”'“P-KWNVIRPOI -'-.r.-F.8-.§ t'I-mt' 2’!" """'

o

a-
.I
.o ‘_
o
C '-
Y
1
O
I
'.
0.
’ O
O
I
I
a
J.‘ '
u f
s
I
' .0
‘4
6
.‘ I
.l
‘ I
O
t
t
: '-
O .0
‘ .
'4
O
1 .
I ..
O
‘ C
~O
.' 0'
.5
I
t I
' J
I II
| '.‘
l .I
r) a
. I
.I
Q
'l .
O
I) -
o If
0 .0
d' I
, I
Q
I
C
‘-
O
..
O

o

‘~'¥“

51. F.’_',. ‘..‘O o o - .fl‘ r‘."‘

fl- m-.-

‘l
I
. I
b -.
: .’
A. '
.- V
.0 "
0. I“
I -‘
:.- I'
‘ 0

«Ev

.“ "I a- 34‘..--

:~&‘ C¢‘

é-

.uth>0

ahanvrfszV~'

I
DO

|

. l
o . .
-1

t

mm

L
I

I
‘xvtrt3$1l‘i1i}f$tt':rt:t1111iI-\¢\:Iv‘3.t')'v"." '

'.
b

034
51".};

‘3

 

 

—— _. ,

'.r n...” —--'v — -d“..‘v‘ — I. .-
y

u

-r

75h-

‘:

 

o
a
v
.-
o
. a. v
r
u:
I'-'
... .-
O
...
.. '«‘O'
. ..
. I
, . .. .

 

 

'— ‘. a
'O-w '00-'— 'M' - v 0' 0 --0 --‘~ —‘—‘ - '-
. ' ~' -‘ 00.; .. o a— n ‘_cw“.~ “‘7: v—‘v fl ' ' v

. ' ‘ . T I ‘
o ‘

.
V ‘

t 'V
C c
O ' I
1
a , -
‘ C
. ~
‘
' .
' I
a -
. . _ ‘
1
O -0 9
‘ V
I I V
. ' C
v '
. - .
, ‘ 0 "v I '1
o '.
o
. ' I Q
~
I I
c
D ' . ,-
_ ‘
l ' '
l
v "
.
. - 0
I I I ' .' ' '
. ' C
l 'n d.
‘ I O I ' I
0- .
' V
. .
I '
. .
c , 0
I ' I .'
a . , . ' . ‘
O
. o I v
. ' 3 - ' I
' ‘- . I .
. . .
A - . . . . '
. o o
. ‘ . I o
. ' ' 0
I
o . . .
l ~I
I O . 0
I p - .1
_ o
. . - . o
I
' ' a o .
' ' I O '
l . . '
. o
. . I
'_’ ‘.
v ' '. .
V
0 ' " ' ‘0
O
. . I' ‘ .I ..
~ .. o 9 '
o . ' 0"
.
'
a ' ' - ‘
I ' ’
. . ‘ ' ' o '0 _ . n v
D ' I ‘ < .
I I ' '3’
. . . g
o ' I. .0 - . o-' -
. o l . . ' U
a . ' '1 ‘ ' V I
a I ' _t u n . .
' a ..
° . ' . ' " I I
..
~ , . v ' | '. _ ' c O
_ 1
| '—
l ' '
I - I . .
' .
o
' ’ I o . '
o o
I . . .
I . . ' ' 0
' C IV
. .
., I
. ' a
n
o I ' '
. u' ..
.
I y .. I . I

Thesis for the Bergman? M 0; 9.} . . ' ‘ .,_.,

 

   

MICHIGAN STATE-v‘IJNNERsI ' . I ‘ . i. ; j 5 i...
reraHRan; ’ol'phfiGile V' ‘ ' ‘I it
19563 ~ I . 4- TLC-~19?

. . l
‘ D
v , -
n I O Q ’
o
1 1 ‘
- .

,--

4----O' 4

    

 

 

4M4-
6. -D-M r‘ v- 4 ‘ O
13% ‘ML. 4» W I 3}". -a Mr“.

IHIHHIIllllllllllillillllllllllllllllllflllllllHIHIHIIII I

3 1293 10431 9482 :

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

THE ROLE OF THE LEGISLATURE
IN SHAPING STATE PLANNING‘
IN MICHIGAN, NEW JERSEY, AND TENNESSEE

By
GERALD RANDOLPH GILL

A THESIS

Submitted to the College of Social Science
of Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER IN URBAN PLANNING

School of Urban Planning
and Landscape Architecture

1963

ABSTRACT

State planning is that part of the planning
process undertaken at the state government level.
Appraisals of state planning and its relation to the
executive branch of state government have been made,
but little attention has been given to the role of
the legislative branch. This thesis examines the role
the state legislature has played in shaping state
planning in the past, what role the legislature might
play in future state planning activities, and areas of
possible future research. A study was made of the
action of Michigan, New Jersey, and Tennessee legis-
latures from the New Deal Era of the 1930's to the
present.

Statewide comprehensive planning is difficult for
most state legislators to conceive. Planning is part
of an increasing movement to base government operation
on a sound, rational basis of planning and implementing
founded upon factual data. This approach differs from
and is sometimes in conflict with the political frame-
work of pressures within which a majority of state legis-
lators operate.

The state planning function receiving most legis-

lative support was that of local planning assistance.

11

This was an activity from which legislators and local
constituents could see results. State planning, other
than local assistance, as any state government activity
is viewed by some at local levels of government as a
means of state dominance. Legislators, most often
identifying with their home districts, are often wary
of any state policy that seemingly would reduce local
authority.

State planning legislation has been passed because:
it was initiated through a governor who had the ability
to make it easy for legislators not to oppose his pro-
gram; constituents in legislative districts wanted the
state to take advantage of national grant programs for
planning; legislators felt the legislation would not
adversely affect them or their influence.

Unfavorable state planning legislation was passed
when it was requested by the governor; when legislators,
constituents, or pressure groups were dissatisfied with
possible results, or when there was an aftermath of
protest against national programs.

Past studies of state planning have emphasized
that the organization for planning must be an integral
part of the administrative structure of state govern-
ment advisory to the chief executive. These studies
have failed to consider the legislative support needed
at the initiation and implementation stages of planning.

Only with legislative approval can a satisfactory state

111

planning agency be established. The responsibility for
the final selection and determination of public policies
rest with the legislature.

The interest of legislatures in.state planning may
be considered in three areas; enabling legislation,
functions of a state planning agency, and organization
of a state planning agency with special emphasis on its

relation to the legislature.

iv

PREFACE

State planning, that part of the planning process
undertaken at the state government level, is essential
to any state government interested in relating the
activities of state departments and in developing a
sense of unified effort in dealing with the physical
development of the state. This thesis will examine the
area where little research has been undertaken; the role
the state legislature has played in shaping state
planning.

While written material and personal recollection do
not always provide the comprehensive picture of all forces
involved in a proecess such as the influence of the
legislature on state planning, the author;believes that
as a result of his searching and the assistance rendered
by interested parties this thesis is based upon the most
reliable sources of information available. Information
was obtained from researching available published docu-
ments, legislative journals, historical archives, personal
interviews and letters to those associated with state
planning in Michigan, New Jersey, and Tennessee.

Legislatures have traditionally been deliberative
bodies with little recorded information. Few analytical
studies have been made of legislative functioning in any '

field. This tended to restrict information available.

A major work is seldom the result of one mans'
efforts. This document although my own work and
responsibility could not have been written without the
assistance and encouragement of others. Special
acknowledgement is due all those with whom I corresponded
and interviewed.

Appreciation is expressed to the entire Urban
Planning faculty of Michigan State University for their
assistance not only in writing this thesis but through-
out my graduate program. Special recognition is due
Sanford S. Farness, my thesis advisor.

The guidance and encouragement given by William C.
Roman and William C. Fucik of the Planning Division,
Michigan Department of Economic Expansion during my
internship as technical aide helped in my choosing an

aspect of state planning for greater study.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTMCT. . C . O . . . . O . O O . . O . . . . . . 11
PREFACE . . . . C . . . O O . . . O . . . O O . O C v
INTRODUCTION . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER
I. THE NATIONAL PLANNING BOARD ERA: 1933 to
1939 5
Introduction

The National Program

. Legislative Action in Michigan
Legislative Action in New Jersey
Legislative Action in Tennessee

Conclusion
II. WORLD WAR II AND POST WAR PLANNING: THE
1940's 36
Introduction

Legislative Program in Michigan
Legislative Program in New Jersey
Legislative Program in Tennessee
Conclusion

III. NEW VISTAS: 1950 TO THE PRESENT 59

Introduction

Developments in Michigan
Legislative Program in New Jersey
Legislative Program in Tennessee
Conclusion

IV. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS ' 78

'Introduction
Legislative Role in State Planning
Legislative Understanding
Conclusion
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

vii

INTRODUCTION

Planning is essentially a process of understanding
human needs and of influencing and shaping future policy
and physical development to serve those needs most
effectively.

State planning is that part of the planning process
undertaken at the state government level. Many agencies
of state government plan but commonly each agency plans
and programs that portion of the overall state program for
'which it is responsible. The highway department plans,
programs, and constructs highways; the conservation
department plans for state recreation areas; the state
library plans facilities within the state. For purposes
of this thesis, the term "state planning” refers to the
conscious planning effort of the state vested in one
central planning agency. This agency may be known.by
varying names of which state planning commission, state
planning board, and department of state planning are examples.
The state planning agency is responsible for comprehensive,
coordinated planning on the state level.

The state government has important responsibilities
for highways, education, recreation, public welfare, public
_ health, forestry, water supply and use, waste disposal,

stream sanitation, conservation, and a host of other

activities. The problems of resource utilization and the
growth and shifts of population have essentially remained
state responsibilities. Each state has experienced an
increase in the scope and functions of services as it
attempts to alleviate these problems. The need to bring
state services and functions together in a unified planning
program has increased with more state activities.

There is an increased amount of state planning
activity being undertaken as this is written. Awareness
on the part of individual states of the need for planning
and increased Federal matching funds available for planning
have contributed to the revitalization of state planning.
As state planning begins to move into a new era, it is felt
that there is a need to study state planning to determine
how it can become a more integrated tool of state govern-
ment. An appraisal of historical trends in state planning
gives a stronger base upon which state planning can develop.

Appraisals of state planning and its relation to the
executive branch of state government have been made, but
little attention has been given to the role of the legis-
lative branch.

The executive branch of state government has received
increased responsibility during the past half century with
the addition of administrative functions and expansion of
overall state management and development programs, There-
fore, much state planning activity has been centered in the

executive branch. Nevertheless, the basic task of policy-

making is assigned to the legislative branch.

The American governmental process involves two basic
functions, policy determination and policy execution.
Primary responsibility for the determination of public
policy rests with legislative bodies. Elected representa-
tives of the people are charged with the duty of deciding
courses of action to be followed by the government in
serving the interests and regulating the affairs of the
public. The executive branch has the task of carrying out
the policy decision of the legislature. Therefore, the
legislature with its duty of policy determination could be
an important force in state planning.

This thesis will examine the role the state legislature
has played in shaping state planning in the past, what role
the legislature might play in future state planning activi-
ties, and areas of possible future research.

Due to the rudimentary knowledge available concerning
state legislature and planning activities this will be an
attempt to determine the effect of legislative actions on
state planning. Rather than making a broad, over-view study
of legislative action in all states, a detailed study of three
states; Michigan, Tennessee, and New Jersey, will be under-
taken. These three states, with their varying geographic
distribution and political complex, were chosen to provide
a basis for comparing and contrasting state planning develop-

ment.

Michigan is a midwestern state with half its papu-
lation centered in one metropolitan area. The state had a
planning commission until 1947 and there have been recent
attempts to establish a planning function at the state level.
Tennessee, a state in the southeastern United States, has
had a continuing state planning program begun with Federal
backing through the T.V.A. project. New Jersey is a highly
urbanized eastern state whose more recent support of state,
regional, and local planning has been noted throughout the
nation.

This study embraces the time from the New Deal Era
of the 1930's to the present time. In discussing the action
of the three state legislatures during this time period,
reference will be given to the development of state planning
on a nationwide framework.

Included in this study will be an investigation of the
direct influence state legislatures have had on state
planning activities. This will include study of state
planning bills introduced in the legislature, the forces
introducing them, their legislative history, some of the
influences on the legislature, what was created by legis-
lative action, and how it succeeded or failed.

