execution of functional planning programs and today there exists a major gap between planning for urban needs and action to meet those needs. Filling this gap will require, among other activities, state actions to bring urban government structuring into line with the functioning required of our modern urban government. David R. Seibert The purpose of this thesis is to focus on the problems of urban government structure as they relate to physical planning and deve10pment with the following ob- jective in mind: to suggest some possible courses of state action which could help to bring about improved performance of urban governmental functions. The thesis first identifies the general role the states can play in aiding urban growth and deve10pment. It then evaluates the performance of selected examples of areawide govern- mental functions within urban areas. Finally, it suggests some specific courses of action which the state could take to help provide improved performance of governmental func- tions within urban areas. The main conclusion of this thesis is that there is no single "best" solution to the problems of urban government structure; no single approach can be described as the most desirable for all urban areas. It is best, perhaps, that the state enable local governments to choose from among a range of permissive powers to help meet their particular needs and problems. At the same time, the state sh0u1d establish within its own structure the dual function of regulation and assistance, thereby asserting its deter- mination to assist continually and to intervene when neces- sary in easing the structural problems within urban areas. THE STATE'S ROLE IN URBAN DEVELOPMENT: TOWARD PROVIDING A WORKABLE PATTERN OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY David R. Seibert A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER IN URBAN PLANNING School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture 1966 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his deep appreciation to Associate Professor Stewart D. Marquis of the School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture not only for his patient and perceptive guidance in the preparation of this thesis, but also for all his unselfish efforts to conscien- tiously help his students in their pursuit of knowledge. The appreciation due to my parents for all they have done cannot adequately be expressed in words. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Chapter I. THE STATE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . 1 Urban Areas Social and Economic Characteristics of Urban Areas Historical Growth of Urban Areas Phases of Growth in Urban Areas State's Relation to Urban Areas Historical Deve10pment Legal and Administrative Position Planning and Action for Urban ' Development II. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT . . . . 27 Local Government Functions Urban Functions to be Performed Local Urban Functions Areawide Urban Functions Local Government Performance of Urban Functions Method of Evaluation Criteria for Evaluating Performance Administrative Economic Social Political Limitations of Method iii TABLE OF CONTENTS--(Continued) Chapter Page Background for Evaluation Air Pollution Control Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Land Use Planning and Control Transportation Evaluation of Performance Application of Criteria Local Government Structure Structural Impediments to Effective Governmental Functioning Fragmentation and Overlapping of Governmental Units ' Tax and Service Boundary Disparities State Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions Interstate Urban Areas III. THE STATE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 General State Approach to Urban DevelOpment Planning for Urban DevelOpment Enabling Legislation for Local Planning Local Planning Assistance State Planning Action for Urban DevelOpment: Some Suggestions Indirect State Action Home Rule Annexation Intergovernmental COOperation Transfer of Functions Functional Authorities MetrOpolitan Area Study Commissions MetrOpolitan Area Planning Commissions Extraterritorial Powers MetrOpolitan Councils iv TABLE OF CONTENTS--(Continued) Chapter Page Direct State Action State Agency for Metropolitan Area Affairs State Program of Financial and Technical Assistance State Control of New Incorporations Transfer of Functions to the State Property Tax Reform CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 INTRODUCTION There are many important governmental needs which are currently emerging in urban areas. The dynamic actions of our society have resulted in a dilemma concerning the performance of urban functions by local units of government: on the one hand, there are certain functions which require areawide planning and implementation--air pollution control, water supply and sewage disposal, land use planning and control, and transportation are examples; on the other hand, there are certain functions which require local planning and implementation--fire protection, public education, refuse collection and disposal, and police protection are examples, The setting within which urban development takes place is a setting which poses many problems for the effec— tive performance of areawide urban functions by local units of government. The present structural forms of local units of government do not allow the effective performance of these functions. This means that important urban needs--high cost, politically explosive, areawide needs-~are not being prOperly dealt with in our rapidly expanding urban areas. The states have the fundamental legal responsibility and the financial and technical resources for enabling and assisting urban areas in dealing with these increasingly vi difficult problems. It is necessary, therefore, that the states assert strong leadership with regard to removing these structural impediments to effective areawide govern- mental functioning. It is for these reasons that the purpose of this thesis is to focus on the problems of urban government structure as they relate to physical planning and deve10p- ment with the following objective in mind: to suggest some possible courses of state action which could help to bring about improved performance of urban governmental functions. The thesis first identifies the general role the states can play in aiding urban growth and development. It then evalu- ates the performance of selected examples of areawide govern- mental functions within urban areas. Finally, it suggests some specific courses of action which the state could take to help provide improved performance of governmental func- tions within urban areas. The problems of expanding urban areas and the relationship of these problems to the structuring and functioning of local units of government have been exten- sively written about. This has been eSpecially true since World War II because these problems have become more acute since then. This is also true of the role the state could play in aiding urban growth and deve10pment. The unique contribution this work makes lies in its distillation of the particular experiences and observations reported and vii in its linking state actions to local governmental problems in order to improve the performance of areawide govern- mental functions within urban areas. District limitations have been placed upon the scope of this thesis. Specifically excluded from treat- ment in this work are the following: 1. The state's effect on private enterprise, for example state taxation of private agencies and state regulation of private activity and deve10pment. The role played by private enterprise, as guided by the state, is extremely important in affecting the growth and develop- ment of urban areas. Treatment of this topic, however, deserves a degree of completeness achieved only through separate study. 2. School districts as units of local government. In some urban areas, the existence of many independent school districts is a contributing factor to certain prob- lems of local government structure. Efforts at improved school system organization, however, commonly call for statewide attention, rather than being subject to special handling at the urban level. 3. Dollar amounts of suggested programs. The relative size of governmental programs in various functional categories is largely the concern of legislative policy- making bodies at various levels of government and depends upon many factors other than those discussed in this work. viii 4. State legislative apportionment. While the apportionment of state legislatures has an important bearing upon the growth and development of urban areas, its impact is not limited to such areas. 5. Problems of implementing suggested programs. The creation of public awareness of the need for the area- wide performance of certain urban functions, the accomplish- ment of public acceptance of the suggested programs, and the administration of these programs are extremely important to the subject of this thesis, but are beyond its limited scOpe. The following definitions will be used uniformly throughout the thesis. References to the state, unless otherwise noted, are to state government. MetrOpolitan areas refer to standard metrOpolitan statistical areas while urban areas generally include additional territory likely to come under the influence of urbanization shortly; often they are used interchangeably in order to avoid repi- tition. Planning unless specifically noted otherwise, re- fers to physical development planning. Local governments include all units Of government below the state such as counties, towns, municipalities, and special districts. ix CHAPTER I THE STATE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT This chapter will focus upon the importance of the state's role in urban deve10pment. It will provide some of the background necessary for a discussion of the problems of the existing governmental structure within urban areas and some of the possible courses of state action to alleviate these problems. In discussing the general subject of urban areas, the chapter will touch upon the following topics: the current social and economic characteristics of urban areas; the historical growth of urban areas; and the phases of growth through which these areas have passed with an em- phasis upon the factors leading to the problems of govern- mental structure and the role the state might play in easing these problems. In discussing the state's relation to urban areas, the chapter will center on the following items: the historical deve10pment of stateelocal relations; the state's legal and administrative position in relation to urban areas and especially their governmental structure; and the state's role in planning for and action to achieve urban deve10pment. URBAN AREAS Social and Economic Character: istics of'UrBan Areas It is intended that the following statement of social and economic characteristics will highlight the grow- ing importance of the urban areas in the United States. In 1960 nearly two-thirds of the entire pOpulation of the United States resided within metrOpolitan areas; 112.9 million persons of the national total of 179.3 million persons resided in the 212 areas recognized as metrOpolitan.1 During the decade of 1950 to 1960, these same areas accounted for 84 percent of the nation's pOpulation growth. For these areas the population increased 26 percent, while the remainder of the country increased only 7 percent. In the immediately preceding decade, from 1940 to 1950, these same areas ac- counted for almost 80 percent of the total growth of the United States pOpulation. In the past two decades, therefore, these 212 metrOpolitan areas have grown from 72.8 million to 112.9 million persons, an increase{of 55 percent; the re- mainder of the nation has increased only 11 percent, growing from 59.3 million persons in 1940 to 66.4 million in 1960. 1The Advisoty Commission on Intergovernmental Re- lations. Governmental Structure, Organization,gand Planning in Metropolitan Areas. Report A-S. U. S. House of Repre- sentatives, COmmittee on Government Operations, Committee Print, 87th Congress, lst Session, Washington, D. C., July 1961. p. 5. Unless noted otherwise, all statistical infor- mation contained within this section is also from this source, pages 5-8. In three of the four geographic regions of the country, over half of the entire pOpulation is residing within standard metropolitan statistical areas, indicated as follows: northeast—-79.l percent of the pOpulation re- sides within SMAS's; west--7l.8 percent; north central-- 60.0 percent; and south-~48.1 percent. Also, within three of these four regions, these was a considerably faster pOpulation growth, between 1950 and 1960, within metro- politan areas than outside such areas; the exception was the northeast, where metropolitan pOpulations increased 13.0 percent while areas outside SMSA's increased 13.6 percent. Other figures comparing percentages of population increases of SMSA's and outside areas are as follows for the three remaining regions: west--48.5 percent for SMSA's and 19.4 percent for other areas; north central--23.5 per- cent and 6.6 percent; and south--36.2 percent and 2.7 percent. These metrOpolitan areas account for over two- thirds of the total state population in 17 of the 50 states, and for between one-half and two-thirds in another 9 states. Only four states, Alaska, Idaho, Vermont, and Wyoming, have no standard metrOpolitan statistical areas, and even in these states from one-half to two-thirds of the pOpulation reside in urban places of 2,500 or more.2 2The Council of State Governments, State Respon- sibility in Urban Regional Development, The Council, Chicago, IlTinois, 1962, p. 9. In the United States as a whole, only about one- half of those residing in metrOpolitan areas, 58.0 million of 112.9 million, do so within the central cities of such areas. Most of the population increases from 1950 to 1960 occurred in metropolitan areas outside central cities. In terms of their 1950 boundaries, the central cities showed a population rise of only 767,000 persons, or 1.5 percent, while territory outside the central cities grew by 17.9 million persons, or 48.6 percent. Individual metrOpolitan areas vary greatly in size. Three such areas contain over 5 million inhabitants each; 22 contain fewer than 100,000 inhabitants apiece. During the years 1950 to 1960, the percentage of pOpulation growth was greatest in those areas between 500,000 to 1,000,000, 36.0 percent, and least in those areas over 3,000,000 pOpulation, 23.2 percent. Recent trends and current developments indicate that by 1980 the United States will have a pOpulation of approximately 260 million peOple. It is expected that three-fourths of this number will reside within metrOpolitan areas, about 200 million persons. POpulation within metrOpolitan areas is increas- ingly tending to be distributed along economic and racial lines. If present trends continue unchanged, central cities may become the place of residence of new arrivals to metropolitan areas, nonwhites, lower-income workers, younger couples, and the elderly.3 Metropolitan areas in the United States account for the major portion of the nation's economic activity. The following economic characteristics of metrOpolitan areas give examples of this concentration of economic activity. As of June 1960, metrOpolitan areas accounted for 78.6 percent of all bank deposits in the nation. As of 1958, the 188 areas then designated as metropolitan areas accounted for over three-fourths of the value added by manufacturing, contained 67.2 percent of the country's manufacturing establishments, and accounted for 73.8 percent of all industrial employees and 78.5 percent of all manu- facturing payrolls. A large portion of construction activity takes place in metropolitan areas. In both 1959 and 1960, 69 percent of all housing starts occurred in metropolitan areas. Metropolitan areas in the United States also account for a large share of the costs of local government. _At the time of the 1957 Census of Governments, there were only 174 standard metropolitan statistical areas; 3The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, MetrOpolitan and Economic Disparities: Implica- tions for Intergovernmental Relations in Central Cities and suburBs, Report A-25, THE CommissionTTWaEhington, D. C., January 1965, pp. 23-32. nevertheless, in that year local governments within metro- politan areas collected over 70 percent of all local tax revenue, including 84 percent of local nonproperty taxes, accounted for 74 percent of all local government debt, and made 66 percent of all local government expenditures. Having 52 percent of all public school enrollment, these 174 metropolitan areas accounted for 61 percent of the total local expenditure for education. Their prOportion of local expenditure for other governmental functions was even greater, averaging 70 percent and sometimes exceeding 80 percent of the nation's total for such government functions as parks and recreation, fire protection and sani- tation. Historical Growth of Urban Areas The grouping of peOple in small, compact groups began right from the start of our country. The leading colonial cities, however, were small; in 1790, the year of the first decennial census, there were only 24 places with pOpulations of more than 3,500 persons.4 In the same year, the nation's pOpulation was 95 percent rural, 5 percent urban. The largest city, New York, contained about 50,000 peOple, the second largest, Philadelphia, had less than 30,000 in- habitants.5 4The Council of State Governments, Op. cit.,p. 9. SRoscoe C. Martin, The Cities and the Federal System, Atherton Press, New York, 1965, p. 2. From this time on urban populations began to grow faster than rural populations. In only one decade, from 1810 to 1820, did the percentage increase in rural population growth exceed that in urban pOpulation growth.6 The historical growth of urban areas has passed through two periods: (1) a period of urbanization, the growth of cities; and (2) a period of suburbanization, the growth of metropolitan areas.7 Each of these phases will be briefly discussed below. The growth of cities began with the first census in 1790. It progressed slowly but steadily until about the turn of this century, when the growth of cities pro- gressed particularly rapidly until the depression. During the poor economic conditions of the 1930's, urbanization came to a standstill. Growth began again during World War II and has continued since then. In 1790 only New York and Philadelphia had pOpu- lations of 25,000 or more; in 1960 there were 676 such cities.8 In 1790 the country's largest city had 50,000 61bid. 7These phases of historical growth through which urban areas have passed have been adapted from the following two sources: John C. Bollens, and Henry J. Schmandt, The MetrOpolis: Its PeOple, Politics, and Economic Life, HETper 5 Row, PublisHErs, New York, 1965, pp. 10-11; and Martin, 02- cit., pp. 2-6. 8The following examples of the growth of cities are taken from Martin, Op. cit., pp. 2-3. inhabitants; in 1960 there were 332 cities with pOpulations over 50,000, and these cities contained 35 percent of the country's total pOpulation. In 1850 the fiftieth largest city in the U.S. had fewer than 15,000 peOple; in 1960 the fiftieth largest city had about 262,000 inhabitants. In 1850 no city had a million peOple; in 1960 there were five such cities, only two of which were even in existence in 1790. The growth of urban areas was focused in central city areas for over 125 years. In 1920 the census, for the first time, recorded that more peOple, 51 percent, lived in cities than in rural areas.9 Even as the transformation from a rural to an urban society was coming to a climax, however, there could be detected other changes in our pattern of settlement and employment: ”a rapid increase in pOpulation began to be experienced in the territory sur- rounding the larger cities. The new growth was in the sub- urbs, whose peOple were independent of, though in many ways closely associated with, the neighboring central city."10 The change from a rural to an urban society gave way to a change from an urban to a metrOpolitan society. 9Council of State Governments, Op. cit., p. 9. 10Martin, Op. cit., pp. 3-4. The growth of metrOpolitan areas has outstripped the pOpulation growth of the country as a whole in every decade since 1900.11 Within metropolitan areas, the central cities grew faster than their outlying territories until 1920; since that year suburban areas have commanded greater population growth. This growth of suburban areas averaged three times that of the central cities from 1930 to 1950; from 1950 to 1960 it was four times as great. During this time, growth of suburban areas has been greatest in those areas surrounding our larger cities; from 1950 to 1960 the nation's five largest cities increased only one percent while their suburbs increased 71 percent.12 It appears that the growth of urban areas within the United States has gone through two distinct stages. The first stage began with the birth of our nation and con- tinued until 1920; this stage was one of urbanization, a period of growth for our nation's cities. The second stage began about 1920 and is continuing today;this stage is one of suburbanization, a period of growth for our metrOpolitan areas. During this century, our metrOpolitan pOpulation has been increasing faster than the overall national rate of increase. This trend is expected to continue "as urban con- centrations of medium and large size continue to attract the bulk of the nation's human and material resources."13 11Ibid., pp. 4-5. 121bid., p. 5. 