— __—. — LIBI9'(,%§'~;‘1' fv‘iicé‘aigah Stow University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 2/05 c/Cl'fiC/DatoDuemdd-p.“ ad's O. a. Return to neck drop to 31$ checknv‘ F"”" yov' . (.37?) “If? , A A -'.'| ..» :13an ,f’ o O- AN ANALYSIS OF MICHIGAN'S PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGIONS, ND CRITIQUE BY Andrew P. Nigrini This paper is submitted to partially fulfill the re- quirements as stated for the Plan "B" option. It syn- thesizes ten credits of Resource Development classwork and relates the results to the planning discipline. COURSES NUMBER CREDITS Land Economics R D. 417 Regional Resource DevelOpment R D. 880 Resource Development Policy R.D. 801 Special Problems U P. 800 l--' . UTU'IUJUJJ} Submitted to Dr. Carl Goldschmidt,5ghairman Professor Sanford Farness Professor Charles Barr In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER IN URBAN PLANNING Under Plan "B" - Urban Planning 800‘ Michigan State University School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture 1972 ‘ABLE OF CONTENTS ' P??? LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 CHAPTER. I I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II- RESEARCH.METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 III PURPOSES OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGIONS. . 9 Intended Benefits 9: The Regions. . . . . . . 9 lanning activity between . different leveis of government. . . . . . 10 Establishment of planning activity at the regiona1.scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Creation of common informational and statistical data units. . . . . . . . . . 12 Deve10pment g£_Communities 2: Interest. . . . l2 Selection of regional centers . . . . . . . l4 Delineation of regional boundaries. . . . . 14 Iv FRAILITIES OF MICHIGAN'S REGIONAL APPROACH. . . 20 Creation 9: The Regions EX Executive Mandate ....... . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . 20 Legislative input . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 "People" input. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Lack of acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Lack of incentive to participate. . . . . . 24 Need For Additional Criteria. . . . . . . . . 25 Environmental Considerations. . . . . . . . 26 Absence 9£_§n Organizational Structure. . . . 26 VI TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Present control of State . . . . . . . . Regional policy-making bodies in Michigan. Duplication Example #1 Example #2 9: Functions . . . . . . . . . : UPCAP - Regions ll, 12, 13 . : Traverse Bay RPC - Region 10 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE REGION . . . . . . . . . Individual Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . Region 1: Region 2: Region 3: Region 4: Region 5: Region 6: Region 7: Region 8: Region 9: Region 10: Region 11: Region 12: Region 13: RECOMMENDATIONS . -.- . - . -.- . - - . . r Detroit. . . . . . . . Jackson. . . . . . . . . . . . Kalamazoo. . . . . . . . . . . Benton Harbor - St. St. Joseph Flint. . . . . . . . . . . . . Lansing. . . . . . . . . . . . Saginaw Bay. . . . . . . Grand Rapids - Muskegon. Alpena .A. . . . . . . . . .-.. Traverse Bay. . . . . . . . . Sault Ste. Marie. . . . . . Marquette - Iron Mountain - Escanaba Houghton - Iron Wood. . . . . .5. Delineation Of Planning Regions . . . . . Development Of Regional Commissions. . . . ii . 27 28 30 30 31 35 35 35 .36 36 37 37 38. 39 41 42 43 44 45 48 48 49 W 1‘). 9 HQ N Map Map Map Map Regional Centers LIST OF FIGURES Composite Regional Boundaries. State Planning Regions . State Planning and Development Regions. Proposed State Planning and DeveIOpment Regions iii m. Page 15 18 19 50 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The topic of planning and development regions can be approached from the standpoint of local people seeking to organize themselves in order to solve territorially defined H} problems or from a point 0 View of Federal and State gov— ernment seeking to decentralizetheir Operations to an appro- priate territory. In either case, area—wide demands for provision of more and better services,and the need for sol— utions to an increasing number of inter-jurisdictional pro- blems,calls for the development of a regional identifica- tion and an effective regional planning and development process. Recently, the State of Michigan was desirous of estab— lishing programs of research and planning, as well as a policy making body on the regional level. In fact, the policy of establishing a set of Planning and Dev— elopment Regions was adopted by theState and brought to fruition. The rationale supporting the delineation of uniform regions emphasized the fact that a uniform set of regions enables the state to more effectively plan for public investments. For example, such regions can be used by State agencies to provide a common base for comparing and evaluating departmental programs and measuring their impact on development in various parts of theState. Also, these regions would serve as the basis of regional planning and development policy—making bodies. On the date of February 12, 1968, the Executive Directive No. 1968-1 dir- ected all State agencies to adopt the State Planning and -Deve10pment Regions and to use them for planning purposes. In the State of Michigan there is presently a total of thirteen (13) Planning and Development Regions. These ‘4‘ ‘ .5 L‘ ~' ‘ 'fi I I III-391017133, 2.0}: «.33 THOSE. 