From this study of past developments the future relation
of the legislature to state planning might be better determined.
It is believed that this phase of internal state government
relationships has not been considered in the past and in the
light of current state planning efforts this is one phase of

government in which study is needed.

CHAPTER I

THE NATIONAL PLANNING BOARD
ERA: 1933 TO 1939

Introduction

The term "state planning" is of comparatively recent
origin. Although it was not until 1931 that the first
state planning commission was established, the roots of
state planning can be traced through the development of
the United States.

Individual states have had an inter-rivalry to attract
private enterprize and business dating back to pre-Consti-
tution days. During the Hamiltonian period the emphasis
was on commercial expansion. In the Jeffersonian era, it
shifted to agricultural and territorial expansion.1 Many
states established some form of an economic development
program to further their chances of individual gain.

The period of territorial expansion lasted through
the latter part of the Nineteenth Century. By 1890 the
continental United States had been settled and for the
first time in its history, the United States had no
remaining frontier land. The end of the virgin land supply

 

1Council of State Governments, Planning Sgrxiggs for

Stat Gov e , (Chicago: Council of State Governments,
1953;, p. 18.

fostered the "conservation movement." State governments
began to recognize the importance of conserving natural
resources.2 New York Governor Alfred Smith in his
address to the state legislature in 1926 stated:

With the development of our great water power

resources, our port facilities, and the

tremendous growth of private industry, we feel

the pressures of considering plans for the

whole state that will relate all these activi-

ties effectively to oneanother.3

Before 1933. only a few states pioneered official
planning or research agencies. Among states that did,
Wisconsin was first when an explorative Directorship of
Regional Planning was created by a legislative act in
1929. The financial support for the effort was supplied
by the state Highway Commission.4 In 1931, a statutory
Wisconsin State Regional Planning Committee was established.
Illinois established a state planning commission

through a Senate-House Joint Resolution adopted in 1931
and a commission was then appointed. Action by each of

these states was the result of a demand from within the

state.5

 

2Ibid., p. 19.

3Steiss, Alan W., "Three Decades of State Planning,"
Jersey Plans, XI, No. 3 (1960), p. 9. -

ADurr, John F., "State Planning and Development
Agencies," State GovernmentI XX, (1947), p. 149.

5Ibid.

Much of the work of these agencies was focused on
the promotion of city and metropolitan planning and on
assistance to local planning agencies. A large number
of state departments of conservation or of natural
resources were established during the 1920's and 1930's.
These agencies often undertook planning as part of their
development and management functions.5 The fields of
economic development and state promotion also began to
receive increased attention by state governments in the
1920's especially in western and southern states.

Before 1933 there was apparent recognition in the
states of the need for an integrated approach to problems
that remained largely in the realm of state responsibility.
A few pilot programs were begun, but it remained for the
tremendous impetus of the national government to begin

the state planning movement in nearly every state.

The National Proggam

The development of state planning during this era is
directly related to the encouragement and aid given to the_
states by the national government. The Roosevelt adminis-
tration, in its attempts to spur the nation's economy,
instituted "make-work" relief and recovery programs es-

tablished with the assistance of the states. The National

6Steiss, 100, gig.

Planning Board was set up shortly after the Roosevelt
administration took office to "cultivate and stimulate"
a network of state and regional planning agencies to
further the national relief and recovery programs. As
the agency's functions and responsibilities were expanded
its name was changed from the National Planning Board
(1933-1934) to the National Resources Commission (1935-
1939) to the National Resources Planning Board (1939-

1943). The Federal concept of state planning boards
was that they were, "....to make plans within the frame-
work of the national program, and to carry out those
phases of the Federal program which required state
cooperation."7

The National Planning Board was established as a

part of the Public Works Administration. The Public
Works Administration made an allotment of $250,000 to
the National Planning Board in November, 1933 to stimu-
late state, regional, local and city plans.8 In the
following month the National Planning Board prepared a
circular letter to the governors of all states calling
their attention to the desirability of setting up
planning agencies at the state level and inviting them
to call on the Public Works Administration for technical

7Steiss,Alan W., "Three Decades of State Planning,”
Jersey Plans, XII, No. 3, (1960), p. 10. .

8Americag City, IVIII, (December, 1933). p. 73.

consulting services to aid in carrying out the work
relief program.

The result of the letter was the nearly unanimous
establishment Of state planning boards by 1936. In most
states the governor appointed a commission to act as the
state planning board until the next regular session of
the state legislature at which time legislation was
introduced to make planning boards a permanent part of
state government.

Writing in American Planning and givig Annual in
1937, Robert H. Randell reports that of the 97 state
planning boards originally chartered, 39 had been made a
permanent part of state government through legislative
action. He lists five points as to what produced such
widespread interest and support:

1. Awareness of the need for coordination
of government departments.

2. State self-knowledge was lacking.

3. The national recovery program resulted
in overlapping of effort.

4. State planning received press support.

5. State planning was not a new ”Federal"
idea, as a few states already had state

planning boards before the Federal activity.9

 

9Randall, Robert H., "State Planning, 1937, ”American

Planning and Ciyicignnual, (Washington, D.C., 1937). P.
175-1 0.

10

While these circumstances accounted for some of
the interest and support state planning received at this
time, the major factor was the support, both financially
and with personnel given by the national government.

So long as the states received more in return than they
had to give, most states continued with state planning
programs.

As the decade of the 30's drew to a close, there
was re-examination of the state planning program. The
magazine, New Republic, printed an article by Ralph B.
Cooney in 1938 which questioned how successful the
planning in the 30's had been. Mr. Cooney expressed
the view while it looked like tremendous progress had
been made in state planning, its success was due mainly
to the effort of the national government. At the end of
1937, 82% of the employees of state planning boards were
furnished by the Public Works Administration. He
stressed the points that:

1. State planning during the 30's was mainly
data gathering, iIf this material was
going to mean anything, it would have to
be utilized in some sort of organized
program.

2, State legislation establishing state
planning was a pretty weak compromise
with principles upon which a genuine
planning policy must stand.

11

3. Most of the state planning laws followed
the same line of thought in accordance
with original commitments to the national
government of the need to establish state
planning with Federal-paid consultants.
The enabling legislation:

a) Provided for a state planning board.

b) (Authorized it to accept funds from
agencies of the United States
government.

c) .Authorized it to make research studies.

d) Authorized it to adopt an official
master plan for the state.

The legislation may be impressive until one looks at
the areas of enforcement and funds. State planning boards
hadfew, if any, enforcement powers. The funds used were
almost entirely those of the national government for
-p1anning or relief. The question was asked that since this
Federal aid would not go on forever, where would state
planning be then?10

The decade of the 30's saw state planning expand to
47 states due to the impetus of the national relief pro-
gram. While the state planning movement has the national

program to thank for its rapid acceptance, it was a case

 

10Gooney, Ralph Bolton, "Planning and the States,"
New Re ubli , IXV, (July 20, 1938), p. 296. -

12

of "too much, too fast." The state planning aid program
was but one of many nationally sponsored assistance pro-
grams during this decade. Most states accepted the
program without knowledge of state planning. There was
little knowledge among the state's executive and legis-
lative branches of what state planning boards were con-
cerned with other then assisting the national government
to inventory and to plan public works projects in the
state. By the end of the decade, some states were taking
second looks at state planning. Clearly state planning,
although a big immediate success, never became established

as a part of state government in many of the states.

ngislatixe Agtiog 1n Mighigan

Michigan was one of the last states to establish a
statutory state planning commission. The early planning
commissions were appointed by the governor under provisions
of a special act. Legislative support in the form of
appropriations was inconsistent. At the end of the era
lack of appropriations caused the dismissal of the com-
mission's staff.

Prior to the establishment of the first Michigan
State Planning Commission in 1934, there was a recognition
that changing conditions in agriculture, industry, and

mining demanded state research and assistance.11 The

 

11Michigan Planning Commission, Work of the Mighigan
Planning Thgough Thirteen Years, (Lansing: Michigan lanning
C

ommission, November 1, 19 , p. 3.

13

depression and resulting national program furnished the
impetus for establishing the state commission.

The first commission was appointed under provisions
contained in Act 195, P. A. 1931, the "Studies Commission
Act.” This act gave the governor permission to create
special commissions to study areas of critical concern.

A planning commission was first seriously considered in
1933 during the administration of Governor William Comstock.
The Governor held conferences and discussions on ways in
which the state could deal with the depression. These
discussions brought out the need for a state coordinating
and planning agency. The Governor determined a planning
agency must be established. Governor Comstock appointed
the first Planning Commission on January 16, 1934. Its
membership was representative of various state departments
such as labor, industry, conservation, highways, public
instruction, the state administrative board, the University
of Michigan, Michigan State College, and a few other
agencies.12

The program was fourfold:

1. Development of planning legislation

2. Preparation of planning legislation

3. Direction, creation, and stimulation
of local planning

4. Educational activities

 

12Ibid, p. 4-5

14

The commissions were appointed annually in February
by the Governor. Governor Frank Fitzgerald appointed the
second (1935) and third (1936) commissions who were con-
cerned mainly with drawing up a comprehensive program of
public'works.

The first commission was to serve as a liaison with
the National Planning Board and undertake work which would
qualify for $5,000 in national assistance in addition to
a state appropriation of 310,000 made in 1934 aiding the
Commission in inventory studies.

The second Commission appointed a study committee on
rural land use and zoning. Work of this committee fostered
the Michigan County Zoning Act, Act 344, P. A. 1935.

Legislation permanently establishing a state planning
commission.was introduced and passed in the regular 1937
legislative session. While there is no recorded reason
given why such legislation was not introduced in the 1935
session, it can be assumed that as the planning commission
was formed in 1934 under a legislative act, there was no
push made for a special act in 1935. By 1937, the Commis-
sion was in operation for three years. Its work was more
widely recognized and the majority of states had established
a precedent for.legislatively-established state planning
commissions. A

The Michigan State Planning Commission bill was intro-
duced early in the legislative session. Representative M.

Clyde Stout of Ionia County introduced the bill on January

15

15, 1937. The bill, House Bill 55, was referred to the
Committee on State Affairs. The Committee did not report
the bill out until June 16. It was reported out favorably
and on June 18, House Bill 55 came to a vote. It was
passed with a vote of 58 yeas and 19 nays with 12 repre-
sentatives not voting and sent to the Senate.

The State Senate's Committee on State Affairs reported
the bill out favorably with a minor amendment on June 23.
The bill was passed a day later with the provision it be
given immediate effect. It was presented to the Governor
on July 9 and Governor Murphy approved the bill July 21.

It became Act 218, P. A. 1937. An appropriation of 825,000
was also approved for two years of the Commission's oper-
ation.

The act provided for an eleven member commission
consisting of the State Highway Commissioner, the Director
of Conservation, and nine other members to be selected by
the Governor for staggered terms. Therefore, there was no
longer a completely ”new" Commission as there had been when
the Planning Commissioners were selected for one year terms
under the Special Studies Act of 1931. The Governor was

also given the authority to designate the chairman.13

 

13Michigan, Planning Commission Act, Act No. 218,
Public Acts 1937.

16

The enabling legislation gave the Commission
authority to appoint employees to carry out the duties
of the commission, but all expenses of the Commission
and the necessary offices and clerical expenses were to
be within appropriations provided by the Legislature.
The duties of the Commission could be classified into
two categories; national and state activities. The Com-
mission was to act as the official state agency working
with federal agencies concerned with public works. For
the state, the Commission was to coordinate surveys,
inventories, and investigations, and serve as a central
state agency for information on natural resources, their
rate of depletion or renewal, and the probable future of

industries and communities dependent on these resources.14
Summary

Extensive legislative support for planning never
developed. During 1937 and 1938 the Planning Commission
apparently performed its duties outlined in the legislation.
However, there was not enough support from legislators to
continue appropriating money in the 1939 session. No
appropriation was made for the 1939-1941 operating budget
forcing the abolishment of staff positions. Commission

members continued to lay the groundwork for reundertaking

 

14Ib1d.

17

P.W.A. projects. These were terminated in July, 1942.15

In the fall of the same year, the State Planning Commission
studies were based on war-related problems. These included
studies on the influx of war workers at Willow Run and

Sault Ste. Marie.

Legislative Agiign in New Jersey

The New Jersey experience closely paralleled that
of other states. The government established an administrative
board until the legislature could formally establish a
state planning body. Legislation was drafted by private
consultants using as their guidelines New Jersey law and
the needs of the planning agency to cooperate with Federal
officials. The legislature made small yearly appropriations
for the state's contribution. Evidence suggests that the
New Jersey planning program never became a part of the state
government during this period other than to serve as an
agency which aided New Jersey in receiving national aid.