13Bollens and Schmandt, Op. cit., p. 13. 10 Phases of Growth in Urban Areas The intent of the preceding two sections of this chapter was to provide, first, a hint of the social and economic significance of urban areas, and second, a glance at the historical growth of these areas in the Unites States. The intent of this section is to provide a brief review of the phases through which urban areas pass on their way from rural towns to metrOpolitan regions. The basis of this re- view is contained in the Final Report of the Governor's Study Commission on Metropolitan Area Problems for the State of Michigan: it is a section dealing with the "Phases of 14 This Growth and Development of the Metropolitan Area.” section of the Commission's report attempted to describe how the metropolitan area, as defined by the Bureau of the Census, came into being, noting the forces and factors operating to achieve its structural form. This particular review of metropolitan growth and deve10pment is especially helpful in laying the groundwork for a discussion of the problems of local government structure and the possible courses of state action to alleviate these problems. The first phase in the growth of urban areas is ”the establishment of homes outside the boundaries of a City with a population running from 30,000 to 50,000.”15 14Michigan, Governor's Study Commission on Metro- politan Area Problems, Final Report, The Commission, Lansing, Michigan, July 1960, (mimeo) pp. 1-5. 15 Ibid., p. 2. 11 PeOple move away from the central city seeking more living space; as housing within the city becomes short, this out- ward migration reaches a significant momentum. These peOple still work in the central city; the spread of resi- dences has preceded that of economic activity. While gain- ing their income from the central city, these peOple vote and pay taxes in the governmental unit in which they live, usually a township. This type of living, involving an im- portant tie of economic interdependence with the central city, could not have occurred to any significant degree without the mobility provided by the automobile. The evol- ving settlement pattern is one of strip deve10pment and cluster development, each located along or on a highway network. "As these fringe strips and detached clusters of homes increase in number and size, retail facilities in the form of stores and shOps are established outside the central 16 Singly city to serve the families living in these homes." at first, then in clusters, these stores are frequently grouped into one-stOp shOpping centers as their market area becomes more densely populated. They are set up by suburban enterprisers, central city businessmen, or established city firms. Most of their merchandise is supplied to them from central city warehouses. The employees live in the surrounding 16Ibid. 12 suburbs or in the city. In this fashion, new economic inter- dependences are set up between the city and its suburbs. "The same means of mobility provided by the auto- mobile for the outward spread of homes and retail enterprise also makes possible the location of manufacturing activities 17 These activities may in suburban and outlying areas." either precede or follow residential settlement. Whether they are new plants, relocated from the city, or branches of central city concerns, they usually employ peOple from both the city and suburb. Services and materials for these activities come from the city. Once again, growth factors are working to strengthen the economic interdependence between the central city and its outlying suburbs. The importance of the automobile and the highway network to the location of homes, retail stores, and manu- facturing concerns outside the city has been evident through- out these stages. Also important is the provision of sanitary facilities such as water supply and sewage disposal. While roads are planned and constructed by the county and the state, with federal assistance, sewer and water lines are most likely to be provided by extending those of the central city. These extentions of public facilities are reflections of the legal and financial structure under which they are 17Ibid., p. 3. 13 carried out. ”In general, this pattern of growth is not planned; it simply follows the framework of various utility and service installations."18 "As the process of urbanization advances outside the central city, annexations of territory adjacent to the city are made, and villages and cities are incorporated l . . 9 Annexations involve land areas from township territory." ranging from single subdivisions to large blocks of land adjacent to the city. Incorporations occur in territory adjacent to the city or several miles beyond the city bor- ders. These incorporations increase the number of govern- mental units in the evolving urban area. They require ad- ditional public officials and administrative agencies to Operate these new political units; usually these officials are untrained and inexperienced. ”Older cities and villages, situated some miles from the central city, are drawn into the metrOpolitan framework by becoming functional parts of the expanded "20 In this process the inhabi- social and economic complex. tants of older cities and villages become a part of the metrOpolitan area labor market. They may work in the central city or they may be employed in their hometowns. 18Ibid. lglbid. 20lbid., p. 4. 14 Branch stores and branch plants of central city firms are set up in these outlying communities. Sometimes a central city manufacturing firm will move its entire plant to a suburb, often bringing with it a substantial part of its original work force. Thus, the relocation of employees' homes follows the relocation of their place of employment. "The cumulative result of such residential, re- tail and manufacturing expansion and relocation is a height- 21 Existing streets ening of service and utility problems. and highways are required to handle mounting numbers of vehicles. Central city traffic becomes stagnated, prompt- ing many manufacturing firms to move to outlying areas. Public sewer and water services are required by the growing pOpulation densities in suburban areas. Residents of these begin demanding urban standards for the performance of such governmental functions as police and fire protection, health services, and voluntary agencies. Another result of the proliferation of peOple and activities in the develOping complex is the increase and intensification of tax problems. These are due on the one hand to the mounting demands for urban govern- mental services over wider geographic areas, and on the other to the irregular distribution of homes, com- 22 mercial and industrial enterprises (the major tax base). Piecemeal extention of water and sewer services, from the central city or on a special district basis, multiplies the type and amount of taxes the suburban resident must pay in 15 order to achieve the same level of service he was accustomed to in the city. Increased demands for school facilities and services often are hard to meet, unless accompanied by in- dustrial and commercial growth, because a purely residential tax base cannot provide the support necessary for adequate school facilities and services. "Planning for future growth and development in the expanded area becomes more difficult as land use and facility problems require a comprehensive approach and overall solu- tions at the same time that the number of governmental units "23 The quality and effec- is increasing by incorporations. tiveness of physical planning is handicapped by the fact that master planning, zoning ordinances, subdivision regu- lations, and building codes are under the control of the local unit of government. This provides only a piecemeal and uncoordinated approach to the formulation and implemen- tation of a comprehensive physical deve10pment plan for metrOpolitan areas. In planning for economic growth and advancement, there is no common voice within the metro- politan area. Economic activities are often sliced by com- petition, function, and special interests, and yet, they have common problems and objectives related to metropolitan governmental problems. 23Ibid., p. s. 16 ”As growth and expansion continue, the various types of interrelatedness snowball in both their economic 24 Retail establishments are grouped and social aspects." into community and regional shOpping centers. Manufactur- ing plants cluster into groups as public services are pro- viced, first, to one or two plants and then more are attracted to the area. Traffic patterns tie up the inter- related strands connecting suburbs and central city; people move from home to work, to visit friends or rela- tives, to engage in leisure activities; goods move from central city warehouses to outlying retail stores to con- sumers' homes. "Thus physical, economic, and social strands weave the peOple and activities of the metrOpolitan area into a denser web of relationships."25 STATE'S RELATION TO URBAN AREAS Historical DevelOpment With this nation's independence, the new state legislatures became the undisputed mediums for expressing the will of the government and they also assumed, as a democratic right, the control of local government. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 241bid. 25Ibid. l7 reserves to the states all powers not granted to the Federal Government and not prohibited to the states.26 It was a century after the framing of our national Constitution that a well-defined constitutional theory ap- peared at the state level. In 1868, Justice J. F. Dillon, then of the Iowa Supreme Court, wrote in City of Clinton v. 27 Cedar Rapids and Missouri River R.R. Co. that "Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so it may destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control."28 This theory has become known as the creature concept or "Dillon's rule" and has become accepted as basic constitutional doctrine.29 From this time forward, it was generally accepted that "plenary” or "absolute" power resided exclusively with the state, the local governments possessed only those powers expressly granted or clearly implied by state constitutions, statutes, or judicial rulings. 26John M. Winters, State Constitutional Limitations on Solutions of Metropolitan Area ProbIems,’The University Of MiChigan Law SChooI}TAnn Arbor, Michigan, 1961, p. 1. 27City of Clinton v. Cedar Rapids and Missouri River R. R. Co., 24 IOwa 455 (I868). 281bid., at 475. 29Winters, op. cit., p. 6. 18 It was about the same time that the concept of 30 . . . or modern serV1ce functions, such as education, "welfare," streets, water and sewage systems became noticeable. State activities in these areas grew greatly during the first half of this decade, but they expanded in an unplanned, un- coordinated manner. Although the states increased their direct provision of services, facilities, and financial aid, often they were slow to respond to local needs generated within urban areas. Many of the effects of this early state activity were negative in nature: lack of coordination among programs; adOption, or continuation of restrictions on local governments; and failure to provide new authority to local governmental units so that they could deal with current problems.31 In the immediate post World War II years, there was a sharp and growing awareness that many states had been lagging behind in the race for industrialization. There were older industrial areas that had neglected to create favorable conditions for the expansion of developing in— dustries. There were, on the other hand, regions of spec- tacular economic growth where pressing social and physical problems of adjustment had to be faced. It was in this 30The concept of welfare services is discussed by Paul Ylvisaker. "Some Criteria for a 'PrOper' Areal Divi- sion of Governmental Powers" in Arthur Maass (Ed.) Area and Power: A Theory of Local Government. The Free Press, GIEncoe, IIITnois,—1959, pp. 27F49. 31 Bollens and Schmandt, op. cit., pp. 526-529. 19 situation that the states began to engage in a new type of regional planning--area development. States established planning or deve10pment agencies with the functions of re- searching the resource possibilities of various regions, providing information about industrial Opportunities, and promoting industrial areas.32 Some clarification of the state's role in urban deve10pment came about in a report published in 1955 by the 33 This Commis- Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. sion was charged with the task of intensively studying national-state-local relations in governmental affairs. An important breakthrough in the attempt to define more pre- cisely what the state's role in urban deve10pment should be occurred in 1956 when the Council of State Governments pub- lished a study, The States and the Metropolitan Problem, which focused on the state's responsibilities in urban area deve10pment.34 The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Re- lations was formed in 1959 as a permanent, bipartisan body 32John Friedmann, "The Concept of a Planning Re- gion--The Evolution of an Idea in the United States," in John Friedmann, and William Alonso (Eds.). Regional Develop- ment and Planning: A Reader, the M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964, p. 499. 33Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, A Report to the President for Transmittal to the Congress, the Commission, Washington, D. C., June 1955. 34John C. Bollens, The States and the Metropolitan Problem, The Council of State Governments, Chicago, IlIinOTs, 20 established under federal legislation to give continuing study to the relationships among local, state, and national levels of government; this agency has continually main- tained that the states must exercise their full responsi- bilities in urban development or else the national governe ment would be required to increase its activities in this field. Fully agreeing with this pr0position, and attempt- ingto forestall its occurrence, the Council of State Governments, in 1962, published two reports entitled S3233 35 Planning; A Poligy Statement and State Responsibility in 36 Urban Regional Development. In response to these urgings, the states have begun to act. Governors' inaugural addresses and legisla- tive messages have increasingly stressed urban deve10pment problems; Commissions and committees studying urban area problems have grown as have statewide conferences; the num- ber of legislative bills concerning urban affairs has in- creased; and state planning agencies have broadened from their concern with industrial expansion to include problems of urban deve10pment.37 35Council of State Governments, State Plannin : A Policy Statement, the Council, Chicago, IIlihois, I96 . 36 Council of State Governments, State Responsi- bility. 37Bollens and Schmandt, Op. cit., pp. 542-546. 21 Legal and Administrative Position Every level of government has important roles to play in the deve10pment of urban areas. Our federal sys- tem of government has been described as a means of sharing governmental responsibilities, "a device for dividing de- cisions and functions of government," whose purpose is ”the distribution of power between central and peripheral units of government."38 In no areal setting are the problems of intergovernmental relations so difficult as in develOping urban areas. Solutions to the countless development prob- lems of these areas can only be accomplished through a proper functioning of our federal system of government, a sharing of governmental functions among local, state, and federal units of government. While the effective Operation of federal and local governments is indispensable to the solution of urban deve10pment problems, it is with the state that the key lies to solving the complex difficulties of these problems. "There is a setting that must exist before urban develop- ment problems can effectively be resolved; and state govern- ment, more than any other government, possesses the imple- ments to mold this setting."39 38Morton Grodzins, "The Federal System," in the Commission on National Goals, Goals for Americans, The American Assembly, Columbia University,TNew York, 1960, p. 265. 39Council of State Governments, State Responsi- bility, p. 16. 22 As has been mentioned, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "the powers not dele— gated to the United States by the Constitution, nor pro- hibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States 40 Consequently, the states respectively, or to the peOple." are the repositories of all powers necessary to mold the urban setting unless those powers are specifically or impli— citely denied to them through either the United States Con- stitution or state constitutions. This means that the ability of urban areas to meet their critical deve10pment issues is largely conditioned by the state. "The tools the localities can utilize, the money they spend and the powers they exercise, are to a great extent determined by a wide assortment of state constitutional, statutory and adminis- trative regulations."41 Responsibility for providing a workable pattern of local government in urban areas lies with the states, "this is especially true because the present complex patterns of local governmental structure, authorities, and restrictions in metropolitan areas are by and large the H42 handiwork of the state governments. Local governments 40Quoted in Martin, Op. cit., p. 23. 41Council of State Governments, State Responsi- bility, p. 17. 42 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, 1966 State Logislative Program of the Advisory Com- mission on IntergovernmentalTRelations, Report M-27, tHe Commission, Washington, C. D. October 1965, p. 99. 23 in urban areas face serious problems. These range from lack of authority and financial resources to problems which go beyond the corporate boundaries of local governments and yet which deeply affect their capacity for sound deve10p- ment. If urban areas are to function well, to effectively meet the challenges posed by our dynamic society, it is clear that the states must provide the prOper framework within which these governments can function. The Council of State Governments has stated its case for state action in urban deve10pment in the following manner: State government possesses singular qualifications to make profound and constructive contributions to urban regional deve10pment practice. The state is, in fact, an established regional form of government. It has ample powers and financial resources to move broadly on several fronts . . . Moreover, the state occupies a unique vantage point, broad enough to allow it to view details of deve10pment within its boundaries as part of an interrelated system, yet close enough to enable it to treat urban regional problems individually and at first hand.43 The states occupy the fundamental legal position in relation to the deve10pment or urban areas. This is because the powers of the local units of government in urban areas are dependent upon state statutes and constitutions. Thus, as the ultimate repositories of all local powers, the states, especially their legislatures, can control the structure and function of local government in urban areas. The states also 43 pp. 17—18. Council of State Governments, State Responsibility, 24 exert an important influence on urban development by directly providing a number of services and facilities; they also have major tax resources and revenue powers from which they pro- vide direct financial assistance to local units of government in urban areas. Planningand Action for Urban DevelOpment The state's role in relation to developing urban areas is extensive. It has been suggested that the state's potential role can be viewed as a continum which ranges from relatively indirect to markedly direct actions and from how 44 The permissive to how mandatory these actions are. actions available to a state for dealing with local govern- ments in attempting to meet the challenges of urbanization are outlined below:45 The states, through enabling legislation, may allow existing cities and counties to engage in a number of activities to meet the problems posed by urbanization; they may plan, raise revenue, spend funds, acquire land, and con- struct projects for urban deve10pment. As a minimum, the state has the responsibility to delegate to local units of government these basic powers so that they may at least attempt to intelligently provide urban governmental functions. 44Ibid., p. 19. 451bid., pp. 16-27. 