'b WfllCfl ro art, support plannin agenci LQ (0 are organized under Public Act 281 of 1945; a few agencies are Operating under Public Act 46 of 1966 which establishes economic development destricts. Popular projects for these agencies include law enforce- ment and criminal justice programs, local land use planning, FHA sewer and water planning, Housing and Urban Development 701 planning, comprehensive health planning, and EDA and OEO planning. Understandably, the most significant duty of a regional planning and development agency is to formulate a "regional comprehensive plan". This task is paramount since most Federal Grant-in-Aid programs and projects require the existence of such a study in order to determine the mer— it of proposed projects within the area. Four years have passed since the initial delineation of the State of Michigan into planning and development regions has occurred. Understandably, the question is being asked, "Is the system of planning and development regions successfully providing for the management and coordination of area-wide problems, as well as insuring the most effici- ent development of a region's natural and human resources?" "An Analysis of Michigan's Planning and Development Regions,and Critique" will attemptto accomplish the following: 1) 2) 3) To analyze the purposes, criteria, and constraints which were considered in the formulation of the regions; to identify Current conditions, attitudes, and trends which attack or defend the validity of the logic used in the delineation of the regions; to offer recommendations for the improvement of the develOpment of natural and human resources within Michigan's Planning and Development Regions. .é. CHAPTER I I RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Throughout the body of this report, it will be evi- dent that the author is questioning, if not actually at- tacking, the results of years of effort on the part of V ‘ “ H ‘ ‘. N‘ C . ' some of tne pest and meat highly qualified .- ’(J lanners and public administrators in the State of Michigan. To un- derStand the validity of such questioning, it is first necessary to understand the position of the author. He is first a student - not tied to the established opera- tions and trained to be critical of traditional approach- es and "locked in" planning procedures. Second, he is a professional_who, for a period of time, worked within a regional system the other plannefs had known only dur- ing the theoretical deveIOpment. We must all agree that constructive criticism which, hopefully, will lead to change for the better is an absolute necessity - even for a syStem as new as the planning and develop- ment regions in Michigan. On June 14, 1971 the author joined the staff of the Northwest Michigan Economic DeveIOpment District under the supervision of Mr. Billy G. Rowden, Director. Mr. d nowden, an eminent planner who has spent many years assisting in the development of Michigan's natural and human resources, explained that the District had been designated as the agency to plan and direct the imple- mentation of the economic planning and development pro- gram for the ten county region of Northwest Michigan - Antrim, Benzie, Charlevoix, Emmet, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau, Manistee, Missaukee, and Wexford. One of the goals expressed in the District‘s Over* all Economic Development Plan, "Prologue for Accelerat- ed Growth of the Economy", suggest that the District re- view all projects submitted to the Commission to deter— mine project merit in relation to development goals of the Commission. 'Pursuant to this goal, the strategy to develop a system for evaluation of projects at the District level, which would provide a method of rating projects to determine priorities,thad been adopted by the District. Also, it had been noted that a great number of ap- plications for proposed federal assistance programs and projects, when being examined by various State, metropol- itan and regional clearinghouses, have been evaluated by by highly subjective methods. Therefore, the District, a potential, regional clearinghouse, was concerned with providing an expeditious and equitable system for evalu— ation, review and coordination of applications for selected federal assistance programs and projects. Thus, the author was charged with the task of formulating a system for evaluation, review and co- ordination of selected federal assistance programs and projects proposed by applicants with the District. In addition to the formulation of a Project Evalu- ation System, the author was charged with the responsi~ bility of analyzing and evaluating the district's role in Michigan's system of Planning and Development Districts. As a part of the total research methodology, it was re- commended to establish communication links with the other twelve Planning and Development District policy-making bodies in order to obtain and review their notification procedures, instructions to applicants, guidelines, project evaluation systems, etc. Much of the information which appears on the following pages was obtained through numerous telephone conversations and personal interviews with the DirectOrs and members of the staffs of the' Region's policy-making bodies. This aspect must be em- phasized in order to add strength and credibility to the opinions and, in some cases, conjectures of the author. Other valuable information for this report was pro- vided by Mr. Mark Thompson, a staff member of the Program and Research Section of the House Republican Office of Michigan. Mr. Thompson had been charged by a House sub- committee, headed by Representative Joseph Swallow and .50 epresentative Josepthorbes, with the task of investi- gating the existing regional planning commissions and economic development commissions throughout Michigan. Mr. Thompson's compilations of data; reports of existing agencies; and indepth case studies of selected commissions have provided interesting and enlightening sources