New Jersey's Governor Moore established a temporary
state planning board in February, 1934. Its objectives
were the:

1. Establishment of a staff organization which
was to be supplied by the State Relief
Administration for the making of planning

 

15Interview'with'Dr. Paul A. Herbert, Head, Research
Division, Michigan Department of Economic Expansion, Lansing,

18

surveys and studies under the direction
of experienced consultants supplied by
the National Planning Board.

2. Obtaining of legislation creating an
‘official state planning board.16

This was a direct result of the National Planning
Board's function to create state planning agencies and
the objectives indicate the strong influence of the
national government. The temporary state planning board,
with the aid of the government obtained the services of a
consultant supplied by the National Planning Board to
draft the legislation to place before the legislature.

It was desired to introduce the legislation in the spring,
1934 session. With the limited amount of time available,
the proposed legislation was a "model" state planning
legislation developed by the National Resources Board

and modified for New Jersey.

The legislature established a state planning board
with nine members appointed by the Governor, by and with
the consent of the senate. Four board members were to
be heads or chief executive officers of state departments.
The remaining five were to be state citizens holding no
other state office.' Terms of office were five years
except for the state officers whose terms would not run

beyond their term of office.

 

16Steiss,Alan W., "Three Decades of State Planning"

Jersey Plans, XI, No. 3, (1960), p. 5.

19

Whereas the senate had the appointed powers of
"advice and consent,” common to executive appointments,
legislation did not specify from which state agencies
the four state appointments were to be made. This
power of selection remained with the governor. The
governor also designated the chairman of the board.

The board was given the power to, "employ an
executive secretary or secretary-engineer and such other
technical and clerical assistants as may be required."
Specific authorization was given for the board to "use
and expend any funds coming into its hands for the.
purpose of this act and it is authorized and empowered
to accept and use any funds provided by the United States
government or any agency thereof or of gifts made for
such purposes."

The enabling legislation charged the planning board
with preparing and updating a state master plan and
keeping current a proposed long term development program
of state improvements. Additional duties included the
coordination function of physical development plans of
state departments and bureaus and with local authorities
and individuals; making studies of rural land utilization;
and collecting and publishing information relating to the
proper development of the state and the conservation of
its natural resources.

At no place were the contents or description given

of what the state plan should contain. The plan was to be

20

only "for the physical development of the state.”
Requirements for a development program of state .
improvement and coordination of all physical develop-
ment plans satisfied the requirements of the national
government for a state planning agency. The remaining
duties of studying rural land utilization and plans for
the conservation of natural resources were recognized
problems in New Jersey where urban development was
encroaching on prime agricultural land. Studies of rural
land were to lead to the determination of the land best
suited for field crops, reforestation, watershed protection,
reclamation, recreation, summer residence, industrial, and
urban expansion. Studies on the conservation of natural
resources were "designed to promote the general welfare,
and make such recommendations, thereon to the governor
and the legislature as it may deem proper and advisable."
No enforcement powers were given to the board. .All
state agencies were required to notify the planning board
before undertaking any major construction or improvements
or before disposition of real property. This clearing-
house of state department activity was a first step in
state interdepartment coordination. The board could study
requests and make recommendations, but recommendations had

no binding effect.
Summary

New Jersey's first state plan enabling legislation

21

was the direct result of incentives established by the
national government for those states with planning
agencies. The governor appointed a board shortly before
the beginning of the legislative session that enacted

the state planning act. The intervening period allowed
little time in which to prepare legislation that reflected
needs of the state. Consequently, the bill introduced

in the legislature was fundamentally that recommended by
the National Planning Board. Legislative forces opposing
enactment of the bill were states rights supporters that
argued it was chiefly Federal legislation. The bill was
not discussed on merits of state planning.

The New Jersey act was passed in May, 1934. The
board continued to serve an additional ten months. The
first planning board members appointed under the new act
took office in March, 1935. Russell VanNest Black served
as the agency's consultant-director.17

During the 30's, the New Jersey board did not receive
the unqualified support of the legislature or most state
departments. Yearly state appropriations were limited to
310,000. Lack of adequate financing forced the planning
board to rely on Federal programs for its working and direc-
ting staff. The actual total expense on the state planning
program between 1934-1938 was approximately $255,000. Of

this amount, 80% was from national funds.18

 

17Ib1d.
181b g.

22

Legielaiixe Action in Tennessee

The State of Tennessee was influenced more direc-
tly by the national government than were other states.
Tennessee had the impetus of the NatiOnal Planning Board
and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Tennessee Valley
Authority was the first agency established by the national
government for the purpose of comprehensive river-basin
planning. The key regional needs were identified as water
power, navigation, and fertilizer development as well as
the competent management of soil and of forests.19 The
Tennessee river basin included parts of six states with
the State of Tennessee having the largest area.

Being the first attempt by the national government at
regional planning, there were no precedents. Tennessee
Valley Authority was created before the national sponsoring
of state planning making initial cooperation with state
planning agencies impossible. Tennessee Valley Authority
was given the power to cooperate with states, although it
was not directly required to participate with state agencies.20

The beginning of state planning in Tennessee was

initiated with the influence Of the Tennessee Valley

 

19Friedman, John R.P., The S atial Structure of th
Ecogomie Deveiopment in the Tennessee Valley, (Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1955 . P. 10. Mimeographed.)

20Gimre, Gerald, "Interrelationships of Regional and
State Planning in Theory and Practice," The Planners
Journal, III, (1937). p. 142. -

23

Authority. In order to establish state cooperation
with the T.V.A. they requested Governor Hill McAlister
to form a citizens committee to cooperate with them in
the Tennessee Valley area of the state.

The governor requested authority to form a committee
from the legislature. The Shelby, Tennessee delegation
introduced the administration request as House Joint
Resolution No. 38. It was adopted without opposition on
April 22, 1933.21 The Resolution authorized the Governor
to appoint a committee composed of six citizens known as
the Tennessee Valley Commission.

The first meeting of the Tennessee Valley Commission
was held in Knoxville in April, 1934. In the time elapsing
between the establishment of the committee and its first
meeting, the National Planning Board had been created
and cantacted state governments requesting their assistance
in creating state planning boards. Therefore, at the first
meeting, Governor McAlister appointed the T.V.C. members
to act as a state planning board.22

The national government was interested in securing
state cooperation for the T.V.A. development. In the
effort to have a competent state agency with which to work,

the National Resources Board ask for, and received, Governor

 

2'Guess, Eleanor Keeble, The First Fifteen Years,
(Knoxville: The Bureau of Public Administration, The
University of Tennessee, June 1949), p. 10.

221bid, p. 10.

24

McAlister's assurance of sponsoring legislation to put
state planning on a continuing basis. In return, the
administrative-appointed state planning board received
the services of a consultant to draw up suitable legis-
lation for the creation of a state planning commission.
Mr. Alfred Bettman of Cincinatti was retained by
the T.V.A. to study the Tennessee constitution, the form
and general content of its laws, the needs of the state,
and to draft a body of suggested state legislation. In
June, 1934, Bettman presented his proposals to representa-
tives of T.V.A. and the State Planning Board. These pro-
posals were for legislation to accomplish:
l. The establishment, organization, and
powers of Planning Commission and
application of plans to public works,
and public uses of land.
2. Zoning, including land use classification.
3, Subdivision regulations enabling
legislation.
4. Regulations of buildings within the lines
of mapped streets.23
These proposals were introduced as a series of bills
with the backing of the Governor and most of them were
passed. The bills were not drafted by the legislature.
The record of floor discussion, seldom full-fledged debate,

 

231p; , p. 11.

25

indicates that the state lawmakers looked upon these bills

as another series of bills recommended by the T.V.A.24

Legislative consideration of these bills were

based upon the fact that:

1.
2.

They were backed by the state administration.
,A majority of the legislators could see
little that could be considered detrimental
to their home districts.

Enough legislators were convinced the T.V.A.
would benefit their district to approved
desired T.V.A. legislation.

There is little evidence to suggest that the merits

of statewide planning were debated, discussed, or even

considered.

The legislature did pass all of the proposed 1egis-

lation except for the official map act. Bills passed

 

included:
1. State Planning Act.
2. Regional Planning Act.
3. County Zoning Act
4. Regional Subdivision Control Act.
5. Municipal Planning Act.
6. Municipal Zoning Act.
7. Municipal Subdivision Control Act.
24

--Letter from Miller, Harold V., Executive Director,
Tennessee State Planning Commission, February 15, 1963.

 

26

The county zoning enabling legislation was passed in
emasculated form, for the legislature wrote in a pro-
vision "provided further that this act shall not apply
to private lands."25

The State Planning Commission Act created and set
forth powers and duties of the Tennessee Planning Commis-
sion. The Commission consisted of nine members, one of
whom was to be the governor with the remaining eight
citizens of the state appointed by the governor. The term
for an appointed citizen was four years. Of the citizen
members, two were to be residents of the three "grand
geographical divisions" of the state and two members served
the state at large. No more than six could be from the
same political affiliation. All served without compensa-
tion except the allotments for travel and other expenses.

The Governor was given the power of removal.

The Tennessee Commission represents a strong executive
type. The Governor is a member and has the power of appoint-
ment and removal without the advice and consent of the
state senate. Citizen members were appointed with regard
to geographic distribution. This was important in the case
of a state like Tennessee having major geographic regions.
The state was divided into three major regions, or "grand
divisions." These correspond to the eastern portion of the

state in the Appalachian Mountains and Piedmont Plateau area;

 

ZSIbid.

27

the central portion encompassing most of the Tennessee
River Valley; and the Central Plains region of western
Tennessee. Therefore, two thirds of the Commission
reflected local regional differences within the state.
This was designed to give equal representation through-
out and to foster a unified feeling for the needs of
the entire state.

Having citizen members on the commission with
specifications that members, "hold no full time salaried
public office or public employment," reflects the influ-
ence of the city planning movement.. The concept of having
a planning function with a commission was a tradition in
city planning that state planning, having no precedents,
used in its formative years.

Although no state personnel other then the Governor
was a member of the State Planning Commission, the
Commissioner of each of the state administrative departments
or any designated department member was free to attend and
to participate in the discussions of Planning Commission
meetings. The Commission was given the power to appoint
an executive director and secretary who, "shall be quali-
fied by special training and experience in the field of
city, county, regional, or state planning." The Commis-
sion could appoint other employees and contract for consul-
tant services. The Governor was given the power, if so
requested by the Commission, to assign personnel from

other state departments to the Planning Commission for

27

the central portion encompassing most of the Tennessee
River Valley; and the Central Plains region of western
Tennessee. Therefore, two thirds of the Commission
reflected local regional differences within the state.
This was designed to give equal representation through-
out and to foster a unified feeling for the needs of
the entire state.

Having citizen members on the commission with
specifications that members, "hold no full time salaried
public office or public employment," reflects the influ-
ence of the city planning movement.. The concept of having
a planning function with a commission was a tradition in
city planning that state planning, having no precedents,
used in its formative years.

Although no state personnel other then the Governor
was a member of the State Planning Commission, the
Commissioner of each of the state administrative departments
or any designated department member was free to attend and
to participate in the discussions of Planning Commission
meetings. The Commission was given the power to appoint
an executive director and secretary who, "shall be quali-
fied by special training and experience in the field of
city, county, regional, or state planning." The Commis-
sion could appoint other employees and contract for consul-
tant services. The Governor was given the power, if so
requested by the Commission, to assign personnel from

other state departments to the Planning Commission for

28

the purpose of making special studies or he could direct

any department to make surveys for the Commission.

The principle duty of the Planning Commission was

to make and adopt a general state plan for the physical

development of the state. The state plan was to include:

1.

2.

3.

The general location, character, and
extent of public facilities which were
of a statewide or regional concern.

A land utilization program including the
general classification and allocation of
the land by uses.

Maps of zoning measures proposed for

carrying out the land utilization program.

The enabling legislation details the purpose of the

state plan as being the "guiding and accomplishing a

coordinated, adjusted, efficient and economic development

of the state” which.will:

1.

2.

3.

best promote the health, safety, morals,
order, convenience, prosperity, and welfare
of the people.

best promote efficiency and economy in

the process of development.

create conditions favorable to transporta-
tion, health, safety, prosperity, and civic,
recreational, educational and cultural
opportunities.

tend to reduce the wastes of physical,

5.