25 The states may also enable localities to collabor— ate, join one another through mutual cooperative arrange— ments, or to consolidate in order to provide necessary governmental services that can not be handled satisfactorily on the level of a single local governmental unit. Into this category of state actions would fall the following ar- rangements: city-county consolidation; transfer of functions from the city to the county or vice versa; the urban county; metropolitan study commissions and planning agencies; and multiple-purpose special districts. The states may grant technical assistance to local units of government in order that they might better fulfill their responsibilities toward performing their urban functions. Often, the state would demand that the locality meet certain minimum performance standards as a condition for the receipt of this assistance thereby as- suring a certain level of urban functions throughout the state. The states may also grant financial assistance to localities in order to broaden their fiscal base of operations. This assistance may take the form of loans, grants, or tax concessions. State financial aid often im- plies state standards; in many cases the aid is extended to secure a state defined "adequate” standard of local governmental performance. Eta. -J P’- ___k 26 The state may regulate or administer certain ac- tivities of local units of government which have areawide implications. It may directly attempt to resolve inter- local governmental disputes in an urban area, it may estab- lish rigorous statutory standards for the creation of new municipal corporations within the boundaries of metrOpolitan areas as well as providing for the administrative review and approval of these new corporations. In these activities the state assumes that the larger urban interests require that the state act where it would be difficult for localities to take effective action. The state may also expand its activities into areas traditionally thought of as the sole province of local government. Such action might be initiated by local inability to act quickly in the fact of rapid expansion. An example of this state action would be the acquisition of land or the purchase of easements for Open space in rapidly urbanizing areas. A final form of state action would be the per- formance by the state of purely local functions. Such action would probably occur only if local resources, even augmented by state provision of technical and financial assistance, were completely inadequate to provide minimal governmental services. This situation, and this form of state action are not likely to be required in develOping urban areas. CHAPTER II LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT The first chapter focused on the state's role in urban development; this chapter will stress the role local government has to play in performing the functions necessary for urban deve10pment. A discussion of the local government functions which need to be performed in today's society will take into account both local and areawide urban functions. An attempt will be made to evaluate the present methods of performing those government functions which are, by their nature, prOperly performed on an areawide basis and which are, therefore, most difficult for local governments to perform given their present structural form. The final part of this chapter will suggest some reasons why the present methods of performing these important areawide functions by local governments do not meet the criteria used in the evaluation; it will discuss those structural characteristics of local government which impede the proper performance of areawide governmental functions. Local Government Functions Urban areas of the United States are characterized by, among other things, continual change. These many and rapid changes are currently accelerating. In the face of 27 28 them, it is important that the performance of urban functions by local governmental units be continually evaluated and modified to meet those changing circumstances. It is obvious that our expanding urban areas will be required to build new sewers, water lines, and highways, that local governments must provide adequate educational facilities, police and fire protection, a healthful environment, and every other service and facility required to meet the needs of our rapidly expanding urban populations. It is also obvious that few peOple would argue that these governments have met the challenges of recent urban expansion and change as well as they might have. It is for these reasons that an evalu- ation of our present methods of performing urban functions by local units of government is necessary. URBAN FUNCTIONS TO BE PERFORMED In the beginning of our history, the United States established systems of local governments to act as adminis- trative arms of each state for meeting the needs of a pre- dominately rural society. As cities grew the early legisla- tures provided for their needs by investing municipalities with special powers and privileges. As our pOpulation Spread across the continent, new states c0pied the old es- tablished patterns of local governmental structure. As the pOpulation density grew the state legislatures divided the 29 old counties, incorporated more municipalities, and met the growth of existing cities through the annexation of adjacent territory.1 Today, these governmental methods of adjusting to changing needs are extensively used throughout the United States. Changing needs, however, have outmoded these methods of adaptation; today new methods of meeting our dynamic urban society's changing needs are necessary, yesterday's methods will not suffice. The performance of local government functions within urban areas refers to the following four phases of the administration of governmental services and facilities: planning, decision making, execution, and evaluation. These phases of administration are important aspects of the performance of local government functions. When, in the provision of a particular governmental service or facility, each of these phases of administration has been accomplished, it can be said that the function has been performed. In other words, the performance of local government functions is considered to be the same as the administration of govern— mental services and facilities. The major concern here is 1Thomas H. Reed, "Comments on the Advisory Com- mission Report as a Whole," in U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations. Government in Metro- politan Areas: Commentaries on a Report By the Advisory Commission on Inter overnmental Relations, The Committee, ‘COmmittee Print, 87%HCongress,lst Session, Washington, D. C., December 1961, pp. 2-3. 30 with those governmental functions which should be, according to the evaluatory criteria to be suggested, performed either partially or entirely on an areawide basis. Local Urban Functions There are certain functions of urban governments which are best performed on a local area basis. This means that on the basis of the criteria prOposed later in this chapter, these functions are most adequately performed by those single units of government whose jurisdiction encom- passes only a portion of an urban area; such units would include municipalities, townships, or small special dis- tricts. Such functions as fire and police protection, pro- vision of public education and libraries, and refuse col- lection and disposal are examples. These are classified as local urban functions because each of them, or major portions of them, can traverse the four phases of adminis- tration--planning, decision making, execution, and evaluation-- at the local level of government and best fulfill the evalu- ative criteria. Areawide Urban Functions There are certain other functions of urban govern- ment, however, whose performance is best achieved on an areawide basis. This means that on the basis of the evalu- atory criteria, these functions are most adequately performed 31 throughout an urban area by a single unit of local govern- ment or by a number of local units acting jointly or COOperatively. In other words, their performance is best achieved on a jurisdictional basis which includes a major portion of the entire urban area. Such functions as air pollution control, water supply and sewage disposal, land use planning and control, and transportation are examples. These functions, to best fulfill the criteria listed below, must be at least administratively coordinated, if not actually administered, on an areawide basis. Local Government Performance of Urban Functions While our present structural forms of government are fairly well set up to perform local functions, they do not allow the effective performance of areawide urban functions. This means that important urban needs--high cost, politically explosive, areawide needs--are not being effec- tively dealt with in our rapidly expanding urban areas. For this reason alone, it is vital that attention be focused upon these areawide functions of local units of urban govern- ment. The performance of these functions must be evaluated and modified in order to bring urban government structuring into line with the functioning required of our modern urban government. It is the purpose of this part of the chapter, therefore, to take each of these examples of areawide urban 32 functions--air pollution control, water supply and sewage disposal, land use planning and control, and transportation-- and to evaluate it according to the method described below. METHOD OF EVALUATION The method of evaluation to be employed in the evaluation of the performance of areawide urban functions by existing units of local government will be to apply a set of criteria against potential performance characteris- tics of these units of government. The criteria will rep— resent ideals against which potential performance will be compared. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING PERFORMANCE The criteria to be used are derived from a defini- tion of the objectives of local government. This definition of Objectives was adOpted by the National Conference on Metropolitan Problems held ten years ago. The definition, and its underlying concern for meeting the problems of urban deve10pment, is as valid today as it was when it was adOpted. The "General Report" of the Conference had this to say: There are . . . certain clear objectives which will guide us in determining the government structures and strategy needed in metrOpolitan areas . . . . The basic need is for government that will serve the people of metropolitan communities effectively and efficiently, with active citizen participation and popular control. 33 An adequate and equitable revenue system, some local initiative and self—government for traditional or natural communities within a metrOpolitan area, and provision for adaptation to growth and change are im- portant additional objectives. Any system Of metro- politan government, moreover, should be designed and Operated with a view to the sound economic and social development of the area as a whole and the full utili- zation of private initiative and participation in meeting community needs.2 From this definition of the objectives of local government a set of criteria can be devised to evaluate the performance of urban functions by local units of government. These criteria are more concerned with the evaluation of the structural potential for the performance of urban func- tions by local units of government than they are with the actual performance of such functions. In this respect they are criteria which measure the potential for the prOper performance of urban functions; they identify certain struc- tural characteristics which allow the prOper performance of these local governmental functions. The criteria are divided into administrative, economic, social, and political cate- gories. In summary form, the criteria are as follows:3 Administrative 1. the unit of government should have the legal and administrative ability to perform the functions assigned to it; it should be able to raise adequate revenues and do it equitably 2National Conference on Metropolitan Problems, Proceedings, Government Affairs Foundation, Inc., New York, 1957, p. 10. 3The following sources also address themselves to essentially the same criteria for approximately the same reasons: 34 2. the units of government should have broad enough areal jurisdiction to adequately c0pe with the prob- lems it is expected to control Economic 3. the unit of government should have a geographic area of jurisdiction adequate to permit taking advan- tage of the economies of scale 4. the unit of government should be large enough to enable the costs and benefits from the performance of its functions to be realized primarily within its jurisdiction Social 5. the unit of government should be accessible to and controllable by the people, it should maximize the conditions and Opportunities for active citizen par- ticipation while still permitting adequate performance of the functions assigned to it Political 6. the unit of government should be responsible for a sufficient number of functions so that it provides a forum for the resolution of conflicting interests, with significant responsibility for balancing governmental needs and resources Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Alternative Approaches to Governmental Reogggnization in Metropolitan Areas, Report A111, The COmmission, washing- ton, D. C., June 1962, pp. 11-17. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Performance of Urban Functions: Local and Areawide, Report M12l-Revised, The COmmiSsion, washington, D} C., september 1963. Norman Beckman,, "Our Federal System and Urban Development: The Adaptation of Form to Function," Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 29:3, August 1963, pp. 1524167. Paul Ylvisaker, "Some Criteria for a 'PrOper' Division of Governmental Powers," in Arthur Maass (ed.), .Area and Power: A Theory of Local Government, The Free Piess, Glencoe, Illinois, 1959, pp. 27-49. 35 LIMITATIONS OF METHOD An evaluation of the structural potential of local units of government for performing areawide functions necessarily contends with several complicating factors.4 In the first place, each function is not an indivisible and homogeneous entity. Each such function, be it air pollution control or land use planning and control, is composed of a number of subfunctions which must be evaluated individually. For example, land use planning must consider the highway network at the regional level as well as residential streets at the local level; in this case the various aspects of planning are carried out on differing geographic jurisdic- tional bases. The second complication is that each governmental function can be viewed temporarily at different phases of performance--planning, decision making, execution, or evaluation-—and each phase could take place at a different level of areal jurisdiction. For example, areawide planning and decision making for air pollution control standards might be financed and administered on a local basis. While many subfunctions of these areawide urban functions could be performed on a local level, "almost all would benefit 4Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Performance, pp. 7-8. 36 substantially from some form of areawide coordination, par- ticularly in the planning phase."5 Another complication is the presently heavy in- volvement of both state and federal governments in the area of local government. There is hardly any local government function performed by a local governmental unit without some form of assistance from either state or federal units of government. In fact, state and federal government agencies are often influential in determining whether or not a particular function will be performed at a local or an areawide level. Besides such substantive complications, there are two distinct limitations upon the usage of the pre- 6 These viously mentioned criteria as evaluative tools. limitations are: (1) such an evaluation will suggest only tendencies or likelihoods because, even with such measure- ment criteria, it will be largely an evaluation based on Opinions or value judgments; and (2) the criteria must be moderated and not maximized because some of them are re- flections of contradictory values--for example, the social criterion of maximizing citizen participation conflicts with the economic criterion of achieving economies of scale through large geographic areas of jurisdiction. 5Ibid., p. 8. 6Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Alternative Approaches, p. 17. 37 Further difficulties are associated with the ap— plication of these criteria. Specific performance standards need to be developed in order to accurately measure the degree to which existing units of government fulfill each criterion; as yet few have been develOped with these par- ticular criteria in mind. These standards are necessary for the rational determination of the Optimal areal juris- dictions for the performance of governmental functions within urban areas. 'Without them the use of the suggested criteria would be largely intuitive. The criteria are but one step in the rationalization of the process of adminis- tering governmental services and facilities. The next step is to develOp a set of specific performance standards with which to measure each criterion. With these complications and limitations in mind, the next section will be an evaluation of the performance of areawide urban functions by existing units of local government. BACKGROUND FOR EVALUATION Each of the selected examples of areawide functions of local units of government will be discussed separately in this order: air pollution control, water supply and sewage disposal, land use planning and control, and transportation. Following these brief discussions all these functions will be analyzed according to each criterion; the criteria will 38 be listed in the following shortened form: Administrative-- (1) legal, administrative, and financial ability; (2) areal jurisdiction of control; Economic--(3) economies of scale; (4) cost/benefit area; Social-~(5) citizen participation; Political--(6) comprehensive government. The information for analysis, unless noted otherwide, comes from the Ad- visory Commission on Intergovernmental Relation's report on the Performance of Urban Functions: Local and Areawide.7 Air Pollution Control "The characteristics of the air pollution problem and the measures needed to control pollution have a direct bearing on the assignment of governmental responsibility for control."8 There are four major characteristics: (1) air pollution does not adhere to political boundaries, it is as free to move from one place to another as the air which carries it; (2) a major source of pollution, the automobile, is another mobile object which can disregard government boundaries; (3) other sources of pollution, primarily industry, are also free to move from place to place; many localities are afraid to impose stringent air| pollution controls upon industries for fear that they will 7Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Performance, Air Pollution Control, pp. 171-182; Water Supply and Sewage Disposal, pp. 193-212; Land Use Planning and Control, pp. 213-225; and Transportation pp. 252-265. ~ 81bid., p. 176. 39 drive existing industry out and discourage new industry from coming in; and (4) the last factor is the nature and status of air pollution control technology; more research is needed on the causes, tolerance levels, and methods of controlling air pollution, on the effects of such pollution on health, meterology, and our economy. These four major characteristics of air pollution and methods of control suggest that the problem is definitely interjurisdictional at the level of local government. Increased governmental COOperation within urban areas will be necessary in coping with the problem. Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Water supply and sewage disposal developed as two separate governmental functions; they are still administered separately in most American communities today. It is be- coming apparent, however, that these functions are but two phases of the same function, that of the management of our water resources. This is especially true in our expanding urban areas. It is true for a number of reasons: (1) so many units of government are contained within urban areas that one unit's sewage disposal seriously affects another unit's water supply; (2) increasingly, reliance is being placed upon the re-use of water because of the expanding demands being placed on our existing sources of water; and 40 (3) water is being used for a great variety of uses, es- pecially for recreational uses within urban areas. Given these factors concerning water supply and sewage disposal, it is apparent that some coordination of planning and policies should exist within urban areas as to how the water supply and sewage disposal functions of local governments will be carried out. This is not to say that the operation of such utility facilities needs to be the responsibility of some areawide government, but rather that intergovernmental coordination is necessary to achieve the interests of health, economy, recreation, and sound physical deve10pment planning. Land Use Planningand Control The job of guiding physical deve10pment in urban areas has grown beyond the abilities of local planning bodies as the economic, social, and physical factors af- fecting urban deve10pment have extended beyond municipal boundaries and as single-purpose special districts have been created to provide a number of areawide urban services and facilities.9 While this may be true, the fact remains that in urban areas most planning is done by local units of government, municipalities and counties. Nevertheless, 9Mary LcLean (ed.), Local Planning Administration, 3rd edition, International City Managers' Associationji Chicago, Illinois, 1959, p. 8. 