of information. Also, much information obtained from candid conversations with Mr, Thompson is reflected in many of the contentions found in this paper. Finally, through the efforts of the Office of Planning Coordination, the agency responsible for the delineation of Michigan's Planning and Development Regions, an ex- pressed desire of the State for a set of planning regions was brought to reality. Mr. Dennis Conway, a member of the staff of the Office of Planning Coordination, has offered the author many insights into his expectations and beliefs regarding planning regions. Mr. Conway's assessments, based on observation and experience, of the relative success, and in some cases, shortcomings of the delineation have provided another source of data which has been infused into this report. Thus, this report synthesizes the thoughts of pro- fessionals from various fields of interest, as well as uthor's interpretation of the situation 0.) presents the as found in Michigan today. Hopefully, this blending of the professional and the stu Kl: dent will lead to a critical, practical,analysis of Michigan's Planning and eIOpment Regions. 0! CHAPTER.III PURPOSES OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGIONS Intended Benefits Of The Regions "Regional delineation is intended to serve two basic purposes: first to provide an area-wide frame— work for the coordination of planning and programming activities of state government; and second, to encour- age coordination of planning and programming activi— ties on an area-wide basis at thelocal level'.’1 The above two exp essed purposes of regional delinea— tion relate the often stated desires of the State and local, as well as Federal Government. There exists a need for a mechanism to solve the emerging problems which arise when programs and projects are undertaken to assist in the develop- ment of an area's physical and hUman resources. Recently, many governmental initiated prOgrams and projects have suf- fered from duplicatiOn of facilities; interjurisdictional conflicts; piece—meal solutions; and delays in project completion. Realizing this problem, the Federal government has cal- ledfor a review power which serves to facilitate coordinated development planning on an intergovernmental basis.2 In sum- mary, the review process (Project Notification and Review System) established a network 0 State, regional and metro" ication HI politan clearinghouses which participate in thonoti and review proce"s. These agencies, to be designated by the Governor of the State, function to identify the rela- tionship of any project to Statewide or area wide plans and to identify the relationship of any project to the plans or programs of particular State agencies or local government. Clearinghouses, in the past, were governmental agencies with I 1 I ‘ l . " 1’. vv ‘7 u 0 I general planning capabili .. nCwEver, in order to elimin- a... v .4 ate the possibility of further duplication, conflicts, or delays, theFederal government suggests that the clearing- houses' jurisdictions be conterminous with officially de- signated, uniform state planning and development regions. Coordination 9f planning activity between different levels g£_government Regional agencies may, in fatt, provide the necessary link in order to facilitate communication between local and State government. With increased emphasis and activi- ty in planning at all levels of government, it is becoming more andmore difficult for the State to express its goals and objectives with enough Specificity to interest local municipalities. In contrast, local governmental agencies gain the impression thatthey are an insignificant member in the galaxy oflocal political bodies. ..10 _ r'r l .. 'r y ,_'—-z U.) U) f'h Region, ide .ally, houlc1 function at a l vel o (D policy making which would facilitate the translation of State and federal policies and intents into local levels or means of understanding. IAIso, the Region should be able to express the desires of ijx; local constituents to the State and federal authorities. "It seems reason- able that the problems and needs of themany localities within a region could be more effectively analyzed and expressed in terms of regional needs... and the State ould coordinate more effec tive ely with th e regions than with hundreds of localities."3 Establishment pf planning activity at the regional scale The term "region", in contempory usage, is being applied to metropolitan areas, politically defined areas, watersheds, economic development areas, cultural areas, and "natural areas" based on climate or physiography. Each of these "types" of reg ions are useful, however, for the efficient development of an area‘s natural and human resources the State chose to~lump units (counties) which have an established political framework. Some critics claim that planning regions should not be subject to the rigidities of jurisdictional boundaries. It is becoming increasingly apparent that many planning areas (ie. solid waste, water and sewage facilities, power sources, etc.) should be approached at a scale ERRATA _ The following section is to be placed in Chapter III "Purposes Of Planning And Development Regions" following the section entitled Establishment of planning'activity at the regional scale, p.III} —_ "' Creation of common informational and statistical data units Undoubtedly, the use of counties for data collection units has been a long and valuable practice in the State of Michigan. County boundaries are fixed; therefore, data with the same base can be gat.ered and compared year by year. Similarly, units (Regions) composed of groups of coun— ties would accrue the same benefits. \ Li} ‘ " 1 W ‘ ‘ V . V. ~n vv -v~ 1' L r- t-v-c “ reater tflal tn munitipal or countylevel, yet less than (I the entire state. A topic which will be discussed later concerns the merit or wisdom of creating new political units in an attempt to deal with problems which could not be sol- ved within the framework of the existing political entities. Lastly, most directors of multi-county planning agencies agree that_ definite economic benefits can be attributed to providing services and activities at the regional scale. Operation of public utility activities, health activities, law enforcement activit‘e and outdoor re. -A—V ' L I) W eational activ— ities on a regional level can provide for better and less costly services. Savingsaccrue through economies of scale; efficiency is achieved through specialization. Development 9: Communities Of Interest "In order to serve effectively as a framework for planning and plan implementation, state regions should conform as closelyyas.possible to regional 'communities of interest' - areas bound together by common interests and a sense of regional identity."4 The above expressed intention of delineation state regions in conformance with regional communities of in— terest appears to be an admirable goal. Unfortunately, the Office of Planning Coordination, with a desire to seek a type of region which has a maximum number of com- mon interests, chose the urban—centered region. It must be admitted that an urban—centered region has been an - 12 - I interes:ing and important factor in economic thought COR- cerning spatial relationships affecting land use. How— ever, von Thunen realized that an almost incalculable number of adjustments would be necessary in order to ap- ply this theory to a real life situation.5 The Office of Planning Coordination listed numer- ous justifications in an attempt to explain why the city or urban centered region is most suitable as a focus for planning. A few e les are as follows: "... cities X 27"“ us... '0 ’-J r is.0‘tation and communication — ll) 1 W .L. n) a H L ( are the hubs of ragic newworks; ... cities are the economic hearts of their regions; ... problems associated with growth of the urban centers and other communities within a region are shared in varying degrees by all of the region's population; ... urban centers are the focus of decision making for their regions."6 Understandably, it is difficult to refute any of these statements when discussing them in O u the context of the urban centered region. This question should be asked,‘is the urban centered region the best to use to solve regionally defined problems? And, since the urban centers are the focus of decision making for their region (as stated earlier), what will prevent the urban areas from continuing to dictate policy for the surrounding region? Without consideration of this methodological question, an elaborate scheme for determination of the S J.-. (l’ citi U] '01:; H') <‘ QJ H 'J the Of H1 SO 1 membe *1 taken by the staff But, this qualification was stated, regional centers ation, methods do not demonstrate conclusively that a par- cities seem some ticular group of cities Should b to the exclusion of all others to be relatively important in some respects and un- important in others."7 iile (D : 5 ( r (U H U) H) d on L! n (J) ( . r\_- ~61 Selection of regional c '3‘ can: “ ”J— -A 1- Vfl‘ :11: e... VELQU.‘ categories of criteria — 1) county rankings, 2) den- ‘1: y. H) sely populated areas, 3) effective population,4U com- muting patterns, and 5) general economic activity - final selection of the c mposite of selected regional centers was "... also influenced by the cultural character and homogeneity of different areas of the ' 9 state, the natural features and the resources in var- ious areas, and the degree of economic and cultural the results offered a Thus, integration of areas."8 selected list of major Michigan cities located at dis- tances far enough apart to influence at least a sur- (See Map l, p. 15) rounding three county area. Delineation of regional boundaries REGIONAL CENTER SECONDARY CENTER I 0—47—0— BENTON HARBOR} .1— ---I-- jACKSQN__,_._J.“.;-\ MAP I REGIONAL CENTERS m5?“ . nxmo iIISMUIEI l “km-I i J._,__L “I '-—.v- ——I. _ 3“! BWOLA - 5L"! r-G-L-Lmfl L I L. ..'.:IL.;.::;.—I:‘:T.' ......‘II 17.3.2.1 .... __ __ I I _T—-I I L ' tuscou I umuo 'J-A ‘ n- -'I I i SAGINAWI .... _ ,I___]r_o:Ic—st:-lf “In" IL;—~-—- LANSING 'I La 0 v‘KALAMAZOO W" I I “9 -:"~" I I C OIMINI_GA—$S I :7 mm- um _vm.L:oAL:'| mm: ‘15- 3n l - ' 4.‘ - mm '2 “ n! ...L',- __ phase in CHE plOCQco 01 dEllneaLlug COM Q The secon munities ofinterest involves, in accord method formulated by the Office of Planning Coordination, the selection of boundary lines which separate the reg- ional centers. Admittedly, the approximate location of each region has been, tO-a great degree, predetem ined by the actual selection of the regional centers. The strength of the influence of each regional center on tne surround- J ) I m ing rea_i? claimed to be the pr im.ary fee to r which determines the size and the shape of each region. In order to determine the strength of influence of each regional center, five criteria were establish- ed.- 1) newspaper circulation, 2) inter-county com- muting, 3) points of minimum traffic volumes, 4) grav- ity model procedure, and 5) State Economic Areas. Sim- ilar to the qualifications of the rationale for the g. designationof the regional centers, these five cri- teria were not theonly considerations in boundary de- lineation. Two constraints were expr sed in the methodology which was fo_uulated in order to accomp- lish boundary delineation. First, the boundaries must adhere to state or county boundaries. Second— ly, a region should be conterminous with existing multicounty planning organizations. Like the methodology employed to determine the regional centers, each of the five criteria was ex- pected to indicate the strength of influence of that center on the surrounding area. A composite map re- lating the different measurements of each criterion, was then offered as the principal basis for delineat- ion of the boundaries. (See Map 2, p. 18) Several qualifications,reiterating the afore- l ' . '1 #3“ «n~m+ to :vclavn ran 97— v .. \4\ V... *MA—QA v.