29

financial, or human resources which
result from either excessive congestion
or excessive scattering of population.
tend toward an efficient and economic
conservation, production and distribution
of food, water, and minerals, and of

sanitary and other facilities.

The power of adoption of the state plan, either as

a whole, or by parts, was given to the Planning Commission.

However, all reports and all plans of the Commission were

advisory.

The Commission had the power to:

1.

3.

5.

Promote public interest in and underb
standing of the state plan.

Confer and cooperate with the T.V.A.

or other Federal agency or with neigh-
boring states for the purpose of
coordinated development of the Tennessee
Valley and the State of Tennessee.
Advise and cooperate with Planning
Commission within Tennessee.

Furnish advice or reports to any state

-officer or department.

Advise the governor or the general
assembly on programs for public improve-
ments and their financing.

Prepare and submit to the governor or

30

general assembly drafts of legislation
for carrying out the state plan.

7. Study and report to Governor or general
assembly on any subject relating to
planning of the economic, social, govern-
mental, cultural, or welfare conditions
or problems of the people of Tennessee.

This enabling legislation's main intent was to
create a State Planning Commission and outlined the duty
of the Commission to prepare a state plan. The purpose
of the state plan may be classified as promoting
efficient and economic state development. The reports
and plans of the Commission could be advisory only.
However, the Commission was given enumerated powers.
These powers gave the Planning Commission authority to;
cooperate with Federal agencies and with neighboring
states in the development of the Tennessee Valley; to
offer assistance to lecal governments in Tennessee; advise
the governor and general assembly on subjects relating to
state planning. These are the principle powers that the
Planning Commission has used since its beginning. The
legislation details the purposes of the state plan and
what the plan should encompass. There were no provisions
other than advisory made for implementation and Tennessee
has never had a "state plan.”

The work of the Tennessee State Planning Commission was

interrelated with the T.V.A. It was through the encourage-

31

ment and assistance in drafting enabling legislation
of the National Planning Board that the State Commission
was formed. The T.V.A. assisted in shaping the course of
the State Commission in its formative years. The public
images of both agencies were that their principle purpose
was assisting with development of public works programs.26
Although enabling legislation gave the State Com-
mission the power to confer and cooperate with the T.V.A.,
much of the work in the early years of The two agencies
was carried out with little cooperation and coordination.
Often the two bodies carried out separate work programs
without being conscious that work was already under way
by the other agency.27 Both agencies were reluctant to
approach the other to work out a cooperative arrangement.
The State Planning Commission had an attitude of letting
the T.V.A. pursue its own course without interference.
The T.V.A. was reticent in intruding into state affairs
and functions. As the T.V.A. was operative in only the
Tennessee Valley, its service area did not include the
entire state as did the State Commission. Therefore, in
parts of Tennessee there were two separate planning
agencies. One agency was an arm of the national govern-
ment with broad powers of planning and execution, and one

was a branch of state government vastly inferior to the

 

26Gimre, loc, cit.

27Ibid, p. 143.

32

T.V.A. in its powers of accomplishment. Rather than
having the claim that Federal agencies were interfering
with state and local governments, it was probably the
responsibility of the State Planning Commission to make
the first approaches to cooperate with the T.V.A.

The T.V.A. preferred to work with local groups in
physical development planning. The Tennessee law
establishing the use of county and regional planning
commissions was used by the T.V.A. to a greater extent
to establish local planning commissions rather than
utilizing the state agency. The 1935 Regional Planning
Commission Act provided for the State Planning Commis-
sion to create a regional planning commission in planning
regions created by the State Planning Commission. It
was through these regional planning commissions located
in the Tennessee Valley that the T.V.A. developed its
program. The State Planning Commission planning to pro-
vide matching funds to regional planning commissions.

It was thought that this would draw out financial support
fromxlocalities, but the plan did not materialize.28 The
State Commission's function in aiding the T.V.A. was
primarily in the establishment of regional planning com-
missions through which the T.V.A. did most of its local
cooperating. The state agency functioned in much the

same capacity as other agencies; inventory of state

 

28ibid, p. 145.

33

resources and assisting in public works programming.
Both the Governor and the general assembly
financially supported the work of the Tennessee State
Planning Commission in its early years. Although
Tennessee state finances were reduced during the depres-
sion years of the 30's, $15,000 in state appropriations
were made during the terms of Governors McAlister and
Browning. .Additional funds for the support of state
planning was provided by the T.V.A., National Resources
Council, Works Progress Administration, the University

of Tennessee, and other public and private agencies.29

Summary

The beginning of state planning in Tennessee was
characterized by a higher level of national influence
than state planning in other states. Tennessee was the
key state in attempts by the national government to
establish a program of river-basin development by a semi-
autonomous authority. During this time, the Governor and
general assembly were approached by agencies of the
national government asking for state assistance in estab-
lishing the T.V.A. project. Establishment of a state
planning commission was but one of their requests. This
request was greeted with little enthusiasm by state legis-

lators because it was a part of the larger program which

 

29Guess, l e. cit.

34

few of the legislators really understood all of the
implications.‘ The T.V.A. provided one attempt at solving
state problems and encouraging economic development. The
possibility of accomplishment, of realizing development
possibilities was enough to influence a majority of state
legislators to approve legislation that was requested or
suggested by the T.V.A.

The state plan enabling legislation was one of a
series of planning acts introduced and passed in the 1935
general session. The series of planning bills were drafted
by a hired legal consultant; they were not the result of
work by state legislators. It may appear that the state
planning legislation took place despite the legislature
rather than by virtue of it. It must be remembered that
while the legislature did not provide leadership, neither
did it oppose legislation. If there had been opposition,

nothing would have happened in Tennessee.

on u on

State planning established in the 1930's was a result
of policies established by the national government. The
governors of various states recommended to legislatures
the passage of legislation establishing state planning
commissions. Proposed legislation was usually adopted from
model legislation. With the exception of the addition of
minor amendments, legislatures passed planning bills without

much debate, hesitation, or alteration.

35

A model planning act typical of this time period
appeared in the Harvard City Planning Studies.30 Written
by Bassett and Williams it recommended a five-member com-
mission consisting of the head of the state highway and
state park departments and three state citizens appointed
for four year terms.

Duties of the commission were to prepare and perfect
a master plan. The plan was to consider existing and pro-
posed state highways, parks, parkways, public reservations,
and sites for public structures and works, and "any other
state planning features." The master plan was to guide the
state planning commission in making recommendations to
departments and bureaus of the state. It was suggested
that the Commission be given the power to make reports to
the legislature and advise the legislature with respect to
the formulation of development programs.

In commentary on the model act and the need for state
planning in general, Alfred Bettman stated that, ”the need
for state planning is now generally realized."31 'Mr. Bettman
believed the scope of state planning should include all
functional classes of state government structure, works and
uses. Non-urban land classification and the conservation of
soils, water flowage, and other natural resources fell with-

in the state planning field.

 

30Bassett, Edward M. and Others, Model Law t ,
Counties, and States, (Harvard City Planning Studies, VII
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1935),
PP. 73-116.

3lIbid.

CHAPTER II

WORLD WAR II AND POST WAR PLANNING:
THE 1940's

Introduction

 

The decade of the 1940's brought the end of the
National Resources Planning Board and national state
planning assistance. The remaining state planning boards
searched for reasons to justifyttheir existence. Post-
war planning provided a period of short reprieve, but by
theeend of the 40's most state planning boards had either
been merged with other state agencies or had been abolished.

Most of the states established state planning boards
to receive national funds and public works projects avail-
able only to states having a planning board. Thus, many
of the states looked upon state planning boards as nothing
more than a Federal stepchild. Planning boards that were
not organized to serve the needs of the state in which it
existed were often looked upon with disfavor by the elected
officials and influential groups. As early as 1935, New
Hampshire merged its two year old planning board with the
State Development Commission. Kentucky abolished its
planning board in 1936, the states of Connecticut and Maine
did likewise one year later. During the legislative session
of 1939, nine more planning boards were abolished by

36

37

legislative action. Thus, by 1940, there remained 34 state
planning boards.

The United States was at war by the close of 1941.
Money formally spent on public-works_relief programs was
no longer needed as national defense spending lifted the
United States out of the economic depression. With no more
need of these programs they were abolished by Congress.

, The National Resources Planning Board died in 1943. For
the first time, state planning bodies received no national
financial or technical assistance.

Throughout the war period, the remaining state planning
agencies concentrated their efforts on war programs. They
prepared data and reports for use by national, state, and
local agencies on defense and war-time problems of housing,
population movement, and industrial location. They gave
advice and assistance to the military on the location of
company sites and recreation facilities for troops, on
airports and flight strips, and on other matters of military
significance.1

Many of the earlier research reports and studies of
the pre-war planning boards provided the basis for most
warntime, military-focused planning, These activities were
usually specific problems, a method of operation that con-

trasted sharply with the more general research efforts,

 

1Council of State Governments, Plannigg Servicee fog
State Gove ment, (Chicago: Council of State Governments,
1955). Do 25.

38

aside from public works activities, of earlier planning
boards.
The prospect of the war's end saw states assigning
the task of preparing plans and programs for making a
smooth transition to peace, to the state planning agencies.
Generally these objectives could be designated as:
1. To study the human, natural, and
economic resources of the states,
2. To promote plans for employment of
returning service-men and war workers,
3. To plan for the reconversion of
industry and commerce,
4. To suggest programs for development.2
When the anticipated post-war recession did not
materialize, the states saw little need to continue plans
and programs for post-war reconversion. In the eyes of
many state governors and legislators, the functions of
state planning could be transferred or combined with another
state agency, usually concerned with economic development,
'6; completely abolished. By the end of the 1947 1egis-
1ative sessions, more than 30 of the former planning boards

no longer existed.3

Those planning agencies that continued
were usually not the result of national demands alone, but

immediate, expressed needs in the states.

 

elbide’ D. 26s

3Ibig., p. 23.

39

Some persons blamed the failure of effective planning

leadership in the national government as hindering state
planning. They believed that state planning would have had
much more rapid strides if the National Resources Planning
Board continued a program of giving technical, working
assistance to the states.4
While it may be assumed more state planning bodies
would have continued if national assistance were available,
it may be also said that many states were lax in assuming
the leadership necessary to place state planning on a
continuing basis.
Some of the factors contributing to the changing role
of state planning during and immediately after World War II
were:
1. When funds and projects were curtailed,
one of the major elements of state planning
support was removed.
2. The orientation toward national programs
inhibited the development of a state
planning movement suited to individual
states.
3. The organization of planning boards tended

to isolate them from governor and 1egis-

 

4Price, William D., "State Planning in the Present
Emergency," Plannin l 42 (Chicago: American Society of
Planning Officials, 19 2 , p. 64.

4.

5.

4O

lature. This isolation contributed to
many of their difficulties, including
the widespread uncertainty as to their
proper roles and objectives. The un-
certainty, in turn, along with other
factors, caused the boards to focus '
planning services of state government
largely on research and surveys. A
distrust of research for the sake of
research alone developed, intensified
by the lack of visible, concrete re-

sults from planning.

The State Planning Board, unable to pro-

muw-‘FM" ‘ 5"“F4Vnw.

vide overall planning staff services,
tended to concentrate on limited areas

of planning. These often fell within

the scope of existing departmental pro-
grams and gave rise to charges of duplica-
tion and interference.

An intangible hostility by some groups
developed toward certain social aspects of
the boards' programs.- There was some fear
that they might operate to the detriment

of the free enterprise system.

41

Legielative Program in Michigan

Two bills passed during World War II provided the
impetus for later state planning operations. In the 1943
executive message, it was suggested the Michigan Planning
Commission Act be amended to; broaden the Commission functiOns,
increase responsibilities, and strengthen membership with
addition of representatives of the legislature.

The amendment appointed the Planning Commission to
act as the state's official coordinating agency in studies
of natural resources and to serve as a central state agency
to assist, coordinate and encourage making and continuing
an analysis of natural and human resources. Commission
membership was increased to fifteen including the Chairman
of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representa-
tives, Chairman of Finance and Appropriations Committee of
the Senate, and the Speaker of the House. (This bill was
introduced as a measure to increase the state's prepared-
ness for war to peace time changes and received no oppo-
sition.