41 physical development planning within urban areas is in- creasingly a function which must be performed on two govern- mental levels; the local or municipal level, and the area- wide or urban level, not to mention the state and federal levels. This performance of two similar functions within the same geographic setting requires the highest degree of intergovernmental cOOperation. Transportation Within urban areas there are many modes of trans- portation: automobile, truck, bus, airplane, commuter train, and railroad train. Each mode of tran5portation can be di- vided into five main parts: (1) a vehicle for carrying goods and peOple; (2) a facility on, or through, which the vehicle moves; (3) a terminal where peOple and goods embark and disembark and where they can transfer between modes of transportation; (4) an organization which manages and Oper- ates each mode; and (5) the goods and peOple being transported. The following items represent transportation activities carried on within each transportation mode: (1) planning and programming; (2) design and construction; (3) Operations; (4) maintenance; and (5) administrative activities which are normally a part of any governmental agency or department. The modes of transportation, with their component parts; the activities involved in providing transportation; the social values and desires of our pOpulation, coupled with 42 the economic means of achieving those desires; plus the very nature of transportation, whose function is to move peOple and goods to, from, and within urban areas——all these com- bine to make the performance of the transportation function a complicated one. Transportation services and facilities, quite obviously, must be coordinated among the governmental units of an urban area. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE The preceeding section on "Background for Evaluation" has briefly shown that there are certain governmental func- tions which must, at least in some important part, be coor- dinated among all levels of government Operating in urban areas. These functions represent approaches to the provision of governmental services and facilities for areas of activity which are beyond the effective reach of single units of local .government or where the Operations of these units, if each is capable of providing such services and facilities, requires that they be coordinated in order to achieve the highest level of government performance throughout the entire urban area, not just within the jurisdiction of a single unit of local government. With this knowledge in mind, the next section of this part of the chapter will evaluate the performance of these examples of areawide functions of local government. The emphasis is not upon the problems or the performance of 43 any particular areawide governmental function, but rather upon the general performance of local units of government within urban areas of functions which are areawide by their nature, functions which extend beyond the boundaries of any single unit of local government. The method of presentation will be to evaluate and discuss the general area under each of the criteria perviously suggested.10 Application of Criteria Administrative 1. Legal, Administrative, and Financial Ability Existing legal authority is usually in terms of local, not areawide, performance of urban functions. These functions are currently being performed by municipalities, townships, counties, and school districts; each of these local units of government has less than areawide jurisdic- tion. Such legal authority as exists for the performance of areawide urban functions provides for municipal extra- territoriality; special districts; interjurisdictional contract, agreement, or COOperation; or counties or school districts having areawide authority. Most prevalent, however, is the legal authorization for municipal performance. 10Unless noted otherwide, information contained within this section is taken from the same sources as foot- note #7 plus pp. 266-271. 44 Each of these areawide approaches has its own disadvantages; special districts usually require a special act for each grant of power; extraterritorial authority is granted usually on a function-by-function basis; often, municipalities can- not perform all aspects of a particular function. Most municipalities have difficulty attracting and retaining the administrative, professional and technical levels of man power needed to c0pe with these areawide urban functions. The problems which municipalities are authorized to handle are too small-scale to attract able personnel. The staffs of municipal departments are too small to offer attractive careers to those of extraordinary potential. The challenges are too small to attract those with strong moti- vations. Most municipalities do not have the financial base upon which to mount vigorous programs in the performance of areawide urban functions; they are having difficulty meeting their responsibilities on a purely local basis. These small units of government have neither the work load nor the finan- cial resources to warrent use of the modern administrative techniques of electronic data processing organization and methods analysis, quantity buying, and centralized equipment and personnel; use of these methods could bring about a net reduction in unit costs or an improvement in services rendered. 4S 2. Areal Jurisdiction of Control It is evident that many of the areawide urban functions of local government are beyond the control of a particular unit of local government. Air pollution, water supply and sewage disposal, and transportation are each characterized by extreme mobility and land use planning and control is characterized by its attempt to account for the adverse affects of this mobility on physical deve10pment. The nature of the sources of air pollution and the means by which it is transported indicate that the areal jurisdiction of control is an air basin. This air basin is likely to be larger than the entire urban area or, if not, it is not necessarily likely to be co-existive with it. In many areas, the air basin extends over several states. Thus, the areal jurisdiction of control over air pollution may lie with the state or a number of states. Many municipalities do not possess adequate re- sources within their boundaries to meet their needs for ‘water supply and sewage disposal. They must, therefore, go outside their geographical limits to obtain water and to discharge sewage. The major factors shaping the future direction amid intensity of growth in urban areas are areawide in ruiture. They are not limited by the boundaries of indi- \Kidual municipalities. This is evident in the brief 46 sketches of the government functions of air pollution con- trol, water supply and sewage disposal, and transportation. For the effective provision of such functions areawide plan- ning is essential. As necessary, however, is local planning: (1) for coordination of those functions provided for by local governments; and (2) for guidance of local physical deve10pment within the areawide guidelines provided by an areawide planning agency. Major portions of an urban transportation system serve the entire urban region. Most trips taken by peOple or goods pass through several municipalities. Obviously, the areal jurisdiction of control for the planning and pro- gramming, design and construction, Operation, maintenance, and administration of transportation activities and facili-- ties is the entire urban area. Economic 3. Economies of Scale Economies of scale are tendencies of unit costs of output to decline with increased output. They result from the "application of assembly line methods, the lower prOportion of fixed costs allocated to a single unit of output, greater efficiency of centralized overhead functions, such as purchasing and personnel, and greater flexibility 47 in c0ping with the problem of discontinuities in capital capacity."11 In the case of air pollution control, economies of scale result from the use of specialized equipment for sampling the air for contaminants, investigating complaints of air pollution violations, and conducting preventative maintenance inspections; they also result from the use of technical personnel and procedures. These economies can only result when areawide authority is granted for air pol- lution control, usually a single-purpose special district. Unit costs for water supply and sewage disposal decline with increased scale of Operations because of economies in construction and Operation of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Economies of scale also accrue by elimination of facility duplication through multimunicipality use of common mains. These economies are maximized when water and sewerage systems are planned so that they follow the tOpographic contours of natural basin in order to take advantage of gravity so as to avoid costly pumping. Obviously, such economies are most likely to be gained through areawide performance of these functions. In the area of land use planning and control the greatest economy of scale is that achieved through the co- ordination of local plans through areawide guidance. 11Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Performance, p. 45. 48 Naturally, such economies of scale as the following also result: lower proportion of fixed costs allocated to a single unit of government; greater efficiency of centralized overhead functions; and greater flexibility in c0ping with the problem of discontinuities in capical capacity. It should be noted, however, that the existence of an areawide planning agency does not eliminate the need for local plan- ning agencies within each municipality; that they will be able to draw upon its economies of scale will also mean certain economies of scale will fall to their Operations. 4. Cost/Benefit Area There are a number of difficulties in achieving this objective of local government performance of areawide urban functions. First, the social costs or benefits of some functions cannot always be identified. Next, it is often not possible to enlarge the jurisdiction in order to eliminate any spillovers Of either costs or benefits. Last, the performance of many functions involves the performance of sub-functions for which the amount of intergovernment spillover varies. (As far as air pollution control is concerned, jurisdictional boundaries are almost irrelevant. The nature of the pollution problem and the appropriate solution to it are determined almost exclusively by technical factors and must be defined in terms of the topographical and meterological 49 conditions and characteristics prevalent in any given urban area. For these reasons, governmental efforts at air pol- lution control can be successful only if they are imple- mented over the entire area circumscribed by these techno- logical, tOpographical, and meterological requirements; such an area would usually involve a major portion of a state or even several contiguous states. The area of water supply and sewage disposal in- volves subfunctions which have varying spillover effects of both costs and benefits. The benefits of water pumping and distribution and sewage collection accrue almost ex- clusively to individuals or businesses; they can be, there- fore, easily financed by user charges and administered by local units of government. On the other hand, the tapping and prOper management of sources of water, and the prOper disposal of collected sewage involve many complexities of conservation; the costs and benefits of these aspects of the performance of water supply and sewage disposal are almost entirely social in their nature and accrue to the entire urban area. The intergovernmental spillover of benefits from sound land use planning and control, and the costs resulting from a lack of it, are well recognized. In helping to co- ordinate public functions, planning affects the efficiency with which most of the other public services will be pro- vided; this type of planning benefits both local and areawide 50 functions. Within the framework provided by local planning agencies, local planning benefits are largely felt within local government boundaries. Nonetheless, no planning can be accomplished in complete isolation; both local and area- wide planning must be closely coordinated. The intercommunity spillover of both individual and social benefits from transportation are widely experienced. They long have provided the rationale for both state and federal participation in local highway construction; only recently has a similar need for mass transportation services and facilities been evidenced. ”Similarly, need for coor- dinated areawide provision for alternative kinds of trans- 12 For portation facilities is beginning to be recognized.” some aspects of the transportation function, however, the spillover effects are not great. Street maintenance, and the provision of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are examples; these benefits accrue largely to the residents of a parti- cular community and are, therefore, the proper responsibility of local units of government. Social 5. Citizen Participation Numerous factors affect the degree to which a unit of government is accessible to and controllable by the peOple; these factors have varying influence upon the proper size of lzIbid., p. 263. 51 governmental jurisdictions. Structural and procedural features have an important effect upon accessibility and controllability, but appear to have little effect on juris- dictional size. The effect of special interest groups upon the formation of public policy is very important for ef- fective control of the government by the people. In this instance, the larger the area, the more likely that policy will represent the compromise of conflicting interests. On the other hand, a large portion of the public believes that smallness of areal size is required for a unit of govern- ment to be accessible to and controllable by the public. This would indicate that functions should be kept at the local level of government as far as this criterion is con- cerned. As with accessibility and controllability of government, active citizen participation would indicate that urban functions should be performed at the local level. Participation is most likely to be stimulated at this level simply because smallness makes for greater relative numbers of active participants. Of course, larger units of govern- ment can encourage local participation and reflection of viewpoints by undertaking various measures of administrative decentralization. The value of citizen participation, however, argues for allocating the performance of urban functions to the local level of government, in direct con- trast to many of the other ctiteria. 52 Political 6. Comprehensive Government The purpose of this criterion is to assure that the governmental structure in urban areas will provide an effective forum for the resolution of conflicting political interests affected by the policies of local government, that this structure will balance governmental needs and re- sources, and that it will determine priorities among such needs and resources. An underlying factor in proposing this criterion is the desire to avoid the performance of urban functions by single-purpose special districts because they tend to fragment political responsibility and authority. An important political conflict exists today within urban areas concerning residential discrimination policies. This conflict generally involves the central cities against the surrounding suburbs. The level of government which is going to provide a forum for the solu- tion of this conflict must encompass and balance the poli- tical forces in both the cities and the suburbs. Unless such a forum is provided, with balanced representation from all sections involved, the power and responsibility for the resolution of this and other such conflicts will probably pass to state and national levels of government, at the expense of vigorous local government. 53 If the performance of urban functions is to be transferred to an areawide unit of government, enough func- tions must be transferred so that to unit "becomes the focus of at least a large share of the various political interests in the community and thus creates healthy condi- tions for the public process."13 A substantial number of important functions, however, must be left local if the maintenance of a viable local government is to be assured. In this respect, the possibility of continued local vari- ations in service standards and financing, and the implica- tions of these for the local process of political decision making, must be considered. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations discusses this in the following manner: Thus, although a series of services might be pro- vided on an areawide basis, it would be possible to provide for local self-determination on whether a higher standard of service should be provided within individual localities. These decisions would be made by the local governing body and thus would serve to broaden the scope of its policy responsibilities, to the benefit of keeping government at the local level of significant sc0pe. At the same time, performance of the function on an areawide basis, at the level above standard desired by the local unit, would pro- duce lower unit costs at both thi local and areawide levels due to economy of scale. It is apparent from the previous evaluations that the jurisdictional area chosen for the performance of a particular urban function will vary according to the relative 131616., p. 268. 141616., p. 269. 54 value placed upon the various objectives, or criteria, of local government. This is true even for those areawide urban functions just discussed. No matter what area is chosen, it must account for the following: (1) it will, in most cases, be larger than the area of any one local government; and (2) the consequences of its performance are so important that it must be coordinated with the per- formance of other areawide and local functions within the same urban area. Local Government Structure The previous parts of this chapter have dealt with the functions of local units of government, this part takes up the structure of local units of government; the two are inseparable. The structure of a unit of government allows it to perform its functions. Functions, however, to keep pace with evolving needs and circumstances change more rapidly than the structures within which they must be per- formed. These statements characterize local government today; limited by a structure inherited during the eighteenth century, our units of local government are unable to COpe with the urban needs of the twentieth century. The last section showed the importance of performing certain urban functions at an areawide level; this section will show why that is not possible given our present structure of local 55 government. The structure of local government refers to the types of local units, their powers and functions, and their geographical jurisdiction. STRUCTURAL IMPEDIMENTS TO EFFEC- TIVE GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONING In a milestone effort at attempting to define the state's responsibility in the area of metropolitan problems, John C. Bollens had this to say: The basis of the problem is the absence of general local governmental organizations broad enough to cope with metrOpolitan matters. There is a lack of area-wide governmental jurisdictions that can ef- fectively provide and finance services, that can plan and regulate and that are constructed to facilitate adequate accountability to the metrOpolitan public for their actions. The metropolitan problem thus is, in fact, a series of problems. There is, then, no governmental structure in urban areas which allows the Optimum performance of area- wide urban functions. And yet, it is just these functions which are of utmost importance in our growing urban areas. An analysis of the structural characteristics of local governments as they impede the effective performance of areawide urban functions is the first step toward correct- ing these governmental deficiencies. The next step is sug- gesting methods of aligning the structure of local govern- ment to conform with the functions it must perform in our 15John C. Bollens, The States and the Metropolitan Problem, The Council of State Governments, Chicago, Illinois, 1956. 56 modern urban society. Here follows the first step, an analysis of four important examples of structural character- istics which impede the performance of areawide urban func- tions by local units of government. Fragmentation and Overlapping of Governmental Units As of 1960, standard metrOpolitan statistical areas included territory in 46 states and the District of Columbia. Alaska, Idaho, Vermont, and Wyoming were the only states without them. Of the 212 SMAS's, 133 consisted of only one county each, the remaining 79 were composed of two or more counties; these intercounty SMSA's had nearly one-half of the nation's total pOpulation in 1960--80.5 million inhabitants. Of these 79 intercounty areas, 24 included territory in two or more states and several others make up parts of the interstate "standard consolidated areas" of new York-northeastern New Jersey and Chicago, Illinois—northwestern Indiana. Taken together, these inter- state areas had almost one-quarter of the nation's pOpula- 16 tion in 1960--38.3 million persons. The significance of 16Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Governmental Structure, Organization and Planning in Metropolitan Areas,’Report A-5,TUIS. HOuse of’Represen- tatives, Committee on Government Operations, Committee Print, 87th Congress, lst Session, Washington, D. C., July 1961, p. 12. Unless noted otherwide, all statistical information in this part of the chapter is from this source, pp. 12-17. 