— x..— «a... ‘- I ' a _ T'1."\""'_)’q va~~—u-7- -~«-‘...-. .5I....J..'\.J--_-z.,t CDL;D_—4_i_-lu.v~}, 1 V-a-q\.\ II' I .— v»... I“ ceptions to the closely followed methodolOgy. ’ First, counties were exclvded from the physical area in which the composite map of the regional boundaries indicated that they belonged if they did not participate in the area's regional planning commission.9 In addition, boundary measures were "somewhat ambiguous" in the north— ern twowthirds of the State. Reliance on natural factors, ’5' Q tranSportation corridors, and distance from growth cen- ters overshadowed the adherence to the established cri- lO teria. (See Map 3, p. 19) IAAJD'Z COMPOSITE REGIONAL BOUNDARIES :.nnu I u , . n all! I - I-z-cmau? I P. _ _ _. qunf-I . “I" at." I : l... I I I. 1‘- x‘Ta - E U (UHEY Ic-uovqu . ‘ I Ir-uwt I IS»! "I .gnmIt’Sfi—I. ..... I -— -- '° :3 Q I]! %:'__I 013100 gum-onus; am» I" I 0 = «9 ' i 7' ..... |_.__. . Jr xALTAIuTErA-Vb-anr oscooa Mm Mum-I213?!” I : I I 31.13:?1:3.u.";‘..—...i:;'5‘.;..—:a gait; ‘I"T.'.::" I 5 I I .... _ 1... 2.1.1- ' l_ ._L. anon I g TOSCIDLA =‘lg'gf: Twin. "In: MBER OF COMMON BOUNDARIES ~ I' E I I I. ...... ._...I____.. I ..... - __...__I__.4—. ' ." ocuu I «tum—I «can nsuuu I you» . I - ~w—anuv — FIVE I . I ,. L. . "W“ a I,_.__ - "I”.._L..—Iv--—‘Ismmnfi‘I ”Tam moo-Tau :- ant-o: , I L_. . = I - nun FOUR v “I = . ._..I-j; t jun-ounauonao-fl . cYHIA Ion-u I “Info. .“Imm. I I ------ THREE I g I E I '::.i'—I":.".‘.'.' ‘th‘TT.§.'.":.'t.!:|.'::.I I E I "'18- * On December 30, 1970, Gover- Miliken modified the original configuration and established only three regions in the Up- per Peninsula making a total of thirteen State Planning and Development Regions. MAP 3 STATE PLANNING REGIONS * uuuroo 1 uuouu ..19 _ JAC‘W I 0 «_..—LM"_ ' -——d mum: I Lune: H'”"-‘"'-- wow“ I M“; CHAPTER IV FRAILITIES OF MICHIGAN'S REGIONAL APPROACH Creation Of The Regions By Executive Mandate Legislative input xecutive Directive No. 1363—l, issued on :ebruary 12, 1968, directed all state departments and agencies to adOpt the State Planning and DevelOpment Regions as areas to be used for planning purposes. This executive mandate was prompted and based on the study and criteria that has been described earlier in this report. The Office of Planning Coordination, with- out documented input from outside of the organization, formulated the Regions. - In recognition of the goal to structure regional mechanisms to serve the needs of regional citizens, it seems odd that little, if any, input into the pro- cess or region selection was obtained from the state legislature. These officials, who possess intimate knowledge of the "communities of interests" through- out the state, could provide an unlimited amount of information concerning existing regional ties. In fact, — 20 - planning at the multi- FI'I one of the iunctional roles 0 county or regional level is to involve re resentative interest. After many conversations with Mr. Thompson, the author believes this is not being accomplished in Michigan. One obvious reason for the ineffectiveness of planning at the regional level is the lack of support of the political interests that are necessary to in- fluence andimplement regional development. Since the region has no political counterpart, it is forced into - »- - I. .3»-,f~:.. 3-. -:le. Lnaerstanzaoly, l: “ ". '.‘."" r; C‘ “Lua \ ) .) IU .41 . —~ I I -_.—- p 3 without strong political support, many of the planning organizations's recommendations are not accepted as a result of each organization's inability to reflect the political interests of the region. Politics and planning must have a complementary relationship. It appears, with the absence of pol- litical interest, the Planning and Development Regions . ’ o lack an important component which stalls the effort of undertaking planning and development at the regional scale. “People input” "PeOple" input or citizen participation repre- sents anothe element which was overlooked during the formulation of the delineation methodolOgy. The Office of Planning Coordination may believe that it is not necessary for the citizen to directly contribute to Cu the i entification of pertinent human issues since his preferences were analyzed, interpreted, and deter- mined by the planning technician. In Opposition to this viewpoint, the author feels that many citizens of a region have a accurate perception of the existing communities of interests. If given an opportunity to work together and become familiar with the elements and methodology of the proposed delineation process, the {In citizen could surface hi-den concerns, values, and motives. With a personal understanding of the situation, a planning technician would, hopefulli, search for a pos- sible or working solution rather than attempting to sec— ure the most rational and scientific decipherment. Participation in region delineation necessarily arouses the expectations of thepersons involved. And, reasonable expectations may h8193én overcoming the apathy demonstrated by many citizens Within the Regions. More- over, participation should be considered a matter of right in order to ensure that the desires of a region's resi- dents are met. Lack of acceptance According to the executive mandate, the