House Bill 24 passed in the 1944 session established
a $5,000,000 revolving loan fund to aid Michigan communities
in paying for public works projects. The program was de-
signed to develop a "shelf" of projects that could be
placed under construction with a minimum of delay. Two
reasons were found for the establishment of this bill; it
was thought public works projects could be used to employ

returning service men, and Michigan local units of government

42

were becoming jealous of the increasing sales tax
accumulations in the state treasury collected from the
resurging war-time economic conditions. When the expected
depression did not materialize after the war and the sales
tax diversion method of distributing taxes back to local
units was adopted, necessity for the five million dollar
state planning aid program vanished.

The Planning Commission was ordered to administer
four million of this program to units of local government
other than the county road commissions. This involved
negotiations with nearly all cities and villages, about
half the school districts, and many townships. For the
first two years of the program, its administration
required nearly the full time of the Commission staff and
its annual budget.5

Administration of the program fostered a feeling of
antagonism toward the Michigan Planning Commission. The
formula for allocating the funds coupled with a rigid
completion time requirement meant governmental units did
not always receive money based upon local needs. Fund
apportionment was allocated in accordance with formulas
based on three equally weighed criteria;

1. percentage of county road mileage to

the total state county road mileage,

 

5Michigan State Planning Commission, Thumbnail
Review of Michi an Plannin Commission Work, (Lansing:
Michigan Planning Commission, April 2 , l9 7), p. l.

43

2. percentage of county land area to

state total,

3. percentage based on the percentage of
the county population to the state's
total population.

It was at this time of relative strength that the
State Planning Commission sowed the seeds of its destruc-
tion. The following circumstances combined to spread
disfavor with the Planning Commission:

1. Following legislative amendments in
1943 and 1944 strengthening the State
Planning Commission, jealousy developed
in larger, older state agencies who
looked upon the Planning Commission as
a threat to reducing their functions
and duties.

2. The fund allocation formula and stringent
time limit imposed in administrating the
$5,000,000 state planning aid program was
protested by local units of government
who felt that they were not "getting
their share." ‘

3. Legislators were informed of dissatisfaction
in their home districts. The State Planning
Commission was blamed. '

4. The rural dominated Michigan legislature was

not receptive to state planning.

44

5. Most staff time and budget of the
Planning Commission was spent on
the administration of the planning
aid program. While the program was
important, this meant that other
programs were not important for 2-1/2
years.
6. The Planning Commission staff was
not aware of the need of development
programs following World War II. Many
other states undertook such a program
to bolster their states' economy.
This was a result of:
a) Fear of a post-war depression.
b) Reduction in government defense
contracts.
c) Changes in national government
policy making western and southern
states more advantageous to industry.
During the administration of Governor Frank Kelley
through the abolishment of the Planning Commission in
Governor Kim Sigler's administration (1943-1947) the
relationship with the Planning Commission staff was on
less than friendly terms. A two page, undated, unidenti-
fied memorandum apparently prepared for Governor Sigler

in 1947 reported the findings of an executive office

45

investigation.6 Administration of the staff was criticized
for a "lack of staff organization with no delegation of
authority or responsibility in preventing efficient
operation of the agency." It was claimed that the percent-
age of personnel turnover was greater than that of any other
unit of state government.

The memorandum further stated that appropriations
were misspent by expending them for purposes unrelated to
the agency's operation. The conclusion was reached that,
"the relationship which existed between the Director and
Executive Office during the past administration, as well
as with the Budget Office and Civil Service Commission has
been far from satisfactory."

During the early weeks of the 1945 legislative
session, a bill was introduced to amend the Planning Com-
mission Act by providing for a State Planning and Develop-
ment Committee. The Planning Commission would have been
expanded to eighteen members with additions of the Chair~
man of the Finance Committee and of the Building Committee
of the State Administrative Board and the Lieutenant
Governor.

The bill would have added the function; "to encourage

and assist in planning by counties, townships, cities, and

villages, and combinations of these; to investigate and

 

6Memo contained in the Executive Office Planning
Commission file, Michigan Historical Commission Archives,
Lansing, 1947.

9 46

determine the need for regional planning; define the

boundaries of regional planning areas; and, in its
discretion, create regional planning commission functions
in natural areas which extend beyond local jurisdictions."

The bill did not receive much attention during the '
session. A major amendment had been added at the last
session and with a heavy legislative schedule, it was
passed over. However, in the two ensuing years dis-
pleasure with the Planning Commission grew. In his Repogt
to the Michigan Legieiature in 1946, Governor Kelley

described thework of the Planning Commission under the
title heading, ”Piannigg age Ecenomie Deyelepment."7
Members of the legislature were becoming increasingly
hostile toward the Planning Commission's Executive
Director. Commission members did not express a collec-
.tive attitude but individuals did. They felt any decision
affecting the administration of the agency should come
from the Executive Office.8

Legislative pressures on newly elected Governor
Sigler in 1947 made the replacement of the executive
director politically mandatory. The new governor felt that
even appointment of a new director and agency reorganization

would not remove legislative opposition to the agency. The

7A Re ort to the Michi a Le i lature, Executive
Office, Lansing, 1946 (in the files of the Michigan
Historical Commission Archives).

8Memo contained in the Executive Office Planning
Commission file, Michigan Historical Commission Archives,

Lansing, 1947.

47

Governor worked with members of the State Planning Com-
mission in drafting legislation that would abolish the
Planning Commission and establish a Department of
Economic Development? This legislation embodied functions
and duties similar to those of the State Planning Commis-
sion but replaced the Commission with an executive
appointed Economic Development Commission. Legislative
opinion during the 1947 session was to replace the "do-
nothing" State Planning Commission with an active Economic
Development department. Legislative displeasure was
expressed in 3.2ejzei1_NeEe_dispatch from Lansing, January
10, 1948. The story, discussing possible appointments

to the Directorship of the new department, discusses the
chances of the State Planning Commission's Director, @When
the Legislature abolished his old job and created the new
commission, the biggest interest it had was severing him

from the payroll."x)
Summary

The Michigan Legislature abolished the State Planning
Commission. 'As related, this action was the result of a
number of circumstances. The principle reasons being the

Commission's preoccupation with administrating the revolving

9Interview with Miss Jessie Bourquin, Research
Analysist, Michigan Department of Economic Expansion,
Lansing, May 15, 1963.

10Detroit News, January 10, 1948, "Man Hunted for
$9,500 Job,. ,

48

fund and increased displeasure with the Director. Legis-
lators associated the results of the fund and their
feeling for the director with state planning and as

a result, state planning in Michigan entered dormant years.

Legislative Pregram ig New Jersey

Major revisions in New Jersey state planning resulted
from major government reorganization accomplished in this
decade. Changes in planning were chiefly structural.

The Planning agency continued a program of clearing-house
information service to local communities, state officials,
and national agencies, and attempted to advance a compre-
hensive state Development Plan although the agency was
hindered by lack of staff and funds.

Developments in planning can best be understood
‘within the framework of changes in New Jersey Government.
New Jersey was operating under a 1844 constitution that
did not provide for needed changes in state government.
The thirty departments and commissions of the World War I
period expended by 1944 to over 100 independent spending
agencies and fifty additional semi-independant boards and

commissions." If a governor wished to consult with those

 

11Seelback, Heiny H., "Organization and Functions of
the Departments in New Jersey State Government, ”‘Neg
Jerse s tut s otat , (1955). Title 49a Title 52,
pp. VI to LV.

49

having independent responsibility for the expending of state
funds, he would have held a meeting of 424 persons. The
governor was without legal authority to coordinate their
efforts and activities.

With administrative maneuvering, enough public sup-
port was gained to prepare a new constitution incorporating
the needs of modern state government. The proposed consti-
tution was presented to and defeated by the electorate in
1944. Nevertheless, administration reorganization did
make some headway. Recommendations of the New Jersey
Commission on State Administrative Reorganization adopted
by the legislature from 1944 to 1947 provided for the con-
solidation and reorganization of 24 of the state adminis-
trative agencies within five major departments.

The first organizational change effecting state
planning was begun with the 1944 legislature passing a
bill establishing a Committee on Post War Economic Welfare.
One Of the Committee's recommendations provided for con-
solidation and reorganization of seven administrative
agencies within a department of Economic Development.

The State Planning Board was one of the seven agencies
abolished and made a part of the new department. The
other departments included in the integration were the
State Housing Authority, New Jersey Council, New Jersey
Transit Commission, Port Raritan District Commission,
and the State Service Office.

Legislation creating the Department of Economic

50

Development retained all of the basic powers and duties
of the old State Planning Board. Specific authorization
was given to apply for and accept grants from the national
government. Two important new duties were added however,
as the result of including functions of the State Housing
Authority in the department. These duties included:
1. Investigate housing conditions, the
means for improving conditions, deter-
mine slum areas; making studies related
to the clearing, replanning, and re-
constructing slum areas, cooperating
with any public body in dealing with
slum problems, and engage in housing
research, studies, and experimentation.
2. Enforce laws relating to local housing
authorities.

In 1947, a new constitution was approved by the
voters. With the new document, 96 bureaus, commissions,
and agencies were to be consolidated into ”not more than
20," actually 14 were created.12 The government re-
organization accomplished with the new constitution
followed these basic precepts:

l. to integrate all the administrative
activities of the State along functional
lines within a few well balanced princi-

ple departments;

 

'2Ibid.

51

2. to fix direct lines of responsibility
for the administration of these
functions and activities, from the
Governor through the department heads
to the subOrdinate officers of each
department;

3. to provide the Governor with executive
authority commensurate with his
responsibilities to the people of
the State and;

4. to require the coordination of adminis-
trative activities, the elimination of
overlapping and duplicating functions,
and the full utilization of all staff
facilities within each principle
department.

The Department of Economic Development, containing
the state planning function, was consolidated with the
Department of Conservation. The Department- of Conserh
vation and Economic Development created October 25, 1948,
was the department most affected by the administrative
reorganization. It consolidated under one head a host
of independant units having little functional relation-
ship to each other. The legislative reorganization act
gave specific functions to the Department. These included:

1. Preparation and coordination of plans for

developing physical assets and cooperation

52

with local and regional planning
boards in the interest of orderly
community growth.

2. Execution of programs to advertise
agricultural, industrial, and
recreational features of the state.

3. Collection of data of economic and
social significance and the develop-
ment,of a business information service.

The Department was organized with five operating
divisions; Divisionsof Fish and Game, Shell Fisheries,
Veterans Services, Water Policy and Supply, Adminis-
tration and Planning and Development. The state planning
function was displaced to a section level operating in
the Bureau of Planning and Commerce of the Division of
Planning and Development.

There was little in the way of an overall plan for
structuring the department. Those responsible for drafting
reorganization bills were bound to constitutional limita-
tions of keeping the number of state departments below 20
and therefore probably decided to place a number of some-
what related functions in a single department.13

The reorganization reduced state planning to a low

 

13Letter from Thomas J. Anton, Assistant Professor,
University of Illinois, Urbana, April 29, 1963.

53

position in the governmental hierarchy, that of-a Bureau.
The state planning effort during the 40's was hampered

by lack of recognition among state officials. The State
Planning Bureau in spite of its limitations, did begin
work on a state development plan that was published in
1951. The reorganization of state planning resulted from
a wholesale reorganization of state government. The down-
grading of the State Planning Board to a section within

a much larger department was based not so much upon a
judgement of state planning, but rather reflected adminis-
trators and legislators desire to establish simplified
government structure. While planning did not receive
large appropriations during this time, neither was state
planning abolished or absorbed into other state agencies
as was common following World War II. Although the state
planning function became a section within a larger, newly

created department, it still maintained individual identity.
Summary

The later success of the New Jersey State Planning
operation was due in part to the 1948 reorganization.
Planning was strengthened, position wise, by becoming a

part of an administrative operating department.

Legislative Pgogram in Tenneseee

The Tennessee State Planning Commission experienced

no major reorganization in the post-war planning era. The

54

basic legislation passed in 1935 continued to serve
without major alteration. The Planning Commission
changed its emphasis to specific planning programs and
the assistance of local planning commissions.

There were two instances of legislation directly
affecting planning being considered and passed. When
the basic body of planning legislation was passed in
1935, the legislature amended the county zoning enabling
legislation rendering it ineffective for private property.
The legislature added the provision, "provided further
that this act shall not apply to private lands." This
crippling provision was removed in 1941. John Chambliss
of Chattanooga, member of the State Planning Commission
and then serving in the legislature, presented a bill to
strike out this section of the existing law and to substi-

'4 This amend-

tute in lieu thereof certain other language.
ment was adopted making the general enabling legislation
usable. This amendment did not draw a full debate on
frontal attack and passed without much opposition.