57 these figures is that many metropolitan areas are not within any single unit of government. The pattern of local government in metropolitan areas is very complex. The 1957 Census of Governments found a total of 15,658 separate local governments within the then classified 174 SMSA's. In these areas there were 266 counties, 3,422 municipalities, 2,317 townships, 9,185 independent school districts, and 3,180 other special-purpose districts. This means that there average about 90 local governments per metrOpolitan area. Concerning the fragmentation and overlapping of governmental units, the Advisory Commission on Intergovern- mental Relations, in its report on governmental structure, said: Local governments in metrOpolitan areas present a bewildering pattern both because of their extreme numbers and their frequent territorial overlapping. In many instances, school districts and special dis- tricts increase the overlapping maze and function in an area regardless of what other governments exist there. As a result, several types of special dis- tricts may occupy portions or all of the area of one another, as well as territory of other local govern- ments. Where townships can overlie municipal areas, an additional layer appears. The problems involved in this fragmentation and overlapping of local units of government were summarized in a. 1946 investigation of state-local relations of the Council of State Governments: 17Ibid., p. 14. 58 Small, numerous, overlapping local units make it difficult to obtain satisfactory government. Specifically: I. They produce inequities in tax burdens which are not in prOportion to services received. 2. They make it difficult, if not impossible, to utilize centralized purchasing, budgeting, and other techniques of modern fiscal administration. 3. They dissipate political responsibility and thwart effective citizen control of local institutions. 4. They produce an unequal level of services at relatively high cost and forstall community-wide action to meet community-wide problems.18 Besides the normal complications of local govern- ments, interstate metrOpolitan areas have variations which are especially pronounced. This is because otherwise com- parable units of government situated across state boundaries Operate under different state constitutions and statutes, and with different kinds of functional and financial authority. Tax and Service Boundary Disparities The most astute fiscal policies and the highest possible degree of technical competence in financial administration are of little avail for the equitable and adequate financing of governmental services in metrOpolitan areas unless the basic fact of non— coincidence of service areas and areas of tax juris- diction for the support of such services is clearly recognized and effectively met. The extreme mobility of our urban pOpulation and the extention of its activities across governmental boun- daries makes it difficult to relate the costs and the 18The Council of State Governments, State-Local Relations, the Council, Chicago, Illinois, 1946, p. 195. 19Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Governmental Structure, p. 15. 59 benefits of governmental services at the local level. In today's urban areas, a particular family may reside in one community, work in another, send its children to school in yet another, and seek shOpping and recreational facilities in still other communities. And yet, ”the American local finance system still reflects the presumption that these various activities are concentrated in one governmental jurisdiction."20 Concerning the disparity between tax and service boundaries and the performance of areawide urban functions, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations said: Generally speaking, the larger the number of in- dependent governmental jurisdictions within a metro- politan area the more inequitable and difficult becomes the process of financing those governmental services which by their nature are areawide in character. This is especially the case with respect to such services as water supply, sewage disposal, and transportation. These services by their nature require large and inte- grated physical facilities with service boundaries economically dictated by pOpulation density and tOpog- raphy, often involving little or no relationship to boundaries of political jurisdiction. Even services which do not require areawide handling, such as edu- cation, law enforcement, and health, also involve serious problems of equity with respect to financing and of awkwardness in administraiion where numerous local governments are involved. Difficulties in terms of equity and administration in raising revenue sufficient to support areawide govern- mental functions are most severe in terms of those functions 20Lyle C. Fitch, "Metropolitan Financial Problems," The Annals of the American Academy_of Political and Social science, 314 (Nbvember 1957), p.367. 21Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Governmental Structure, p. 15. 60 financed through local prOperty taxation. This is so because of relatively small taxing areas. The uneven dis- tribution of valuable industrial prOperties, and the lack of correspondence between place of residence and consump- tion of governmental functions. The fiscal implications- of this situation fall most heavily upon the central city, especially in those urban areas characterized by migration of the higher income classes to the surrounding suburbs and the migration of the lower income classes into the city. State Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions Many urban local units of government currently Operate under restrictions and limitations imposed by the state.22 These restrictions originate in a system of local government outlined in the state constitution, usually based upon eighteenth century models tailored to meet the needs of a predominantly rural society. This is particularly true in the case of county governments; counties, unlike municipal corporations, are administrative and jurisdictional areas of the state. County boundaries laid down decades ago have little relationship to present concentrations of pOpu- lation, economic activity, or governmental needs. In other 22Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, State Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions upon the Structural, Functional, and Personnel Powers of Local Government, Report A:12, The CommiSsion,TWashington, D. C., October 1962, 80 p. 11...! v 61 words, many urban counties are handicapped by constitutional rigidity as to functions and personnel in performing func— tions of an urban character. Constitutional and statutory restrictions of the number of urban representatives in state legislatures are additional sources of hindrance to the effective govern- mental functioning in urban areas. This condition, however, has begun to ease through attitudinal changes on the parts of state legislators. This situation has arisen from a number of factors:23 (1) the growth of large urban areas and the increasing diversity of both social and economic activity within these areas are blurring the older divisions among central cities and suburbs; (2) the growth of small urban constituencies in previously rural areas is tending to obscure old battle lines between rural and urban legis- latures. This growth is occurring as industrial and small business activities Spread into rural areas, and as more rural manpower is released to urban occupations through technological advances in agriculture; and (3) in recent years there has been marked progress in the area of legis- lative reapportionment. Restrictive statutory requirements with respect to the annexation of surrounding territory by municipal corporations have been an important factor in adding to the 23Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Governmental Structure, pp. 9-10. 62 multiplicity of local units of government in urban areas. These restrictions have often made it impossible for poli- tical boundaries to keep pace with the spread of govern- mental needs in urban areas. Since the residents in the outlying territories insist upon the provision of municipal- type services, they often have established new municipal incorporations. These actions have resulted in the common phenomena of large central cities being tightly ringed with incorporated suburbs. Additional restrictions upon the effective func- tioning of local units of government exist within state constitutional and statutory limitations on the borrowing powers24 and the taxing powers25 of local governments. These restrictions and limitations have complicated the task of financing necessary urban government services; they have given birth to a number of devious special de- vices designed to evade them, with a resulting increase in the complexity of local governmental structure. 24Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, State Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions on Local Government Debt, Report A-lO, The Commission, Washing- ton, D. C., September 1961, 98p. . 5Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, State Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions on. Local Government Debt, Report A-l4, The Commission, WaShing- ton, D. C., October 1962, 122p. Erin“ "J‘P-v‘ :- D-J ' ' hi. . 63 Interstate Urban Areas There are numberous urban areas which cross state boundaries. These areas contain over one-fifth of the nation's pOpulation and almost one-third of its manufactur- ing activity. They have over 5,000 local units of governr ments: 1,581 school districts as of 1960 and 3,297 other local governments as of 1957. The problems involved in matching political juris- diction and responsibility with the needs and resources of urban areas are compounded in those areas which cross state lines. Additional sets of state constitutional provisions, statutory requirements, and state administrative regulations and controls are involved. To achieve a simplification and restructuring of local governmental functioning in these areas requires that local governments in different states must agree upon a course of action and then obtain permissive legislation from their respective state legislatures. CHAPTER III THE STATE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT This chapter will draw upon the first two chapters in order to show what the state can do to help local govern- ments meet the challenge of future urban growth and develop— ment. It will discuss the state's role in urban deve10pment under three headings: The General State Approach to Urban Development; Planning for Urban Development; and Action for Urban DevelOpment. The general state approach will take up the tOpic of what the state can, in general, do to help local units of government better meet their responsibilities toward urban development. Planning for urban development will touch upon enabling legislation for local planning, local planning assistance, and state planning. State plan- ning will discuss both indirect and direct state actions whiCh might be used by urban areas to remove the present structural impediments to the effective performance of area- wide urban functions by local units of government. GENERAL STATE APPROACH TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT The setting within which urban deve10pment takes place is a setting which poses many problems for the ef- fective Operation of local government in its performance of 64 6S areawide urban functions. It was shown in the last chapter that present governmental structural conditions prevent the performance of these functions from meeting certain criteria which were stated as representing important objectives of any unit of local government. Examples of these structural conditions were the fragmentation and overlapping of govern— mental units, tax and service boundary disparities, state constitutional and statutory restrictions, and interstate urban areas. The states have the fundamental responsibility and resources for enabling and assisting urban areas in dealing with these increasingly difficult problems. "This is especially true because the present complex patterns of local governmental structure, authorities, and restrictions in metrOpolitan areas are by and large the handiwork of the 1 It is necessary, therefore, that the state governments." states assert strong leadership with regard to removing these structural impediments to effective governmental functioning, including the provision of financial and tech- nical assistance and, where necessary, the exercise of state regulation and control to meet these structural problems in local urban government. 1Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, 1966 State Legislative Program of the Advisoty Com- mission on IntergovernmentalReIations, Report M-27, The Commission, Washington, C. D., October 1965, p. 99. 66 There is no single ”best” solution to these prob- lems; no single approach can be described as the most de- sirable for all urban areas. It is best, perhaps, that the state enable local governments to choose from among a range of permissive powers to help meet their particular needs and problems. At the same time the state would establish within its own structure the dual function of regulation and assistance, thereby asserting its determination to assist continually and to intervene when necessary in easing the structural problems within urban areas. The specific means available to the states to help local units of govern- ment meet their responsibilities in our dynamic, modern society will form the basis for the remainder of this chapter. PLANNING FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT The means by which the setting for governmental policies and public programs can be molded is the advance consideration of future problems--planning. The purpose of planning at all three levels of government is to help develop policies which will guide the specific actions necessary to fulfill governmental functions in urban areas. Planning alone, however, is not enough; the preparation of plans is a means, not an end. Governmental planning must be closely meshed with the Operations of existing units of government so that these governments can intelligently 67 choose which of the many techniques and approaches available to them should be employed in the performance of their urban functions. Governmental decisions are being made every day which affect the growth and deve10pment of urban areas, new legislation and new programs are constantly being proposed to meet the needs of an urban society. Many of these deci- sions, however, are made on an incremental basis and are in conflict with other decisions. "Overall public policies concerning urban regional development--policies that would serve as a framework for the social, economic, and physical deve10pment of our cities and states--are lacking. It is at this overall level of policy that government is weakest and most confused in this field."2 It is at this policy level that governmental planning for the future growth and deve10pment of urban areas is most important as a means of rationalizing and coordinating these many decisions. EnablinggLegislation for hOcaIPlanning As the state is the repository for all local powers, it is up to the state to provide local units of government with the authority to engage in planning 2The Council of State Governments, State Respon- sibility in Urban Regional DevelOpments, The CounciI, Chicago, Illinois, 1962, p. 27. 68 activities, including powers of implementation.3 There are many substantive techniques available to local communities; many new ones are devised each year. Not all techniques are appropriate to every community within a state. For this reason enabling legislation for local planning is usually permissive. It should also be broadly drawn thereby pro- viding an efficient base of planning powers for urban areas to choose from in meeting their problems. State enabling legislation also deals with the administration of planning and planning controls. As with substantive techniques, there are so many local variations that some leeway in day—to-day administrative procedures-- the handling of zoning permits, variances, expections, zoning changes, and plat approvals--is justified in state enabling legislation. Once again, this provides local governments with maximum choice as to the administrative techniques available to them. Finally, the state statutes must deal with the problem of organization for carrying on planning activities. One aspect of planning organization concerns the realization that municipal boundaries do not form boundaries within which all local problems can be planned for and controlled. Another aspect is that many local governments are currently 3Mary McLean (Ed.), Local Planning Administration, 3rd edition, The International City Managers' AssociatiOn, Chicago, Illinois, 1959, p. 24. 69 organized to solve problems which existed some twenty years ago, not to solve future problems of urban growth and development. Local Planninngssistance The primary stimulus for state assistance for local planning was Section 701 of the 1954 U.S. Housing Act. This section authorized federal grants to be channeled through the states for direct planning and assistance to certain cities. The scale of the program has been expanded ever since its adoption in 1954. The federal government relies on the states to administer the 701 programs within their jurisdictions. As long as an agency qualifies as a state planning body, it is eligible to receive federal grants, and in turn to set standards and requirements for program content.4 Each state has considerable latitude in the administration of its program as long as it fits into the general prescriptions of the federal law and adminis- trative regulations. The largest portion of state techni- cal assistance in planning is provided under the 701 program.5 4TheCouncil of State Governments, Op. cit., p. 36. 5The Council of State Governments, State Tech- nical Assistance toiLocal Governments, The Council, Chicago, Illinois, 1962, p. 30. 70 In general, there are four types of planning as— 6 The first sistance offered by the states to local areas. is the provision of direct state planning assistance. The second is the provision of financial aid. The third is the reliance on regional and county planning agencies, created and supported by the state, to provide continuing planning services to smaller units of government within their juris- dictions. The last is the reliance on private planning consultants to provide technical assistance directly to the community through financial aid provided by both federal and state governments and administered by the state. State Planning Even the most carefully laid plans at the local level must be develOped within the broader guidelines of statewide planning. "State government, because of its in- herent responsibility to urban areas and by virtue of the effect of its public works programs on urban regional de- ve10pment, must play a central role in joint planning of our urban areas."7 There are many activities which the state can engage in under the title of state planning. The develOp- ment of a set of overall public policies concerning the 6The Council of State Governments, State Respon- sibility, pp. 38-46. 71bid., p. 50. 71 future growth of urbanizing areas is one; these policies would serve as a framework for the social, economic, and physical development of urban areas within the state. The state planning agency can serve as a coordinating agency for state physical deve10pment programs, providing assis- tance to state operating departments, state legislative bodies, and local governments. The agency can have the responsibility of programming capital improvements; indi- vidual capital improvement schedules can be coordinated to augment the objectives of the overall state deve10pment program, balancing deve10pment needs with financial and technical resources. Through its capital improvements pro- gramming activities, the agency, working in cooperation with the governor's office and the state budget office, can provide invaluable assistance in the preparation of state capital budgets. The state agency can also review state department proposals for public works with regard to their conformance to state development policies. Another state planning agency activity can be the provision of research information in matters pertaining to physical de- velopment. An activity previously discussed is that of providing local technical assistance services to help local units of government plan for their future urban growth. 72 ACTION FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT: SOME SUGGESTIONS Solutions to our urban problems will require the combined efforts of local, state, and national governments. State government, however, more than any other unit of government, possesses the tools to mold the setting which must exist if urban development is to proceed successfully. It is an established form of regional government with ample powers and resources to more broadly on several fronts. ”Moreover, the state occupies a unique vantage point, broad enough to enable it to treat urban regional problems indi- 8 vidually and at first hand." In the same vein, an earlier report had this to say: Although the roles of local governments and the national government are indispensable, the states are the key to solving the complex difficulties that make up the general metrOpolitan problem. To achieve ade- quate results the state governments--the legislative and executive branches and the people--need to exert positive, comprehensive and sustained leadgrship in solving the problem and keeping it solved. It must be noted that state inaction in asserting vigorous leadership in strengthening local units of govern- ment only tends to make more persuasive the argument for increased intervention in local affairs by the national government. Of course, interest in urban affairs by the 81bid., p. 18. 9John C. Bollens, The States and the MetrOpolitan Problem. The Council of StateTGovernments, Chicago, Illinois, 1956, p. 132. 