Planning and Development Regions were to be accepted by all state departments and agencies. Also, the correspond~ ing planning agencies have been charged with the a- uthority to receive and, to some extent, control state funds. Therefore, the Regions have been ac- cepted by the -ocal units ef governnent. Many of the local government officials throughout the state have expressed, confidentially to the author, a con-1 cern with these agencies but are-hesitant to openly criticize them because of the possibility oflosing State and/or Federal funding. Such a claim can easily b (D supported since each of these agencies control State and Federal grants by means of their charge to deve10p "regional comprehensive plans". These regional plans are beyond the scope oflocal government planning, and are specific enough to preclude intervention from the State through the Office of Planning Coordination ... or the Office of Community Planning. Yet, most Federal and State grants-in-aid programs and projects require that all activities that take place within an area be consistent with the regional comprehensive plan. There seems to be a very definite need for ac- ceptance of a Region and the corresponding planning agencies by the local units of government. Local ac- ceptance would provide a new incentive to accomplish true planning and development at the regional level. I (\J L») l Both legislative and eo 'U (D I..I "O l« 'nputs may be the necessarv ingredients which could facilitate that acceptance. The aspect of lack of acceptance by thelocal units of government can best be demonstrated by examining the situation which is found in Region 8:'Grand Rapids - Muskegon. To date, the counties and municipalities have been unable to decide upon or formulate any type of reg- ional agency which is necessary to guide the develop- ment of that region. This indecision stems from the HI e'istence 0 two ‘lStlflCt communities of interests which are centered around Grand Rapids and Muskegon. Unless re-delineation occurs in this part of theState, it is doubtful that any Regional orgainzation will be formed. Lack ofincentive t articipat 'U (i) "At the present time it appears evident that some of the state departments have made little progress in a move toward the acceptance anduse of these State Planning and Development Regions. The various state departments have used different regions for their purposes and, some departments 1 have further delineations for special functions."1 The obvious lack of acceptance and use of the Region on the state level results, primarily, from the fail— ure of the Governcr to offer any motivation for such action. Motivation for State department and agency use of the regions could be provided in the positive sense by the offering of fiscal incentives. Or, if the OLEK—Lriug O" (A) C .L. [...] s to Achieve utili- W U .... (W I I, V J_ .5 . _‘ I lapfil incentiv al m m I‘ I] [‘1 m zation of the regions, a system 0 budg tory penal— m ties could be established. deed For Additional Criteria I The Governor's Special Commission on Local Gov- ernment, after stating that it was not prepared to undertake realignment of the existing boundaries, sug- gests that there is a need for additional criteria to be considered in order 3 ZESQLUE regional confl ct. "While considering many economic variables in formu- lating criteria, there seems to be a lack of emphasis on the social and political characteristics of the peOple within these units.12 The Commission continues further and recommends that the State Planning and De- velopment Regions be re-evaluated and re-aligned if any region does not adhere to the following criteria: ‘ . e. (a) Minimum Geographic Size - That State Planning and Development Regions minimum geographic size be three counties. (b) Existing Organizations — Where a regional body composed of three counties or more exists with- in a State Planning and Development Region and has functioned effectively, its desire for con- tinuing.work as an entity should be reviewed. (c) Attitudinal Aspects — To be ascertained after meeting with local government represigtatives in order to solicit local attitudes. Although noattemptvdll.be made to evaluate the validity of the above criteria, their listing demonstrates d nee (I) (L M O M £1) DJ C: r). If IJ O :3 {U I.) 0 I4 :31"; “:32 :press r teria to be incorp- orated into the delineation methodology. Environmental considerations The Commission identir ied a lack of emphasis on the social and political characteristics of the people within each region. Several of these aSpects have pre- viously been discussed in this paper; another "over- look ed" consid eraticn whic n has not been discussed is the environmental or ecova If the public accepts the premise that regional boundaries must follow existing county and state lines, little motivation can be provided for the utilization of watershed areas, river basins) or geographic provin- ces as the basis of regional delineation. Water and related natural resources follow natural boundaries; they reSpect no political boundaries placed on the land- .5, scape. Planning, conservation, utilization and manage- ment of environmental resources HEQ’ continue to be severely handicap one d if all activities must occur with- & in the confines of politically defined areas. Absence Of An Organizational Structure In order for the Plan -ni ng and Development Region concept to be successful, the e ‘forts of each regional organization must be linked with the activities of State _. _ 1 . nay ”x'fii --3r~-r-vv-w- ..l..s-.o “1.