The 1945 general assembly session enacted legis-
lation enabling the Tennessee Commission to apply for and

receive national aid for public works and designating the

State Planning Commission to administer the program.

 

14Letter from Harold V. Miller, Executive Director,
Tennessee State Planning Commission, Nashville, February
15, 1963.

55

The impetus for this legislation was the avail-
ability of national monies for public works projects
made at the conclusion of World War II. The legis-
lation enabled the state, counties, or municipalities
over 500 population to, "make application for funds
under the provisions of any act of congress heretofore
or hereafter enacted making grants, loans, or advances
to the states, or any department or division thereof,
or any county or municipality, for the purpose of aiding
in the financing of public works."15 The State Planning
Commission was designated as the agency through which all
applications for such funds were to be made and was also
designated as the agency authorized to certify conformity
of the proposed project to the overall state, local or
regional plan.

The duty of passing upon a plans feasibility, and
its conformity to an overall plan was given to the State
Planning Commission. The Commission was authorized to
suggest changes in the nature of the proposed project and
could reject a project as not conforming to the overall
State Plan.16

The Commission has never undertaken to invoke these

powers, preferring to advise, to lead, and to draw plans

 

15Tenneseee Acts 1245, Chapter 75. Paragraph l;c
Supp: 1950, paragraph 3291.27, modified.

'6ipig., Chapter 5, paragraph 84;c Supp. 1950,
paragraph 3291.30, modified.

56

upon request of state agencies.17

This legislation broadened the scope of the State
'Planning Commission to where it had review power over
certain construction projects in the state. Evidence
shows the Commission used its powers with restraint and
developed workable cooperation with other state depart-
ments and local agencies.

Following the end of the National Planning Board,
the Tennessee State Planning Commission directed its
resources to specific planning problems in the state in
contrast to the broad statewide perspective that was
undertaken during the 30's. This flexibility in program-
ming to meet the needs of the time as well as the state
contributed to the success of the Tennessee Commission.
Yearly appropriations for the Commission rose steadily
during this period, due largely to increased recognition
by the governor and legislature of the services per—
formed. During the term of Governor Prentice Cooper,
appropriations were raised from the $15,000 depression
year allocation to $40,000 per year between 1941-1945.
The Governor depended upon the State Planning Commission
to accomplish a great deal of his work, including writing

of speeches and articles, administration of the merit

17Miller, Harold V., "State Planning and Develop-
ment Tennessee Style," State Government, XXIII, (1950),
p. 149. -

57

system, as well as war and civil defense programs.18
During the administration of Governor Jim McCord,

the State Planning Commission, under its statutory powers,

issued a report entitled, The Gasoline Tax in Tennessee.

The report contained the disadvantages of the diversion

of gasoline revenues. The report had a great influence

on state legislators who had been divided on the gas tax

question. The report is credited with defeating the pro-

posed diversion bill, much to the pleasure of the Governor.

Following this report, the administration began to rely

heavily on the State Planning Commission's recommendations.

The annual state appropriations were increased to 375,000

per year, 1945-1946 to a 1947-1949 level of $100,000 per

year.
Summary

In this stage of state planning development,
Tennessee Planning Commission survived while other state
commissions were phased out of existence or into economic
development programs. The Tennessee State Planning staff
turned to the planning of specific planning projects and
met the Governor's need of assistance. While various I
projects undertaken would not qualify as planning, they
did provide the close working relationship with the exec-

utive and legislative branches of government that was

 

18Guess, loc. cit., p. 39.

58

so often missing in state planning efforts. This
cooperation built confidence in the work of the
Commission so that it had backing to pursue planning-

related problems when the opportunity arose.
Conclusion

The failure of state planning to become estab-
lished as a permanent part of state government was
evident during this period. State legislatures were
an important force in abolishing, reorganizing, or con-
tinuing the planning programs. Largely as a result of
support from constituants, Tennessee Legislators did
not curtail services or change planning enabling legis-
lation. Legislative displeasure with the work and staff
personnel was followed by the abolishment of the Michigan
State Planning Commission. This was a period of adjust-
ment for state planning. No longer supported through a.
national program, planning had to adjust to the needs of

the states.

CHAPTER III

NEW VISTAS: 1950 TO THE PRESENT

Intgoduction

Those state planning agencies remaining in exis-
tence after World War II were relatively dormant.
State planning activities were overshadowed by wide-
spread state concern for economic and industrial
development. In the middle of the 1950 decade there
began a noticeable rebirth of interest in strengthening
the state planning function. A large part of this
,renaissance can be traced to efforts to deal with the
"metropolitan problem."
. The national government again provided the
financial stimulation for increased state planning
activity. In contrast to the emphasis on public works
programming that characterized state planning in the
1930's, the increased problems of rapidly expanding
urban areas became the reason for increased national
attention. The Housing Act of 1949 introduced the con-
cept of "urban redevelopment." This provided for the
replacement of slum housing in accordance with locally
made decisions as to the future use of the cleared land.
The Housing Act was broadened in 1954 to include the

concept of "urban renewal." Urban renewal mad it

59

60

possible to attempt slum prevention as well as slum
clearance.

The basic inducement of the urban renewal program
was money. The national government offered to bear up
to three-fourths of the cost of various housing and
renewal projects in urban areas. Before funds would be
appropriated, local governments were required by the
1954 legislation to develop a "Workable Program for
Urban,Renewal." A requirement of this program was a
"comprehensive community plan." To aid in developing
such plans, Section 701 of 1954 Housing Act empowered
the national government to pay up to one-half the cost
of the planning work to smaller communities with popup
lation under 25,000, metropolitan and regional planning
agencies.

The planning grants made to smaller communities
were by the national government through the state govern-
ment. Therefore, the local planning assistance program
did not by-pass the state. Instead, it fostered the
state governments to provide the necessary administrative
facilities so that the state's smaller communities could
receive national matching funds. The state agency became
responsible for the provision of planning assistance to
smaller communities. This assumption of significant state
participation in the local planning assistance program
led the national government to give increasing emphasis

to state planning. In amending the Housing Act in 1959,

61

Section 701 was broadened to make grants available to

"state planning agencies for state and interstate
comprehensive planning....and for research and coordi-
nation activity related thereto."

This new matching-fund program designed to stimu-
late state planning was in response to what is viewed as
a local or metropolitan, rather than a national emer—
gency.1 What is now known as state planning can be said
to encompass comprehensive physical planning, resource
and economic development planning, and capital programming
and budgeting. As of March, 1963, 22 states had been
granted matching funds under the 701 program for state
planning.

The greatest change in the area of state planning
was the increase in assistance to local planning agencies
brought about by the provisions of the Housing Act of
1954. The 701 program has:

1. Dignified professional planning services
in the eyes of state legislators.

2. Led to the strengthening, reviving,
or creating state agencies by the pro-

vision that assistance be channeled to

 

1Anton, Thomas J., 'Gubernatoriai Leadershie and
Fedegal Funds: Three Cases, Institute of Government
and Public Affairs, University of Illinois, (Urbana,
1963), p. l. (Mimeographed).

62

smaller communities through the state.2
The addition of a national program at first aimed
at states administrating local planning projects and
finally at providing funds for statewide comprehensive
planning has done much to revitalize state planning.
7 While it would still be correct to refer to state planning
as a "national" activity, state planning today focuses

, on the needs of individual states.

Developments in Michigan

State Planning in Michigan entered a period of
inactivity following the abolishment of the State Planning
Commission. Legislative feeling toward state planning
and the state's political situation negated any further
attempt at planning. .It was not until 1960 that any
legislation was passed involving the state in the planning
process.

The Department of Economic Development, successor
to the Planning Commission received executive, legislative
and private business support at the beginning of its
operation. The 1948 state elections brought a Democratic
governor to the Capitol. Support for the new department,
created by the former Republican executive, was not as
great from the new governor nor from the Michigan business
community.

The first Executive Director left his position

shortly after the election. His replacement was the

63

director of the old Planning Commission. This reduced
the chance for legislative support. Appropriations
and staff for the department were reduced in consec-
utive years.

Legislation to allow Michigan communities to parti-
cipate in the national Urban Planning Assistance "701"
Program was not passed until 1960. Bills were intro-
duced in 1958 and 1959 through efforts of those interested
in obtaining "701" funds. These bills would have pro-
vided for a state commission or state department to
which funds could be made for local assistance planning.
Legislators, recalling the problems of the abolished
commission, were not receptive to creating another
planning agency at the state level.

In the next legislative session, legislation was
passed enabling the Department of Administration to be
the agency responsible for administrating the "701"
Program. No new agency was created and no state funds
were involved. The lobbying efforts of planning organi-
zations, planning consultants, and interested communi-
ties made this bill successful.

In October of 1962, the national government approved
a $750,000 "701" state planning program for Michigan.
Handled thrOugh the Department of Administration, this
grant provided for the first statewide planning program
since the abolishment of the Planning Commission.

The "701" administrative agency became a part of a

64

new state department, Economic Expansion, as a result

of 1963 legislative action. The new department, a re-
organization of the Economic Development Department,

was a part of the executive program. iodifications of
the proposed bill were made following talks with the
House Committee on Economic Expansion and the Governor
by members of the Michigan Society of Planning Officials
and of the Michigan Chapter of the American Institute of

Planners.
Summary

The part state planning will play in Michigan
government remains to be determined. Legislative
action in passing Act 116, P. A. 1963, provides
legislation to further planning. Implementing on
measures in the act are now the responsibility of the
Governor and the Executive Director of the new Depart-

ment of Economic Expansion.

Legielatiye Program ie New Jereey

New Jersey state planning grew from an insignificant
section to a major division in New Jersey government and
one of the nation's most respected state planning agencies.
Earlier, legislative reorganization provided the structure
for a vigorous planning agency and during this era exec-
utive leadership built the state planning function.

The movement to revitalize New Jersey planning was

65

launched in 1954. Prior to that, the State Planning
Section presented the first "state plan" to the 1egis-
1ature in April, 1951.3 While not comprehensive in
nature, the plan was designed to serve as a frame of
reference at the state level for the acquisition of
public lands, the scheduling of such improvements,
highway and park development, and the formulation of
policies for the conservation of natural resources. The
plan was adopted as public policy and served as a basis
for the route locations of the New Jersey Turnpike and
Garden State Parkway constructed in the latter part of
the 1950's.

The plan was revised in 1955-1956 when Governor
Meyner directed several state agencies to submit to the
plan agency outlines of their plans for utilization of
state-owned properties along with descriptions of
existing uses.

The movement to revitalize the state planning
function was launched in 1954. It was led by newly
elected Governor,Robert B. Meyner. The Governor appointed
a Princeton University professor, Joseph E. McLean, as
Commissioner of Conservation and Economic Development.
In 1954, Dr. Coleman Woodbury, a planning and renewal

specialist, was asked to appraise the status of the

 

3New Jersey, Annual Report, 1255:1256, New Jersey

Commission of Conservation and Economic Development,
(Trenton: 1956), p. 24.

66

planning office and to set forth steps that had to be
taken for its improvement. Dr. Woodbury's recommenda-
tions were: .
l. The state planning agency should be
elevated from "section" to "bureau"
in the Department of COnservation and
Economic Development with a functional
organization of the Bureau into state,
local, and metropolitan planning units.
2. The number of professional staff be
doubled.
3. The major activities of the Bureau
should be;
a) Development planning for the state,
b) «Assistance to local planning boards
and Officials,

c) Encouragement and technical help

”wfimm._h -

in the creation and functioning of
metropolitan area planning agencies.
4. Take full advantage of the new 701 Program
to enlarge and improve those parts of the
planning program to which 701 is applicable.4
In September of 1955, by administrative order,

Commissioner McLean created the State Planning Bureau.

_—_

"Steiss, loe. eit., p. 6.

67

In the same year, a special appropriation of $50,000
was included in the Governor's budget for an "Extended
State and Regional Planning Program." The appropriation
enabled the Planning Bureau to apply to Washington for a
matching grant under the 701 Program. The applicatiOn
was approved by February, 1956. A bureau chief was hired
two months later and began a systematic expansion of staff.