73 federal government is necessary, but "Federal action unac- companied by necessary steps on the part of States would have to be more direct and of such a specific programmatic character that real harm might be done to the overall structure of National-State-local relations under our Federal system."10 It is for these reasons that the following sug- gestions are made for possible state constitutional legisla- tive and administrative action. Their purpose is to offer local governmental units the means of removing the structural obstacles to prOper functioning. These suggestions will help local governments to perform areawide urban functions within the limits of the criteria set forth in the previous chapter. In other words, these suggestions will enable local governmental units to more nearly fulfill the objec- tives of local government, they will allow the actual per- formance of areawide urban functions to approach the ideal performance of these governmental functions. Indirect State Action The state has a responsibility, through its enabling legislation, to permit local units of government to exercise the greatest possible initiative and self-determination in 10Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Governmental Structure, Or anization and Planning in MetrOpolitan Areas, Report A45} U}S.HOuse of’Representa- tives, Committee on Government Operations, Committee Print, 87th Congress, lst Session, Washington, D. C., July 196k p.18. 74 their performance of urban functions. "Such measures should provide the basis on which local governments can develop the varying arrangements necessary to allow them to supply the prOper direction for urban development to assure the services which are necessary to the welfare of the whole state, and to assure services at a level desired "11 It was shown in the last by residents of local areas. chapter that some urban services, by their nature, require that they be performed by governmental jurisdiCtions larger than most local units of government. Machinery should be made available to local units of urban government through which they can determine their problems and needs and through which they can best act to implement solutions to those needs. This is particularly true of areawide urban functions. The following suggestions are examples of such machinery which could be made available to local units of government through state legislative and constitutional action. Home Rule It is recognized that local governments can per- form better if given discretion and flexibility in choosing their own forms of governmental structure and in giving themselves the levels of local services they desire. Certain 11The Council of State Governments, State Respon- sibility, p. 59. 7S limitations, however, should be introduced against the tra- ditional concepts of home rule as applied to political sub- divisions located within metrOpolitan areas. The states, when considering either general constitutional revision or undertaking specific changes with regard to home rule, should reserve sufficient authority to the legislature to enable legislative action when necessary to alter the re- sponsibilities of, and relationships among, local units of metropolitan government in order to achieve the best interests of the inhabitants of the entire metrOpolitan area.12 Functions which in the 19th and early 20th cen- turies could be adequately handled by separate local areas are now matters of concern for large metropolitan areas. Ten years ago the Kestnbaum Commission made the following remarks concerning the need for modernizing our outdated concepts of home rule to meet the needs of large urban areas: The principle of home rule should not be carried to an extreme. It defeats the purpose of home rule to resist needed consolidation of local units by inter- preting home rule as a right of perpetual self-deter- mination. Self-determination in one isolated local unit of a large community often restricts the oppor- tunity for genuine home rule in the whole community. Unfettered local control can be injurious to local as well as to broader interests.1 12Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Governmental Structure, pp. 19—21. 13Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. A Report to the President for Transmittal to the Congress, The CommisSion, washington, D. C., June l955, p. 54. 76 The rapid changes taking place in metrOpolitan areas with respect to the performance of areawide urban functions makes it necessary that the state be in a position to offer leadership, stimulation, and control where neces- sary to meet urban problems, especially in metropolitan areas which encompass more than one county because in these areas there is no authority short of the state which can be brought to bear. "Constitutional provisions which confer home rule upon municipalities or counties and proceed to spell out functions of government with respect to which the State legislature may not intervene have the effect of placing handcuffs upon the State legislature and Governor in helping the local area meet a functional problem which has grown beyond effective local administration."14 As an example, if the provision of water supply and sewage disposal are among municipal-like functions enumerated in a constitutional home rule provision for municipalities, the state is powerless in any attempt to exert any authority with respect to an areawide approach to the performance of these functions. What has happened is that problems have outgrown the cities' ability to single- handedly deal with them completely within their municipal boundaries. In this respect, the complexity of providing many urban services and the inability of many units of 14Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Governmental Structure, p. 20. 77 local government to provide them defeats both the theory of local home rule and pOpular control and the ability of these governments to effectively meet the problems of urban growth.15 Annexation Annexation may be described as the absorption of 16 Before 1900 annexation was the most territory by a city. common method for adjusting municipal boundaries to keep up with Spreading population. Annexation enabled our large cities to become present-day major metrOpolitan areas while, at the same time, prevented the subsequent rise of numerous small satellite cities. With the widespread use of the automobile, however, peOple began to move outside municipal boundaries in large enough numbers so that a feeling of com- munity spirit and local home rule began to be felt. Many of these areas incorporated into small municipalities, others remained as pOpulous unincorporated areas subject to county control and dependent upon either the county or neighboring municipalities for the provision of urban services. As these outlying areas became increasingly urbanized, their populations successfully obtained from their state legis~ latures legal provisions to make more difficult the annexation 15For further discussion of this topic see: Neil Littlefield, Metropolitan Area Problems and Municipal Home Rule. The Univeristy of Michigan Law SChbol, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1962. 16Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Governmental Structure, p. 21. 78 of their land areas to adjacent cities. In some cases they were granted exclusive authority to initiate annexation pro- ceedings. In most states these areas were given a conclu- sive veto over annexation through the proviso that such action would have to receive a favorable majority within the area being annexed. Concerning these trends the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has noted: "These handcuffs upon the annexation process have contributed con— siderably to the present metrOpolitan problem insofar as the complexity of local governmental structure is concerned."17 For these reasons it is suggested that the state critically examine their present constitutional and statutory provisions concerning the annexation of territory to munici- palities with an eye to amend those "provisions that now hamper the orderly and equitable extention of municipal boundaries so as to embrace unincorporated territory in which urban development is underway or in prospect."18 Authority to initiate annexation proceedings should not rest solely with the area or residents desiring annexation, but should also be made available to municipal units. Also, there is merit to the proposition that the inhabitants of minor unincorporated territory should not possess a conclu- sive veto power over a prOposed annexation which meets 17Ibid., p. 22. 18Ibid., p. 21. 79 apprOpriate standards of equity. The question of municipal boundary extension Should be a matter of statewide policy, not entirely a matter of local self-determination; the state Should define the type and character of land which Should be encompassed within the boundaries of municipal corporations.19 Liberalized annexation laws are an importnat and fruitful possibility for state action to help metropolitan area deve10pment. Of course, it is not possible to undo what has already occurred. The primary benefit of modernized annexatiOn laws would accrue to unincorporated territories. This will not help those cities already ringed with satellite municipalities, but it will help facilitate the orderly 20 The use of modern annex- growth of newer urban centers. ation laws as a method of providing for orderly urban de- velopment, however, can be severely limited by too liberal 21 What is needed is, on the one hand, -incorporation laws. liberalized annexation of unincorporated areas couple with, on the other hand, tighter rules against defensive 19Stanley Scott, et al., Local Government Boundaries and Areas: New Policies for California, Bureau of’Public Ad- ministration, Univeristy of GaliTOrnia, Berkeley, California, February 1961. 20For further discussion of this typic see: Frank S. Sengstock, Annexation: A Solution of the Metropolitan Area Problem, The University oflMichiganlLaw SchOOl, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1960. 21The Council of State Governments, State Responsi-a bility, pp. 72-74. 80 incorporation of fringe areas; these provisions could greatly reduce the future increase of new units of local government in urban areas. Intergovernmental COOperation Intergovernmental cooperation at the local level often provides a workable method of meeting particular prob- lems within metrOpolitan areas when individual action by such units of government is uneconomical or when the consol- idation or transfer of functions is not economically or politically feasible. These interlocal arrangements are usually of two types: (1) the provision of certain govern- mental services on a contractual basis by one unit of govern- ment to one or more additional units; and (2) the joint conduct by two or more units of government of a particular function or the joint Operation of a particular facility. Intergovernmental COOperation has many advantages. It broadens the geographical base for planning and adminis- tering governmental services and controls. It allows economies of scale to be achieved. To the extent that it avoids the creation of single-purpose special districts, it also serves to avoid the disadvantage of duplication and weakened citizen control associated with fragmented and overlapping units of local government. Where these agree- ments are used by a city to provide services to outlying areas, they may help in guiding the orderly deve10pment of 81 these areas, thus providing an areawide approach to physical planning and deve10pment. They may, in general, be a force for improved governmental relations and thereby help develOp the conditions necessary for more comprehensive approaches to areawide governmental functions.22 One commonly cited disadvantage of the contract system is that in the event of a scarcity of trained person- nel to administer a certain function, the contracting unit will tend to take care of its own needs first. The joint enterprise approach, in certain situations, has an advantage over the contract system. It requires COOperative partici- pation among all units on an equal basis and, therefore, avoids the drawback associated with the contract system. On the other hard, joint action necessitates considerable unanimity and COOperation for the successful performance of urban functions. "The necessity for getting the consent of each participant may impede proceedings and prevent solution of the problem on a comprehensive basis."23 Since legislative authority is usually required, it is suggested that the states authorize two or more units of local government to exercise either jointly or COOpera- tively any power possessed by one or more of these units 22Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Alternative Approaches to Governmental Reorganization in Metropolitan Areas, Report A-ll. The Commission, Washing- ton, D. C}, June 1962. 23Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Government Structure, p. 25. 82 and to contract with one another for the rendering of govern- mental services. It might be best, at least at the outset, to limit this authorization to metrOpolitan areas. This might forstall the possibility of objections being raised by county and municipal officials from non-urban areas who might see in statewide legislation some potential threat to their jurisdictional reSponsibilities.24 Transfer of Functions What is known as the "urban county" approach offers a possibly fruitful method of altering the structure of local units of government. This approach refers to a number of dif- ferent developments concerning counties: (1) the piecemeal transfer of individual functions from local governments to the county; (2) the gradual expansion of some counties from thefstatus of rural local governments which are administra- tive agents of the state to include a number of urban activi- ties which they perform in unincorporated urban areas; and (3) the granting, usually accompanied by "charter reorgani- zation," of a number of areawide urban functions to counties located within metropolitan areas. In those metropolitan areas which are single-county in nature, the county, pro- vided it is prOperly organized to meet modern problems, can effectively perform a number of areawide urban functions. 5 24Ibid. 83 Another version of this approach is the idea of ”city-county consolidation." This approach consolidates the functions, or a number of functions, of the city and the county. It has not met with much success at the polls. This is because such plans usually require both the enact- ment of a state constitutional amendment and the consent of the local voters. Consent of the local voters is generally on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, not areawide. Of this form of transfer of functions, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has said that "constitutional amendments drafted in general terms to permit city-county consolidation have commonly met with organized Opposition from associations of county and city officials in rural as well as urban areas."25 It is suggested that the states enact a simple statute authorizing the voluntary transfer of functions between municipalities and counties within metropolitan areas to the extent that the governing bodies of these units agree. If it is deemed necessary, the statute could spell out the functions authorized for such transfer in order to guarantee that responsibilities carried on by counties as agents of the state--such as law enforcement, election, and judicial functions--are not transferred to lnunicipal corporations. 25Ibid., p. 30. 84 AS an example, within a metrOpolitan area such a statute would enable the county board of commissioners and the mayors and city councils of the municipalities within the county to collectively assess the manner in which cer- tain urban functions were being performed and to arrange, through apprOpriate administrative action, for the assump- tion by the county of particular areawide functions. This would relieve the municipalities of their respective frag- mented responsibilities in these functional areas. On the other hand, they might agree that the county should cease to carry on certain functions within municipal boundaries, with these units assuming such responsibilities on an ex- clusive basis within their borders.27 The gradual transfer of areawide functions to the county might serve as a prelude to reorganization to the county as a unit of urban government. The suggested legis- lation assumes a city-county relationship whereby the trans- fer of functions can be gradual as the county reorganizes to meet the changes necessitated by urban development. Concerning this eventuality The Council of State Governments has stated that "the present shortcomings of county govern- Inent are out-weighed by the advantage of working within the 27The Council of State Governments, State Respon- ‘sibility, p. 81. 85 existing framework of an established government and elimi- nating a third tier of government in a metrOpolitan area.”28 Functional Authorities A noted phenomenon of the past decade has been the proliferation of local public authorities or special districts, usually created to provide a single type of governmental service or facility. There are five realted factors which account for this trend: (1) in most states, the statutory obstacles to the creation of these functional authorities are far less formidable than those for the adoption of many of the other methods of modernizing local governmental structure in urban areas; (2) the creation of such an authority often has constituted a last resort effort after attempts at charter reform, annexation, or consolida- tion of functions have failed; (3) it is possible to create special districts without threatening the status of any of the already existing units of local government so that neither the vested interests of office-holders nor civic pride are very much offended by prOposals for special dis- tricts; (4) the temptation is always great to handle a desired service in an efficient manner with as little thireaucratic red tape as possible; and (5) debt and tax 86 limitations can often be evaded or avoided through the use of such authorities.29 Although pOpular, functional authorities have come in for some serious criticism. There are three prin- cipal arguments leveled against the use of these Special districts: (1) it represents only a piecemeal approach to providing urban services; (2) it adds to the number of local units of government within metropolitan areas; and (3) it is not accessible to and controllable by the peOple because the authorities are typically governed by a board of directors composed of private citizens.30 The problems and limitations of the authority device cannot be taken lightly. They must be recognized and dealt with in any legislation intended to enable metro- politan areas to use this method where it seems more de- sirable or feasible than other alternative changes in the existing pattern of local government. Accordingly, the following suggestions are made concerning the enactment of state legislation authorizing local governmental units to establish a metropolitan service corporation or authority for the performance of governmental services necessitating 29Advisoty Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Governmental Structure, pp. 26-28. 30Ibid., p. 28. See also: Max A. Pock, Indepen- dent Special Districts: A Solution to the MetrOpolltan Area PrOblems, The University of MichiganTLaw School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1962. 87 areawide handling: (1) the number of such corporations within a metrOpolitan areas would be limited to one; it could be a single-purpose or multifinctional authority de- pending upon a majority vote of the residents of the affected areas, but it multifunctional, it would tend to reduce piecemeal approaches to urban browth; (2) the board of directors would be made up of members ex officio from boards of county commissioners and from the mayors and city councils of the component cities so that the affairs of the corporation would be in the hands of politically responsible elected officials; and (3) the corporation would have the power to impose service charges and Special-benefit assess- ments, to issue revenue bonds, and--subject to referendum-- to issue general obligation bonds repayable from property taxes imposed by the corporation for the purpose.31 The suggested authorization would enable, but not require, the residents of any metrOpolitan area to have a multipurpose functional authority or a single-purpose One, or none, as they so choose by pOpular vote. Concerning the use of such authorities, it has been said: To the extent that State legislation is adapted for liberalized annexation, permission for interlocal contracting, and the transfer of municipal and county functions, and to the extent that existing units of government make use of such discretionary methods and succeed in rendering services at a satisfactory level of adequacy and cost to the residents of the metro- politan area, presumably the residents would not then 31Advisoty Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Governmental Structure, p. 30. 88 feel the need to vote an authority into existence. However, if the needs are not met and services are not provided the peOple should not be denied the use of the authority device for dealing with pagpicularly urgent governmental functions and services. Metropolitan Area Study Commissions Interest in the solution of metrOpolitan problems has been evidenced by a significant increase in the number of investigations concerning governmental problems in these areas. Some of these studies have been authorized by state or local governments, others by citizen groups, and others by the joint action of government and citizen agencies. While some of these inquiries have resulted in expanded public consciousness of the areawide needs of urban areas and resulted in governmental action, others have lacked either the authority or the support to make substantial improvements. In some areas such studies have not even been set up or, if they have, they have been set up to deal with individual problems as they arise. This lack of an areawide perspective has resulted in piecemeal attempts to solve metrOpolitan problems in many areas, neglecting the need for re-examining the performance of areawide urban functions.33 32Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Governmental Structure, p. 30. 