- Lo. 1;“; cal assistance to deal with the needs of the region. In or“ der to adequately link these activities, a structure of organization must exist at different levels of government. ‘In Miciigan, the author feels the present structure is frail and poorly defined. At the local level the plan- ning commission determines the details of how local needs are to be met within the framework of the region and state planning process. Beyond this level the structure is not as clearly defined. Some areas in Michigan are without any regional agency which would provide the necessary direct— ions to manage its affairs. However, Mr. Conway believes the newly created State Planning Department will most likely provide the necessary guidance to cOordinate planning efforts at all levels. Present control 2: State During the initial period of formulation of the Plan- ning and Development concept, the Office of Planning Co- ordination was responsible for providing liaison between local governments, regional organizations, and the State government. This Office functioned as the official State planning and research agency which provided technical plan- ning information and program assistance. The Office main— tained channels for communication and in some cases co- authored publications with regional and local planning agencies. The Office of Planning Coordination was housed in the Executive Office of the Governor. Recognizing the need for greater responsibilities to be placed on a plan— ning agency at the state level and upon recommendation by the Governor's Commission on Local Government, the Governor has appointed a State Planning Department. Mr. Conway believes that is is essential for an organi- zation, at the State level, to be charged with the task to perform a coordinatingroie concerned with inter-govern- mental matters between local, regional, State and federal levels. Regional policy-making bodies in_Michigan The number of regional planning commissions in Michigan have rapidly been increasing in the last sever- al years. Many variations of regignal planning commis- sions' membership are possible since "... the Regional Planning Commission Act requires joint resolution by two or more units of government."14 One example, is Grand Traverse County Regional Planning Commission which was created purseant to Act 281, P.A., 1931. This organi- zation has as one of its members, a township located in Leelanau County. Grand Traverse County is a member of a multi-county regional planning commission, the Northwest Michigan Regional Planning Commission. w Similar situ thRS prompted an informational orandum entitled An Investigation of locally Establisned _..—.- Regional Bodies which reported the following: (a) Since the mid 1960's, there has been a rapid increase in the number of multi—county region- al bodies. As a result, erratic jurisdiction- al patterns have resulted causing confusion among local leaders. (b) There were ninety-eight multi-county regional bodies identified in the State, but only ten percent are engaged in multi-functional plan— ning and development activities. (C) Most ge.eral-purp:se bodies have been organi- ' “ : 1:-7 -3 r : t e as ance programs. , (d) General-purpose multi-county planning and dev- elopment organizations face difficulties in ob- taining an adequate financial base, responding to ambiguous and conflicting state and federal policies, and meeting the local needs of the region.15 The above information infers to the author that, throughout Michigan, multi-county areas may be suffering from policy-making bodies which have duplicated and fragmented roles and responsibilities. The Governor's Special Commission on Local Government recommends that ... for each State Planning and Development Region, only one regional general purpose policy-making body shall be established."16 The general structure of such a general purpose policy-making body shall be discussed later in this paper. Duplication Of functions An examination of the hirteen Planning and Development Regions reveals several instances of dup- lication of functions. Within a few of the regions several organizations are struggling for recognition by the Governor as the A-95 clearinghouse‘for part of the Region. One organization combined three State Plan- ning and Development Regions into another regional plan- ning organization in order to bargain more effectively inc with State an: federal agencies. The re- maining portion of this chapter offers two case studies of situations in which examples of uplication of func- tions exist at the regional level. Example #1: UPCAP - Regions ll, 12, 13 The Upper Peninsula Committee For Area Progress was officially organized in September, 1970, as both a Regional Planning Commission and an Economic Development. District. Multi-county organization under two acts is common- place in Michi an since certain Federal agencies require k0 area planning and development commissions to consist of a-certain membership. For example, the Farmers Home Ad- ministration (FHA) is reluctant to accept Public Act 46 as the basis for funding an organization to undertake sewer and water planning. TLe economic development va. -. ‘1 ‘V 't ‘ - ‘ - I - q 1 ’ -_Q ‘- /-‘ 3‘: r. " q 7. "V . I'u ' -: . »\ 4 c CO-:‘.IT‘LJ.:JolOIlb CLi‘dCEC. un C‘L not ‘10 ... CuilJloC OJ... DOt ids‘p than 3 nor more than ll members ... membership of a reg~ ional commission shall be apportioned according to the population of the respective member counties."l7 FHA 4 claims tnat a larger representative membership of tne rural area must be involved and suggests that economic development districts also organize under Public Act 281, the Regional Planning Commission Act. Inorder to obtain the FHA sewer and water grants and other federal plan- ning grants—in—aid, many regional economic development district commissions hold theirmeetings and on comple— tion, adjourn, at