Use of national funds as part of the Urban Planning
Assistance "701" Program provided additional money for
expansion of the Bureau's professional staff. Local
assistance programs benefited from this initial grant.
The state planning function still remained relatively
Vinactive. Two years later, local communities were en-
couraged to bear the full share of the matching funds
thereby releasing state funds that had been contributed
to the local planning program. This allowed the State
Planning Bureau to use a larger portion of the steadily
increasing state appropriation for state and regional
planning work.5

The Bureau has not distinguished between "local"
or "regional" or "state" planning. It has taken the '
position that all planning accomplished within the state
had a single purpose, the orderly development of state
resources and was thus necessarily a part of "state

planning." In June of 1959 the Bureau issued a report

 

5Anton, loe. cit., p. 7.

68

emphasizing the need for state coordination of all
local, county, and regional planning and the equally
important need to bring about greater coordination of
the activities of all state agencies. The report argued
that only if the state government coordinated its
activities could it hope to bring about orderly develop-
ment within the localities and regions of the state.

After cabinet consideration and endorsement of this
report, Governor Meyner created the Interdepartmental
Committee on State Planning in November, 1959. Composed
of representatives of each cabinet-level department, and
staffed by the State Planning Agency, this group meets
periodically to review capital improvement needs of the
various state agencies, to discuss planning proposals,
and to coordinate departmental plans in terms of state
development trends and resources. Following this official
endorsement of the concept of a coordinated state planning
program, the state planning function increased in impor-
tance. In July, 1960 the national government approved a
grant of 350,000 for state planning in New Jersey under
the amended Section 701 of the 1959 HousingAct.6

The growth of the New Jersey state planning agency
is directly attributed to the leadership of Governor
Meyner. He was able to develop the agency so it could

be used as a device for achieving greater administrative

 

6Ibld, p. 8.

69

coordination and control of state government. The New
Jersey experience closely parallels the organization,
functions, and duties of the recommended "ideal" state
planning organization. Legislative support was gained
and maintained by the governor. Recommendations from
a professional urban planner, use of national funds to
supplement state appropriations, and local assistance
throughout the state may be cited as principle reasons
for support.

Legislative support was evidenced in the 1961
session when the state planning agency was again up--
graded in status becoming a division within the Depart-
ment of Conservation and Economic Development.

The act creating the Division of State and Region-
al Planning transferred all functions, powers, and duties
of the old Bureau to the Division. The legislature pre-
faced the act with three purposes of action which are,
in effect, legislative policy directives. These were:

1- W- "The rapid
urbanization and continuing growth and
development of the State and its regions,
technological advances and changing standards
of living have created, and are creating
a need for continuing assembly and analy-
sis of pertinent facts on a Statewide
basis pertaining to existing development

conditions and trends in economic growth,

.2,

70

population change and distribution,
land use, urban, suburban and rural
development and redevelopment, resource
utilization, transportation facilities,
public facilities, housing and other
factors, and has created and will
continue to create a greater need for
the preparation and maintenance of
comprehensive State Plans and long
term development programs for the
future imporvement and development

of the State.

State COOEdination and Capitai Improve-

ment Programs.
"The public services and facilities

(which the State Government provides,
especially-those of education, recrea-
tion, conservation of resources, water
storage, highways, industrial develop-
ment, agriculture, and many others have
a definite impact both on each other and
on the sound development and redevelop-
ment of the State and its regions.
Further, the planning and construction
of such services should be directly re-
lated to each other and to a compre-

hensive view of State development

71

objectives. This impact has created
and will continue to create a need to
undertake the task of achieving fuller
coordination of the activities of the
several State departments including the
preparation of long range capital
improvement programs.

3. Locai Assistanee. "Local, county, and
regional planning assistance is a function
of State Government and a vital aspect of
State Planning. Such assistance should
be provided as part of an overall continuing
program of obtaining and considering inforb
mation on local problems and trends in the
growth and development of the State. There
is also a vital need for stimulating,
assisting and coordinating local, county,
and regional planning activities as an
integral part of State development planning
to insure a permanent and continuing inter-
action between and among various govern-
mental activities."7

7New Jersey..Qrsaaiaeiiaa_aad_Prasr%siaf_iAs
Division of State and Regional Planning, ivision of
State and Regional Planning, New Jersey Department
of Conservation and Economic Development, (Trenton:

1961). p. 5-

 

72

Summary

To implement the legislative policy, the Division
contains three Bureaus; Statewide Planning, Regional
Planning, and Community Development. The Bureau of
Statewide Planning is concerned with the preparation of
a statewide development plan, capital improvement pro-
gram, and integration of the activities of all agencies
concerned with the physical development of the state
through the Governor's Interdepartmental Committee for
State Planning.8

Through this program, with legislative support,
the Division has an annual budget of $544,000 and employs

a staff of some 60 persons.

Legielatiye Progpam in Tennessee

Tennessee entered this era as one state with a

state planning body operating continuously under the

same enabling legislation of 1935. Having survived pre-
carious post-World War II years, Tennessee's Commission
had the staff and structure necessary to part-take of
the Urban Planning Assistance grants. During this period

the legislation has endorsed the work of the Commission,
but it is still difficult or impossible for most legis-
lators to conceive of statewide comprehensive planning.

Action on the part of legislators has shown support

 

81bid., p. 6.

73

for local planning assistance and appropriations have
not been affected by the fact there is no state plan.
The appropriation has been protected and preserved
against critics on occasion because a considerable
number of legislators were acquainted with and happy
about the Staff services rendered to the local Planning
Commission in their home town or within their districts.
Planning services to the municipalities and even the r
counties, were something the legislators could observe,
understand, and appreciate. However, during the more
than two decades of the agency's existence, there has
been no question from the legislature as to where is
"The State Plan."9
. Planning recommendations made to the legislature
seemingly have been approved or rejected on reasons other
than the merits of planning. While the basic group of

1935 planning laws has remained, there are examples of
recent legislation to demonstrate this point.

The State Planning Commission developed a statewide
plan for state parks in the early 1950's. The legislature
agreed to some of the plan's proposals and for the past
number of years, land has been acquired and parks developed

in those general areas indicated in the parks

 

9Letter from Harold V. Miller, Executive Director,
Tennessee State Planning Commission, February 15, 1963.

74

plan. On the other hand, a planning study delivered
to the legislature in 1961 called for some state con-
trols, state land acQuisition and development, cleaning
up, and enhancing certain scenic highway areas, which
the report broadly suggested could, if successful,
point the way toward further action of this kind. The
billboard and gasoline station lobbies protested in a
legislative committee hearing so vigorously, the
legislators failed to report the bill out of commlttee.lo
While legislation introduced or supported by the
State Planning Commission has been buried by influential
lobby groups, legislation has also passed because of
outside pressure. The Commission had recommended that
under certain circumstances municipalities be given
extra territorial zoning powers to extend the guidance
and control of development to the urbanizing outskirts.
A bill draft for this legislation was recOmmended to
the legislature in 1949, 1951, 1953. 1955, and 1957 to
no avail. The legislators suspected that the counties
would have misgivings and therefore, simply did not
bother to pass the bill. In the 1959 legislative
session, the relatively powerful Municipal League recom-
mended some amendments which the county officials would

appreciate and then launched a lobbying effort. The

bill passed handily.

 

Ibid.

75

The 1957 legislative session provided an example
of legislative understanding of planning. The 1935
enabling legislation for both county zoning and muni-
cipal zoning was broadened in 1957 by the passage of a
brief act to put flood plain zoning on a firm statutory
foundation. The substance of the act reads "Special
districts or zones may be established in those areas
deemed subject to seasonal or periodic flooding and
such regulations may be applied therein as will minimize
danger to life and property and as will secure to the
citizens of Tennessee the eligibility for flood insurance
under Public Law 1016, 84th Congress, or subsequent
related laws or regulations promulgated thereunder."
In presenting this bill, the sponsors argued in both
the House and the Senate to the general effect that the
Federal Flood Insurance law would, when finally imple-
mented, provide Federal underwriting of flood insurance
but that such insurance would not be underwritten in
those communities where flood plain zoning was not in
effect. They quoted the Attorney General as expressing
doubt regarding the adequacy of the Tennessee enabling
legislation as it then stood, and argued that Tennessee
taxpayers would help through Federal taxation to pay
this subsidy involved in flood insurance, and that without
appropriate flood zoning Tennessee would not be eligible
for coverage under such insurance. The amendment passed

with little or no opposition, but it is significant that

76

the legal and philosophichl questions of zoning con-
trols over private property in flood plains were never

debated on its merits."
Summary

The Tennessee State Planning Commission broadened
its local assistance program by the use of matching funds
provided for in Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954.
In Tennessee, two means were chiefly used to further
state planning; providing local assistance thereby pro-
viding state legislators with work they could observe,
understand, and appreciate, and reports to the legis-

lators for additional needed planning legislation.
Conclusions

In the 1950's, state planning developed as part
of theaadministrative branch of government. The cone
cept of a Commission composed in part with the citizen
members was replaced by the concept of planning organized
by the executive branch, the director serving at the
pleasure of the Governor. Emphasis shifted from develop-
ment of a state "master" plan to the advisory and coor-
dinating function of state agencies. Final policy
decisions for state development continued to rest with

the legislature. Well organized state planning function

 

"Ibid.

77

could therefore be utilized by the elected body to
provide information necessary to make sound policy
decisions.

An illustration of the changing state planning
concept is the 1955 Model State Planning Law issued by
the National Municipal League.12 This model law super-
ceding the earlier model laws by twenty years, recommends
a strong planning director appointed by and serving at
the pleasure of the governor. There is no Commission.
The principle duties of a state planning office are to;
harmonize its planning activities with the planning

- ----4-I

activities of state agencies and agencies of local and

5““... .. - ,,

national government, provide planning assistance, and to
______ "mm“ ,

stimulate public interest and participation in the

state's development.

 

-12

p M del St te Plannin Law, National Municipal
League, (New York: 1955).

' CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

Introduction

This thesis has been an attempt to ascertain the
role the state legislature has played in shaping state
planning. Study of three states has shown the legis-
latures have had a profound effect. .Planning has been
legislatively supported or rejected for politically .

expedient purposes.

Legislative Roie in §pate Pianping

Statewide comprehensive planning is difficult for
most state legislators to conceive. Planning is part
of an increasing movement to base government operation
on a sound, rational basis of planning and implementing
founded upon factual data. This approach differs from
and is sometimes in conflict with the political framework
of pressures within which a majority of state legislators
operate.x State planning is a threat to the traditional
power role state lawmakers have experienced. Forcing
legislative decisions in a framework of facts rather than
that of political pressures is basically foreign and
unwanted.

,The state planning function receiving_most legislative

78

79

support was that of local planning assistanee. ”This was
an activity frOm which legislators and local constituents
could see results. State Planning, other than local
assistance, as any state government activity is viewed by
some at local levels of government as a means of state
dominance. Legislators, most often identifying with their
home districts, are often wary of any state policy that
seemingly would reduce local authority. New Jersey's lack
of wide regiOnal differentiation meant a majority of legis-
lators represented districts having similar characteristics.
This has been a major reason for the development of the
state program in New Jersey.

There is awareness in state administrative agencies
and with increasing number of governors for a comprehensive
approach based upon factual analysis and inventory to
solving the states' development problems. Gaining legis-
lative support and understanding is a primary goal toward
this end. The legislature, constitutionally, is the state's
poiicy maker. ~When considering its future role in state
planning, the legislature's limits must be recognized.

These limits include:'
1. The all important task of gathering enough

reliable information on major issues is not

 

1Many of these points are taken from, Anton, Thomas
J., "The Legislature, Politics, and Public Policy, 1959,"

Rutgepe Law Review, XIV, No. 2, p. 273.

3.

5.

80

an easy one for a deliberative body
meeting for a few weeks a year.

Many legislatures have attempted to
remedy this problem by use of advisory
commissions or interim legislative com-
mittees. TheIeg,ppe nature of the com-
missions and the limited appointment

of the committees makes the formula-

tion of long-range policy difficult.

Most legislators have full-time occupa-
tions in addition to their legislative
membership. Even assuming the gathering
of adequate information and its distri-
bution to members of the legislature,

it is highly questionable whether 1egis-
lators can devote the time necessary to a
proper determination of policy in the
increasingly complex problems arising
each year.

Members of both legislative houses are
elected from districts. Legislators find
it easy and profitable to concentrate their
attention on bills suggested by district
interests or calculated to be popular with
those interests.

The legislator's interest in proposals of

broad impact, such as state planning, tends

81

to be discouraged by possibility of
alienating votes potentially useful

to him. Intra-state differences means
that many major legislative proposals
intending uniform application through?
out the state are likely, if passed, to
have varied impact benefiting some areas
but harming others. Often a legis-
lator who introduces anything more than
insignificant legislation creates the
risk of rising animosity toward all his
bills, regardless of importance, simply
because of the one bill that adversely
affects the interests of one or more
districts.