33The Council of State Governments, State Respon- lsibility, p. 70. 89 While the creation of ad hoc study commissions is not necessarily bad, they should have a formal status and there Should be an established procedure for the consideration of their findings and recommendations. This can be accom- plished through permissive state legislation enabling the governing bodies of local units of government to establish metrOpolitan area study commissions for the purpose of study- ing and recommending such changes as might appear necessary in the structure and responsibilities of local units of government within these areas. In general, an orderly and equitable procedure for the establishment of such a commission could be composed of the following steps: (1) the question of creating such a commission would be placed before the voters of the area, either through a decision by the governing boards of the local units of government or by the initiative petition of the voters; (2) a favorable majority vote would formally constitute the commission; (3) membership would take care to be representative of the area as a whole and would follow procedures spelled out either in state statute or in the precept for the special election on the question; and (4) the commission would undertake its assigned duties and upon their completion would place before the voters its proposals. "Recommendations calling for abolition, consolidation or territorial revision of existing units of government should be separately approved by the voters of such units; any 90 recommendations for the creation of a new units should be acted upon by the voters of the area encompassed by the particular recommendation."34 Metropolitan Area Planning Commissions Planning, as a staff function to facilitate the policy formulating process, is a necessary tool for many of the technical and administrative decisions, both politi- cal and economic, which local units of urban government must continuously make. The making of plans, however, is not an end in itself. ”To be worthwhile and to serve a useful rather than an academic purpose, the respective facets of metropolitan area planning must be closely geared into the practical decision making process regarding land use,tax levies, public works; transportation, welfare, programs, 35 H and the like. For example, a land use plan must be of a nature to facilitate the adOption, following plan approval, of appropriate zoning and building regulations and to fa- cilitate their effective administration. In other words, planning must be an exercise in practical Operation, not academic theorizing. 34Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Governmental Structure, p. 32. 35 Ibid., p. 33. Italics in the original. 91 The planning function must be effectively inte- grated into the basic governmental decision making processes affecting the deve10pment of urban areas; zoning ordinances, building codes, subdivision regulations, highway plans, and physical facility plans all should be subject to review by the area planning body. For this reason, the efficacy of planning bodies as independent bodies, comprised solely of part-time commissioners, and dominated by a professional planning staff is seriously questioned. Instead, a planning body including as ex officio members a number of mayors, councilmen, and county commissioners in the metrOpolitan area as well as private citizens, with adequate authority and funds to employ the necessary planning staff, is to be preferred. If the planning function is to be an integrated part of the political processes of the governments of the metropolitan areas, it cannot be performed by an independent, insulated body; authority, responsibility, and political responsiveness go together. The time has come for the states to actively enter into the problems and responsibilities associated with metrOpolitan area planning. The states have a responsibility of their own to see that the machinery is created for a com- prehensive approach to the deve10pm6nt of urban areas. For this reason, it is suggested that the states authorize the establishment of metrOpolitan area planning commissions. The functions of these bodies would at least include the 92 provision of advisory recommendations to the local units of government in the metrOpolitan area concerning the planned deve10pment of the area. HOpefully, they also would include the deve10pment of areawide plans for land use and capital facilities and the review of zoning ordi- nances prOposed by the component parts of the government in the area.36 Extraterritorial Powers Uncontrolled deve10pment at the unincorporated fringes of municipalities can have serious effects on ad- jacent municipalities and on the orderly development of the entire metrOpolitan area. This type of uncontrolled deve10pment often is characterized by "Shanty towns" with their attendant unsanitary conditions; mud streets in un- completed subdivisions; and unplanned mixtures of residen- tial, commercial, and industrial property uses. Other areas are havens for gambling and vice. Still others represent fire hazards at the municipal doorstep.37 Where counties have not exercised authority to control unincorporated fringe areas through effective county planning, zoning, and subdivision regulation, the 36Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Governmental Structure, pp. 32-35. 37Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, 1966, p. 119. 93 extraterritorial exercise of these functions by municipali- ties can be an important method of preventing deve10pment of these problem areas around individual cities as well as easing the eventual transition to a sound governmental structure in the entire urban area. While this device holds no great potential for resolving basic intergovern- mental problems in metrOpolitan areas, such potential as it has should be made available to local units of govern- ment. For these reasons it is suggested that the states enact legislation making these extraterritorial powers available to their municipalities, with the provision that the residents of the unincorporated areas have a voice in 38 Provision also should be the imposition of the powers. made for the inclusion of residents of the unincorporated territory on the planning commission and zoning adjustment board for participation in making recommendations concerning planning, zoning, and subdivision regulations applying to the territory in which they reside. If representation between municipality and unincorporated-areas were equal, some protection against arbitrary municipal action would be given to the unincorporated areas. Even with the provision for equal fringe area representation, the granting of such extraterritorial authority might stimulate a movement toward defensive 38Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela— tions, Alternative Approaches, p. 24. 94 incorporations in these areas. This is a risk which seems worth taking in view of the advantages to be gained from orderly deve10pment in fringe areas as well as the possible stimulation of greater countywide interest in such orderly 39 As previously mentioned, any attempt to deve10pment. obtain greater control over the unincorporated area, in this instance through the use of extraterritorial powers, should be accompanied by Simultaneous strengthening Of the state's regulation of new incorporations.40 MetrOpolitan Councils Voluntary metrOpolitan councils are associations of elected public officials from most or all of the govern- ments of a metrOpolitan area. They are intergovernmental agreements for the joint conduct of activities in research, planning, and the deliberations of issues of areawide im- portance and concern.41 Although the metrOpolitan councils vary with respect to their mode of establishment and membership, they usually have the following characteristics: (1) they cut 391616., p. 25. 40For further discussion of this topic see: Frank S. Sengstock, Extraterritorial Powers in the Metropolitan Area, The University of’MiEhigan Law SEhool, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1962. 41Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Alternative Approaches, p. 34. 95 across or embrace several local jurisdictions, and some- times they even cross state boundaries; (2) they are com- posed of the chief elected officials of the local govern- ments in the area, and they sometimes have representation from the state government; (3) they have no Operating functions, but are instead forums for discussion, study, and recommendation only; (4) they are multipurpose, con- cerned with many areawide problems; and (5) they employ a full-time executive director.42 As a form of the intergovernmental cooperation approach to the reorganization of local government, the metropolitan council has many of the general strengths and weaknesses of this approach. It is useful for broadening the geographical base for discussion, research, and plan- ning; it has flexibility in adjusting the boundaries of the area represented, even beyond state lines; it does not disturb existing governmental units; it has a high degree of political acceptability; it is multipurpose in its con- cern; and it fosters the use of intergovernmental COOpera- tion in the performance of areawide functions. On the other hand, this approach has a distinct limitation on its ability to make effective, enforceable areawide decisions on issues of services and controls, tax jurisdictions and 42The Council of State Governments, State Respon- sibility, p. 89. 96 and service areas. These results require a governmental unit which can decide and then apply its decision on the basis of a majority vote rather than a unanimous vote.43 The metropolitan council can be useful, never- theless, in laying the foundation for the establishment of an effective areawide decision making mechanism. It can do this by developing, through the normal performance of its functions, as awareness of those urban problems needing areawide approaches to their solution. It also can develOp a consensus among governmental leaders as to the common needs and possible solutions within the metro- politan area. How effective the council will be in develOp- ing public awareness and meaningful consensus will depend in large measure upon whether it brings out the full ex- pression of conflicting viewpoints and a full identification of the various competing interestsirlthe area or whether it serves to obscure or neutralize real issues. The voluntary metrOpolitan council can be used effectively as a means of stimulating greater intergovern- mental COOperation, of creating public awareness of area- wide issues among the peOple, and of creating areawide consensus on more effective ways to solve these issues among the public officials. For these reasons, it is sug- gested that the states facilitate the creation of voluntary 43Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Alternative Approaches, pp. 37-38. 97 metrOpolitan councils of elected officials by enacting legislation authorizing interlocal agreements supplemented by whatever special provisions may be required for accord- ing legal entity status to those councils desirous of such Status. The states could give them more status by making them statutory agencies with definite mandates to carry out specific functions. The statute could specify that member- ship be mandatory, not voluntary, in metropolitan areas of a certain pOpulation. Statutory provisions could permit the councils to accept federal and state financial assis- tance as well as provide for financial support by member units. Direct State Action Besides the responsibility to indirectly influence urban deve10pment through permissive legislative action, the state also has a responsibility to directly influence urban deve10pment. Direct state actions include providing services and facilities within urban areas; providing technical and financial supervision and assistance; providing research and information services; and providing administration, al- location, and coordination of federal deve10pment assistance.44 The following discussions will focus on some direct state activities related to the development of urban areas. 44Stewart D. Marquis, typewritten notes entitled "Role of State Government in the State Development Process," Unpaged. 98 State Agency for Metro- politan Area Affairs A special state agency for metropolitan area affiars is one method to assure systematic, interrelated, and continuing consideration of local needs and problems and the state's relation to them. It is a means of co- ordinating the state services of financial aid and tech- nical and research assistance to local areas. Such a state agency could serve as a focal point for information and evaluation of urban and local governmental problems, co- ordinating existing technical services and information. It could serve in an advisory capacity to the governor and the legislature on local governmental problems and in the formation of policies to balance the state's resources with local needs for the benefit of both. The Council of State Governments has suggested the following functions for such an office: To assist and advise the Governor in coordinating those activities and services of agencies of the state which involve significant relationships with local governments. To encourage and, when requested, to assist in efforts to local governments, to develop mutual and COOperative solutions to their common problems. To study existing legal provisions that affect the struc- ture and financing of local government, and those state activities that involve significant relationships with local government units; and to recommend to the Gover- nor and the legislature such changes in the provisions and activities as may seem necessary to strengthen local government and permit its better adaptation to diverse and changing conditions. Particular attention in such studies and recommendations shall be given to problems of local government for metrOpolitan areas 99 and other areas where major changes in population or economic activity are taking place. To serve as a clearinghouse, for the benefit of local governments, of information concerning their common problems and concerning State and federal ser- vices available to assist in the solution of those problems. When requested, to supply information, ad- vice, and assistance to governmental or civic groups which are studying problems of local government struc- ture or financing for particular areas. To consult and cooperate with other state agen- cies, with local governments and officials, with federal agencies, and officials, in carrying out the functions and duties of the office. It is suggested that these functions be assigned to a single agency within the state. It could be a new office within the executive branch; or it could be located within, or its functions assigned to, an existing department of administration or finance. The functions could be as- signed to a new permanent commission composed of public officials or private citizens, or both, or to an existing or new joint legislative body that Operates on a continuing basis. It would be important that such an agency maintain close liaison with other departments and agencies of the state. It should not duplicate any existing programs. Some programs might be transferred to the agency. New programs established especially for local governments might be as- signed to the agency; such a course of action is discussed under the "State Control of New Incorporations." 45The Council of State Governments, State Respon- sibility, pp 66-67. 100 A major responsibility of the agency would be to serve as a focus for and coordinator of the existing pro- grams of other state agencies which have a direct impact on local units of government. Coordinating action would be initiated by the agency. It would also provide one specific location where local governmental representatives could go to discuss their problems and from which they could expect either direction to other agencies which could offer help or action to develOp new programs to meet their needs. It would be especially important for such an agency to have the closest possible working relationship with the state planning agency and the state planning pro- cess. The agency would be directly concerned with the provision of adequate state services to enable urban de- velopment to take the most desirable direction. The plan- ning agency, on the other hand, would be concerned not only with urban deve10pment efforts, but with all state develop- ment efforts and the coordination and integration of these efforts into an overall state plan. The location of both agencies within the governor's office would enhance such a close relationship.46 46Ibid., pp. 65-70. See also: John G. Grumm, A State Agency for Local Affairs? Bureau of Public Adminis- tration, University of CalifOrnia, Berkeley, California, March, 1961. 101 State Program of Financial and Technical Assistance In its report to the Governor's Conference in 1956, the Council of State Governments made this observation: The results of continuing pOpulation growth, in- adequate governmental machinery, and unrelated and sometimes conflicting governmental and private programs of national, state and local extent are readily apparent. In many localities an occasional glance at the news- papers can reveal some of the most obvious deficiencies-- deficiencies that affect peOple in both metrOpolitan and non-metrOpolitan areas. We have become very familiar with dwindling water supplies and disintegrated means of distribution, water and air pollution, contra- dictory and uneconomic land-use policies, and large- scale defects in various forms of transportation. Common also are archaic methods of sewage disposal, excessive noise, dirt and congestion, uneven provision of health and other protective services, and disruption of the metrOpolitan economy by unrelated decisions on industrial and commercial locations. Less publicized but highly important are the inconveniences and exces- sive costs of these short comings, the inequalities imposed upon various sections of metropolitan areas in financing services, and the impopence and frustration of attempts at citizen control.4 MetrOpolitan areas, in general, have within their boundaries sufficient administrative ability and financial resources to effectively meet their needs. Due to the frag- mentation of responsibility among various local units of government, however, and due to the lack of correspondence between service needs and tax jurisdictions, it is often impossible for local government to marshal the necessary technical and financial forces to meet these needs. 47Bollens, op. cit., p. 129. 102 Concerning this delemma, the Advisory Commission on Inter- governmental Relations has said: Since a large share of State general revenue comes from the metropolitan areas and Since in many instances, the State represents the only single force which can be brought to bear upon the area as a whole, it is both reasonable and necessary that the State governments direct an increased share of their techni- cal and financial resources to the problems of the metrOpolitan areas. The need for State technical assistance lies not so much in the absence of techni- cal expertise at the local level as in the lack of centralized grasp of problems which are areawide in sc0pe. By becoming a partner with the local govern- ments in such fields as urban planning, urban renewal, and building code modernization, the State can play a highly vital and necessary role.48 It is for these reasons that it is recommended that the states take both legislative and administrative action to establish a program, or to expand existing pro- grams, of financial and technical assistance to metrOpolitan areas in such fields as urban planning, urban renewal, building code modernization, and local government organi- zation and finance. State Control of New Incorporations An earlier section of this chapter discussed the benefits of liberalized annexation laws. The use of an- nexation as one method to provide for orderly urban growth and development, however, can be hampered or even negated 48The Council of State Governments, State Respon- sibility, pp. 72-73. 103 by too liberal incorporation provisions. Incorporation may be used to avoid annexation or the extension of stricter controls, or for purposes unrelated to the provision of governmental services to the new municipalities. If these liberalized annexation laws are to be of any real signifi- cance, there will have to be an accompanying tightening of incorporation provisions, especially as they relate to urban areas. Only the state has the power to halt the chaotic spread of small municipalities around urban areas. It is suggested that state legislatures adopt legislation de- signed to drastically tighten up the standards and criteria governing the incorporation of new units of local government. Such standards should Specify minimums of total population and population density required for new incorporations, with more stringent standards being applied to areas within a certain stated distance from the larger cities in the metro- politan areas. It is further suggested that proposed new incorporations within metrOpolitan areas be subject to re- view and approval of the State agency for metrOpolitan area affairs. This would insure two things: (1) that Statutory standards were being fully complied with; and (2) that the prOposed incorporations would aid, not hinder, the orderly 49Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Governmental Structure, pp. 39-47. 104 growth and development of local units of government within 50 urban areas. Transfer of Functions to the State Another means of providing direct state action for urban development is the direct provision of some function by an executive agency of the state. This means usually involves transferring aspects of functions, not entire functions, to the state. For example, the state might provide water supply and the major trunk lines to urban areas, but would leave local distribution functions to local units of government. Because of this sharing of responsibility for performing a function, often a clear distinction cannot be made between a-state's merely per- forming a traditional state function and taking over a new function from local government. The reasons for the direct performance of an urban function by a state have been enumerated by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. They are: l. the State government is the only agency that can summon the resources required to perform the function, 2. the activity cannot be handled within the boundaries of the metrOpolitan area itself, SOIbid. 105 3. .the activity requires as a matter of State policy that a minimum level of performance be achieved throughout the State that is not likely to be met by the jurisdictions or metropolitan areas independently, or, 4. when the activity, if not performed, will result in problems which will seriously affect other parts of the State. 1 The transfer of functions to the state broadens the geographical base for the planning and control of area- wide urban functions. It also permits taking advantage of economies of scale, and avoids duplication. It has a high degree of political acceptability because it does not greatly disturb the local political power structure nor does it re- quire approval by local referenda. Transfer to the state might appeal to local officials as a means of removing the function from the local tax bill. Such transfers are particularly suitable in States where metrOpolitan areas make up a substantial portion of the total state, or where the state has a small land area. It is adaptable, and sometimes necessary for the performance of functions concerning the conservation of scarce natural resources such as water supply, Open lands, water pollution, and air pollution. State performance has the added advan- tage of flexibility with reSpect to continually changing geographic area over which the functions need to be performed. 51Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, Alternative Approaches, pp. 46-47. 106 Concerning its disadvantages, the transfer of functions has the weakness that it removes a portion of local authority and responsibility. It tends to diminish the stature of local units of government as general purpose (governments, with the consequent loss of ability to coor- dinate the provision of urban services and the loss of their strength as a focus for local interest and citizen participation in governmental affairs. Decisions tend to become exposed to the disinterest or Opposition of repre- sentatives of non-metrOpolitan areas.52 Property Tax Reform Sound and adequate finances are an essential in- gredient of local governmental strength. Since the state creates these units of government and determines their share of the governing role, it must also see to it that they possess the financial resources necessary to meet their responsibilities. Lacking adequate revenues from their own sources, local units of government which are determined to carry out their responsibiliites have no other choice than recourse to the state and national govern- ments. The ability of local governments to raise ade- quate revenue is determined by, and limited to, the taxable resources located within their political jurisdictions. 107 Because these governments derive their powers from their states, they can draw upon financing resources only in the manner prescribed by their state constitutions and statutes. Because local governments function in close proximity to one another within an interdependent socio-economic frame- work, the effectiveness with which they employ financing resources is enhanced through intercommunity COOperation. The extent to which local units of government pursue har- monious tax policies is shaped and guided by state policies. By the same token, local government effectiveness is, to an important extent, influenced by the support given it by the state's administrative facilities. The most important single factor in the ability of local units of government to adequately finance their activities is the prOperty tax. This is because they rely on the property tax for seven-eighths of all their locally 53 It follows that the states' concern raised tax revenue. with the quality of prOperty tax is both direct and urgent. The prOperty tax is the most important single factor in the impact of non-federal taxes on the growth and deve10pment of urban areas, on the pace of industrial and economic ex- pansion, on production, income, and comsumption, and on the distribution of the tax burden among the population. 53Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, State Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions on Local Taxin TPowErs, Report A-l4, The CommissiOh: WaShington, D. C},OctoEer 1962, Table l, p. 20. 108 Difficulties in terms of equity and administration in raising revenue sufficient to support areawide govern- mental services in urban areas are most severe with respect to those services financed through local property taxation. Relatively small taxing areas, the uneven distribution of valuable industrial prOperties, different tax rates, dif- ferent levels of desired services, the low correlation between the location of residential prOperties and the con- sumption of governmental services all compound the diffi- culties of providing areawide functions within urban areas. Without the benefit of strong state support, local units of government are severely handicapped in the reform of the property tax. Most units are too small to afford the organization and technical skill required to ap- praise and assess the variety of highly Specialized prOper- ties currently used by industry. Sensitivity to inter com- munity competition for business can restrain needed tax reform and may encourage competitive underassessment. Moreover, state statutes do much to prescribe the elements of property taxation and so are mandatory on locatities.S4 For these reasons, it is suggested that the states take a critical look at their systems of prOperty taxation and that they offer guidelines for strengthening and improving them. In this manner the states might proceed with property tax reform in a manner appropriate to their local circumstances. fi—v 54Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela- tions, 1966, pp. 1-5. CONCLUSIONS This thesis has shown that the states are in a unique and powerful position permitting them to make a con- structive contribution toward meeting current governmental needs in urban areas. Available evidence also indicates that some important governmental needs in urban areas are rapidly emerging. The dynamic actions of our society have resulted in a dilemma concerning the performance of urban functions by local units of government: on the one hand, there are certain governmental functions which require areawide planning and implementation--air pollution control, water supply and sewage disposal, land use planning and control, and transportation are examples; on the other hand, there are certain governmental functions which require local planning and implementation--fire protection, public edu- cation, refuse collection and disposal, and police protec- tion are examples. The setting within which urban deve10pment takes place is a setting which poses many problems for the effec- tive performance of areawide urban functions by local units of government. It has been shown that present structural conditions prevent the performance of these functions from meeting certain criteria which were stated as representing 109 110 important objectives of any unit of local government. Examples of these structural conditions are the fragmen- tation and overlapping of governmental units, tax and service boundary disparities, state constitutional and statutory restrictions, and interstate urban areas. The states have the fundamental responsibility and resources for enabling and assisting urban areas in dealing with these increasingly difficult problems. It is necessary therefore, that the states assert Strong leadership with regard to removing these structural impedi- ments to effective governmental functioning, including the provision of financial and technical assistance and, where necessary, the exercise of state regulation and control to meet these structural problems in local urban government. Continued state inaction in asserting leadership in strengthening local government only makes more persuasive the arguement for increased intervention by the federal government. This does not imply that increased interest and concern on the part of the federal government is unwise or undesirable. Increased federal activity in urban develOp- ment, however, if unaccompanied by necessary actions by the states would have to be more direct and of such a Specifically programmatic nature that extensive harm could be done to the overall structure of federal-state-local relations within our federal system of government. 111 Admittedly, it is much more difficult to stimu- late more or less simultaneous and similar activity by a number of states than it is to develOp a broad program of federal activity. Many students of state government speak of the inherent responsibility of the states regarding urban growth and deve10pment, but after a certain amount of hand-wringing about rural-dominated state legislatures, outmoded state constitutions, tax and debt limitations, the lack of any clear definition of the state's role in urban deve10pment, and the already heavy involvement of the federal government--all reasons why the states have failed to take this responsibility--they come to the con- clusion that the only practical approach to the problem lies with the federal government. This thesis does not take this approach. Its focus is upon the actions which the states can take in assuming their responsibility for the growth and develOp- ment of urban areas. There is no single ”best" solution for easing the problems of political and structural com- plexity at the local level of government. No single ap- proach can be identified as the most desirable for all urban areas. Therefore, it would not be apprOpriate for the state legislature of any state having within its bor- ders a number of urban areas to endeavor to legislate a single solution. Rather, the approach to be preferred is one of provision by the state of permissive authority to 112 all its metrOpolitan areas to employ whichever of the sug- gested actions is determined to be preferable in the light of attendant circumstances. It might also be wise to re- quire that certain of these actions be adOpted by those metropolitan areas which meet certain criteria such as total pOpulation or pOpulation density. At the same time, the State should establish within its own structure the dual function of regulation and assistance, thereby as- serting its determination to assist continually and to intervene when necessary in easing the structural problems of local units of government within urban areas. The foregoing paragraphs briefly summarize the major points made in this thesis. To look upon them as representing an all-inclusive investigation of the role the state can play in strengthening local units of govern- ment would be to oversimplify the process by which, and the setting within which, urban growth and deve10pment occurs. The thesis is no more than an overview of the state's rela- tion to local government and urban expansion. Even those aspects which are discussed in the thesis are only sug- gestions of the deeper interdependencies and implications behind the surface characteristics of state-local relations. Some of these implications are mentioned below. The problem around which the thesis was built was the provision of areawide governmental functions within urban settings. As this subject was secondary in importance 113 to the tOpic of state actions to strengthen local govern- ment it was given less attention. This does not in the least imply that, as a problem area, it is any less impor- tant than the major subject of discussion; it simply means that the orientation of this particular thesis was directed to the state's role in urban deve10pment. The provision of areawide governmental functions involves many implications. The most important of these concern the reasons for even bringing the subject up. Why is the provision of areawide functions important? What are areawide functions? Are they the same for all urban areas? How Should they be chosen? How should they be provided? The rational answers to these questions depend upon a set of criteria to be used to determine such functions and to evaluate the potential performance of these functions. Presently there are no generally accepted criteria which can be applied to this area. The most SOphisticated criteria to date merely represent vague rules of thumb. To these heuristic devices must be added specific standards against which the areawide performance of urban functions can be measured. Once the provision of areawide functions has been determined as representing a necessity, the problems of planning for them present themselves. The existing and potential means of providing such functions must be thoroughly investigated. Entirely new means might even be necessary. 114 Those methods of performing areawide functions must be chosen which are most appropriate to Specific urban areas with particular needs for certain functions. These methods must overcome many barriers to the effective performance of urban functions on an areawide basis. Examples of such barriers are the fragmentation and overlapping of govern- mental units, tax and service boundary disparities, state constitutional and statutory restrictions, and interstate urban areas. These factors suggest that many individual methods should be granted to local areas as a part of an overall state approach to helping local governments meet their growing needs. Finally, once the need for providing some area- wide urban functions has been recognized and a variety of methods to accomplish this need have been devised, the problems of implementing these methods present themselves. First must come state action to make available these methods to urban areas, then must come local action to utilize these methods. The obstacles to be faced at each level are similar because the process leading from problems to plans to actions is similar: (1) an awareness of the problem must be achieved; (2) an acceptance of the methods to solve the problems must be obtained; and (3) administration of the methods must be accomplished. The problems faced during this process include an apathetic public, an uninformed public, a misinformed public, a public desirous of the 115 status quo, or a public whose vested interests are threatened by the prOposed methods. Further complications can set in when either a State or a city does not recognize the need for areawide urban functions or refuses to adopt methods to achieve their performance. BIBLIOGRAPHY Advisory Commission in Intergovernmental Relations. Alter- nitive Approaches to Governmental Reorganizatlon in Metropolitan Areas. Report A-ll, The Commis- sion, WhShington, D. C., June 1962. Governmental Structure, Organization, and Plan- ning in Metropolitan Areas: Suggested Action by Local, State, and National Governments. Report A15. UTS. House ofTRepresentatives,TCOmmittee on Government Operations, Committee Print, 87th Congress, lst Session, Washington, D. C., July 1961. . Impact of Federal Urban Development Programs on Local Government Organization and Planning. U.S} Senate,TCommittee on Government Operations, Com- mittee Print, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, Washing- ton, D. C., January 1964. . Metropolitan and Economic Disparities: Implica- tions fOr Intergovernmental RelatiOns in Centrhl Cities and‘Suburbs. Report A-25. The Commissibn, Washington, D. C., January 1965. . Performance of Urban Functions: Local and Area- wide. Report M-21. Septéhber 19637 . State Constitutional and Statutory RestrictiOns on Local Government Debt. TReport A-lO. The Com- missiOn, washington, D. C., September 1961. . State Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions on Local Taxing Powers. Report A-l4} The Com- mission, Washington, D. C., October 1962. . State Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions Upon the Structural} Functional, and Personnel POwers of Local GOvernments. Report A-l2. wThe Commission, WaShington, D. C., October 1962. 1966 State Legislative Program of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Re- port M-27. The Commission, Washington, D. C., October 1965. 116 117 Beckman, Norman. "Our Federal System and Urban DevelOp- ment: The Adaptation of Form to Function." Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 24:1 (February 1963). 152-167. Bollens, John C. The States and the MetrOpolitan Problem. The Council of State Governments, Chicago, Illi- nois, 1956. , and Henry J. Schmandt. The Metropolis: Its People, Politics, and Economic Life. Harper 8 Row, Publishers, NEW York, 1965. Coleman, William G. "State-Local Relations in Urban Plan- ning," Proceedings of the American Institute of Planners 47th Annual Conference. pp. 29536. Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. A Report to the President for Transmittal to the Congress. The Commission, WaShington, D. C., June 1955. Council of State Governments. State Planning: A Policy Statement. The Council, Chicago, Illinois, 1962. State Responsibility in Urban Regional Develop- ment. The Council, Chicago, Illinois, 1962. Frederick, William, and Marilyn Gittell. State Technical Assistance to Local Governments: A Review of Sélected State‘Services. The Council of State GOvernments, Chicago, Illinois, 1962. Friedmann, John. "The Concept of a Planning Region--The Evolution of an Idea in the United States," in John Friedmann, and William Alonso (Eds.). Re ional Development and Planning: A Reader. T e MII}T} Press, Cambridge, MassaChusetts, 1964. Graves, W. Brooke. American Intergovernmental Relations: Their Origins, Historical Development,L andICurrent Status. arlesTSchriber's Sons, New YOrk, 1964. Grumm, John G. A State Agency for Local Affairs? Bureau of Public Administratibn, University of California, Berkley, California, March 1961. Littlefield, Neil. Metropolitan Area Problems and Municipal Home Role. The’UniverSity of MiChigan Law SchOol, Ann Arhor, Michigan, 1962. Martin, Roscoe C. The Cities and the Federal System. Ather- ton Press, New York, 1965. 118 Metropolis in Transition: Local Government Adap- tation to Changing Urban Needs. Housing and Home Finance Agency, Washington, D. C., September 1963. McLean, Mary. (Ed.). Local Planning Administration. Third Edition. The International City Managers' Associ- ation, Chicago, Illinois, 1959. Meyerson, Martin, et al. (Eds.). "MetrOpolis in Ferment," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and SOcial Science, 314 (November 1957). Michigan, Governor's Study Commission on Metropolitan Prob- lems. Final Report. The Commission, Lansing, Michigan, July 1960. National Conference on MetrOpolitan Problems. Proceedings. Government Affairs Foundation, Inc., New YOrk, 1957. Pock, Max A. Independent Special Districts: A Solution to the Metropolitan Area Problem. The University of Michigan Law Schodl, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1962. Scott, Stanley, et a1. Local Governmental Boundaries and Areas: New Policies for California. Bureau of Public Administration,TUniversity of California, Berkley, California, February 1961. Sengstock, Frank S. Annexation: A Solution to the Metro- politan Area Problem. The University of Michigan Law SChool, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1960. . Extraterritorial Powers in the Metropolitan Area. The University of Michigan Law—School, Ann ArhOr Michigan, 1962. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations. Government in Metropolitan Areas: Commentaries on aTReporthy_the Advisory’Commis- sion onTIntergovernmental Relations. The Com- mittee, Committee Print, 87th Congress, lst Session, Washington, D. C., December 1961. Willbern, York. "The States as Components in an Areal Division of Powers," in Arthur Mass (Ed.). Area and Power: A Theory of Local Government. The Free Press, Glencoe, IllinOis, 1959. 119 Winters, John M. State Constitutional Limitations on Solu- tions of MetrOpolitan Area Problems. University of MiEhigan Law SChOol, Ann Aibor, Michigan, 1961. Ylvisaker, Paul. "Some Criteria for a 'PrOper' Areal Di- vision of Governmental Powers,” in Arthur Mass (Ed.). Area and Power: A Theory of Local Govern- ment. The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois, 1959.