6. There are few state legislators in state
capitols, rather there are many district
representatives. These representatives,
while producing local or special interest
legislation, are reluctant to meet state-
wide problems. Redistricting and increasing
urban populations in many states will change
this pattern as the social and economic
structure of legislative districts become
more homogeneous.

State planning legislation has been passed because;

it was initiated through a governor who had the ability to

82

make it easy for legislators not to oppose his program;
constituents in legislative districts wanted the state
to take advantage of national grant programs for
planning; legislators felt the legislation would not
adversely affect them or their influence.

Unfavorable state planning legislation was passed
when it was requested by the governor; when legislators,
constituents, or pressure groups were dissatisfied with
possible results, or when there was an aftermath of
protest against national programs.

When planning occurs in the state framework, it
must be developed by the executive. The governor is the
only elected official whose constituency is statewide.
For planning to be continuous and beneficial to the state,
it must have more support than that of one man. Whereas
state officials are elected for two, four, or six year
terms, planning often does not have any immediate results
that legislators can see or electorially benefit from.
The governor must build a program which will provide bene-
fits to legislative constituencys and which will do so in
a way to minimize friction between legislative districts.

Past studies of state planning have emphasized that
the organization for planning must be an integral part of

the administrative structure of state government advisory to

83

the chief executive.2 These studies have failed to
consider the legislative support needed at the initiation
and implementation stages of planning. Only with legis-
lative approval can a satisfactory state planning agency

be established. The responsibility for the final selection
and determination of public policies rest with the legis-
lature. Its members are elected for short terms so that
they will be immediately directly sensitive to the people's
wishes. Implementation of state planning recommendations
involving state expenditures must be approved by politically
powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Legislative
support is necessary for a successful state planning

function.

Legielative Underetanding

The interest of legislators in state planning may
be considered in three areas; enabling legislation, func-
tions of a state planning agency, and organization of a
state planning agency with special emphasis on its rela-
tion to the legislature.

Enabling legislation for state planning has often
been introduced into the legislature having been written
by an administrative assistant based on a suggested or

"model" act. Planning legislation at the state level must

 

2"State Planning: Its Function and Organization,"
Report of the Committee on State Planning, American Insti-
tute of Planners, Journal of the A.I.P., XXV, No. 4, (Novem-

ber, 1959), p. 211; also, Plannin Services for State Govern-
ment, Council of State Governments, (Chicago: 1953). P. 42.

84

meet the needs of the individual state. Geographic,
governmental, social, and economic differences in and
between states makes it difficult to use model legis-
lation for anything but the broad principles.

The American Institute of Planners' Interim Report
of the Planning-Policy Committee on Enabling Legislation,
issued in 1963,reported in its findings that there is a
virtual void of attention to urban planning at the state
level, with few notable exceptions.3 There is a recOgnized
need and support for urban planning from certain elected
and career government employees. However, legislative
support has not existed to any great degree. For planning
at the state level to be successful, it must be organized
to meet unfulfilled needs of administrative, executive,
and legislative personnel.

Functions, powers and duties of state planning agen-
cies have been detailed in enabling legislation. Enabling
law should include the principles of state planning and
what it is to accomplish rather than articulate detailed
functions. Establishment of broad objectives and princi-
ples does not bind the planning agency or chief executive
to a program that may require future changes. Early New
Jersey legislation listed specific duties and consequently

these duties have been revised or amended frequently. The

 

3American Institue of Planners, Interim Report of
the Planning-Policy Committee on Planning Enabling
Legislation, (Washington: April, 1963), p. 11.

85

first change to the Tennessee State Planning Commission
was the development of a state plan. There is yet no
state plan.

By detailing the functions, duties, and powers in
the enabling legislation processes become frozen and lacks
the ability to change so necessary with evolving situations,
but impossible without new legislation. The difficulty in.
achieving new legislation often precludes any change at all.
Enabling law, by allowing room for experimentation, evolu-
tion, and choice may thus be more suitable for state planning.

gafgswpgfinpfliusfunetioua should include the following;
fact gathering and analysis, policy formation, planning
suggested alternative courses of action, capital improve-
ments programs, assisting operating departments and agencies,
assistance to local planning agencies, and delineating areas
of responsibility for municipal, township, county, and
regional planning bodies in relation to the state.

State planning must be organized to be an integral
‘ part of government. As the chief executive is the one
official with a statewide interest and administrative
. departments will be most closely involved in the planning
process, state planning must be a part of the executive

branch, either in the office of the governor or co-equal

with the budget office in an integrated Department of
Administration finance. Planning should not be part of
a special-interest department such as economic development

or conservation. Policies of such departments may run

86

counter to those of the best interest of the state as a

whole. Planning must consider the total spectrum of the
state without departmental has.

The governor would appoint the planning director.
Ideally, this man should be trained in urban planning and
be knowledgeable of state planning and government. Other
staff members would be civil service employees.

. Other characteristics of state planning requires

A interdepartmental responsibilities and coordination of
effort. For these reasons, it is suggested that an inter-
departmental state planning advisory committee be estab-
lished. The committee would consist of heads of major
state departments such as administrative, conservation,
highway, economic development, agriculture, and public
health. This committee would serve as a means of coordinp
ating state departments and state planning.

Relationship between the state planning agency and
legislature must be provided. Work of the planning agency
needs legislative sanction in two stages; policy formula-
tion and policy implementation. The policy formulation
stage is that part of the state planning process consisting
of defining goals, the setting of priorities, and the

phasing of programs for the state's physical development.4

 

"Andrews, Elton R., "Comment on the A.I.P. State

Planning Committee's Report, Journa of Amer an In titute
of Planners, XXV, No. 4, (November, 1959), p. 215.

/
\

'c
.5
l:
i
5

87

In a real sense, the state plan is a "state policies

plan" for physical development, Legislative members

, should be consulted during this stage for opinions and

( advice. Theoretically the legislature is the policy

making body for the state. In actual experience, most
state legislators do not rationally determine policy in
advance for legislative session. Consulting with them
may serve tormake legislators aware of the benefits of
establishing policies for future courses of action. Any
written or unwritten legislative policies can be deter-
mined by those responsible for planning.

The success of the plan's implementation may greatly
be enhanced by legkiative understanding. The powerful
House Ways and Means Committee must approve all requests
for state spending. This body has traditionally been and
will likely continue to be jealous of any attempts to
wrest power from it. Therefore, any programs of planned
spending must be approved by the House. Increased aware-
ness by legislators of state planning may aid in the
implementation of the state plan.

It is suggested that this state planning working
relationship with the legislature be accomplished through
the establishment of a legislature research council or
committee. A majority of state legislatures have estab-
lished continuing agencies to assist them in development
of public policy. Legislative councils are composed of

legislators providing a close working relationship with

88

the governor. These are essentially permanent joint
legislative committees that meet periodically between
sessions to consider policies expected to confront the
next legislative session. The councils usually have
research staffs. The research staff should work closely
with staff members of the state planning agency. State
planning agency personnel might be assigned to the research
staff for short periods of time. The staff develops compre-
hensive research reports on problems facing the legislature.
In some states it outlines major policy questions, prepares
long and short range courses of action, and suggests alter-
native solutions for particular problems.5
The interim committee consists of legislators
appointed to review developments or establish policy between
legislative sessions. This approach may be used in states
where research councils have not been established.
Establishment of a legislative council or committee
for state planning will provide the frameworkiin which the
state planning agency may work with the legislature. It
will provide a communications network between both bodies.
Although the state planning function must be placed in the
executive branch, important legislative support can be

developed to insure the success of the planning program.

 

5flanning Serviees for State Gevernmente, oc. cit.,

89

Conclusion

Urban planners are concerned with comprehensive

planning for the physical development of land areas. They

are therefore involved in planning at the state level.

Significant items that have influenced state planning

include:

1.

2.

3.

5e

Past attempts at state planning have

been assisted by national government.
State planning if it is to be supported
with state appropriations must satisfy

not only long range objectives, but

the immediate results demanded by state
legislators and other elected officials.
State planning programs must be designed
to meet the needs of individual state.
There can be no "model" program.

State legislators have not been actively
involved in the drafting of state planning
legislation.

In their consideration of state planning
legislation, most legislators have been
influenced by the believed effect that pro-
posed legislation would have on their home
district; wishes of the executive; and
pressures within the state to adopt legis-
lation to permit acceptance of grants-in-

aid from national government.

9.

10.

11.

90

In Michigan, the state planning commission
was abolished. During its existence the
commission never gained a favorable working
relationship with the legislators, governor
or state departments.

The New Jersey and Tennessee planning
programs received the support of the legis-
lators because of local assistance given in
their home districts. A majority of legis-
1ators are not " state" legislators but
district legislators interested in the

best, immediate-result programs for their
district.

There are a few examples of state planning
studies from other states to exhibit, there-
fore making statewide comprehensive planning
difficult for most legislators to conceive.
In view of legislator's regional viewpoint,
it may be well to consider a decentralized
state planning program dividing the state
into regions and regional agencies with
state coordination and assistance.

The urban planner must become aware of the
political functioning of state government.
To receive support of elected state officials,
planning must work with elected state officials.

Legislative support for state planning is

l2.

13.

91

needed at the time of action on the
enabling legislation, policy formation,
and policy implementation.

Legislative support can best be gained
through working with the legislature,
being aware of legislative policies,
and fnfnrming the legislature of state
planning developments.

Establishment of a legislative research
council or committee for planning would
be one method of maintaining needed
communication between the state planning

agency and legislators.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books

Council of State Governments, Planning Services for
State Government. Chicago: Council of State
'Governmentsl9567

Guess, Eleanor Keeble, The Fipst Flipeen Yeare.
Knoxville: The University of Tennessee, 1949.

National Municipal League, Model State and Regional
Planning Act. New York: National Municipal
League, 1955.

Simon, Herbert A., Smithburg, Donald W., and Thompson,
Victor A., Public Administration. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1950.

Articles and Periodicals

Andrews, Elton R., {Comment on the AIP State Planning
Cimmittee's Report, ‘"Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, XXV, (November, 1959),
215'- 21 e

Anton, Thomas J. "The Legislature, Politics, and Public
Policy: 1959. "Rutgers Law Review, XIV, (Winter,
1960), 269-289..

Buck, A. E., "A New Look_at the States," National
Municipal Review, IVIV, (February, 1955). 72-75.

Clark, J. W., "State Planning'and Industrial Development
Agencies, "State Government, XXIX, (September,
1956), 173-176.

"Planning Services for Stat Governme t " State Govern-
. ment,XXIX, (October, 1956), 199-201.
Gimre, Gerald, "Interrelationships of Regional and State

Planning in Theory and Practice, "The Planners
Journal, III, (1937). 142-145.

92

93

Gray, Aelred J., "Survey of State Planning Agencies,
1960," Journal of the Amer can Institute of
Pla er , XXVII, (November, 1961), 325-331.

Miller, Harold V., "State Planning and Development,’

Tinnessee Style," State Goveppment, XXIII, (1950),
1 9, ..

Planning, 1245, Part II,"Proceedings of a Discussion
Conference on State Planning Problems," American
Society of Planning Officials, (Chicago: 1945).

"State Planning, Its Function and Organization," Committee
on State Planning, American Institute of Planners,
Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXV,
(November, 1959),207-213.

Steiss, Alan, "Three Decades of State Planning," Jereey
Plans, XI, No. 3 (l960)_9-11. .

Reoopts and Pamphlets

 

American Institute of Planners. Planning Enabling Legis-
lation. An Interim Report Prepared by the Planning
Policy Committee. Washington: American Institute
of Planners, 1963.

Michigan State Planning Commission, Work of the Michigan
Planning Commission Through Thirteen Yeape, Lansing:
Michigan State Planning Commission, 1947.

Michigan Department of Economic Expansion, The Urban
Planning Assistance Program in Michigan: 1260-
1953, A Status Report, Lansing: Michigan Depart-
ment of Economic Expansion, 1963.

Tennessee State Planning Commission, Tennessee Planning
Legislation, 1935-1961, Nashville: Tennessee Statef
Planning Commission, Publication No. 319, March, 1902.

New Jersey Division of State and Regional Planning, Organi-
zation and Program of the Division of Steps and
Regional Planning, Trenton: Department of Conserva-
tion and Economic Development, 1962.

ROOM USE omv

 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

 

llll I
1

312931043 9482