which time the regional planning com- mission convenes bringing in the membership required un- der FHA or other federal guidelines. UPCAP, composed of all 15 Upper Peninsula counties, appears to duplicate the functions of the organizations which correspond to Planning and Development Regions — ll, 12, and 13. Ironically, eadh'of these regional organizations is organized under both Act 281 and Act 46! And, each organization is partially funded by the Econom- ic Development Administration, as is UPCAP! Example #2: Traverse Bay RPC - Region lg The Traverse Bay Regional Planning Commission was organized in April, 1969, under Act 281. Traverse Bay is thename given to the ten county region (Region 10) located in Northwestern Michigan; the comint es inc lue d: Antrim, Benzie, Charlevoix, Emmet, Grand Traverse, Kal— kaska, Leelanau, Manistee, Missaukee and Wexford. Inter- estingly, Traverse Bay Regional Planning Commission is composed of only Traverse City and eight of thirteen townships in Grand Traverse County. The Northwest Michigan Regional Economic Develop- ment Commission and tne Northwest Michigan Regional Planning Commission is th (1) organization which cor- A q (u 14 [.1 O l <.. H 3 in, this agencv is organ- ized under Act 281 and Act 46. Since the Northwest Mich- igan Planning and Development District (as this "two- hatted" organization preferes to be called) includes Grand Traverse County as one of its members, the town- ships are represented by a county board of supervisors which, in turn, established the Economic Development District Commission and Regional Planning Commission. ’5‘. Thus, the eight townships which have membership in the Traverse Bay Regional Planning commission are being represented in two, often conflicting, organizations. The situation is becoming more unfavorable because both organizations, the ' reverse Bay Regional Planning Commission and the Northwest Michigan Plannin .g and Devel- Opment District, are at empting to influence Governor Milliken into designating each of them as the A—95 clearinghouse for their respective areas. According U" 4 ,.,_ , _r. \J...‘~ w to guidelines pursuant to t ‘1. J. \ k ‘ . ce of Hanagement and Budget circular A-95 (Revised)— regional clearinghouses should be consistent with officially designated state planning and development districts.18 Therefore, it would seem logical if the Northwest Michigan Planning and Development District is designated as the A—9S re- view agent. But, Traverse City's large pOpulation of approximately 20,000 persons contributes to the contro- versy in favor of Traverse Bay Regional Planning Com- mission. Traverse Citv is certainly a thriving citV; why should an organization - Northwest Michigan Planning and Development District — which represents so few per- sons per total area be designated to review applications for projects and programs which are being proposed with~ in the jurisdictional boundaries of the Traverse Bay Regional Planning Commission? For some reason unknown to the author, Governor Millikan refuses to take any action or offer an opinion concerningtthis situation. Some critics claim, "The vaernor (a native of Traverse City) can't turn his back on T.C.; if he does, the -residents of T.C. will turn their back on MILLIKEN'S." (MILLIKEN'S is one of Traverse City's more attractive department stores which is operated, in part, by Governor Milliken's family.) By simple examination of the staffs of these two agencies, it can be demonstrated that the Northwest Michigan theless, planning and DevelOpment District is more fit to A-95 review process. In fact, Traverse Planning Commission has a staff of one! Bay Never- controversies of this type continue to plague and devleopment efforts at the regional level. CHAPTER V DESCRIPTIONS OF THE REGIONS Individual Regions19 Region 1: Detroit Regional PopulatiOn: 4,731,655 Regional Center: Detroit 53% of State Population: 1,620,000 34% of Region Land Area: 4554 square miles -Counties: St. Clair, Macomb, Oakland, Livingston, Washtenaw, WaYHE, Monroe The Detroit Region is the most pOpulous of all of the Planning and Development Regions. For the most part, the seven counties have a relatively high population density which averages approximately 1,000 persons per square mile.20 All of the counties are connected by tranSportation links which provide for adequate interaction between them. Also, many of the counties hold membership in several nat- ionally recognized organizations (ie. Southeastern Michi- gan Council of Governments - SEMCOG; Detroit Area Trans- portation and Land Use Study - TALUS). Both of the above factors suggest that this region possesses common inter- ests. Also, this cohesive geographic area supports a functioning regional planning and development organization. Regional Population: 262,064 Regional Center: Jackson 3% of State Population: 51,000 20% of Region Land Area: 2060 square miles Counties: Jackson, Hillsdale, Lenawee The City of Jackson is the largest city in Region 2; and, it is centrally located in Jackson County. Although the southern two counties, Hillsdale and Lenawee, lie at the northern fringe of the corn belt, they are strongly T , 'V.‘ ‘. 3.4,, ‘ 1 1 ECJ‘ZSCH lgldn‘crlal area because O F? l‘h ied to the the close proximity of location. No aajor porblems have develOped in this region which would preclude the functioning of a multi-county planning and development policy-making organization. Region 3: Kalamazoo-Battle Creek Regional Population: 466,977 Regional Center: Kalamazoo 5% of State _ g. Population: 89,000 19% of Region Land Area: 2839 square miles‘ Counties: Barry, Kalamazoo, Calhoun, St. Joseph, Branch Region 3 is often thought of as possessing two import- ant urban areas - Ka amazoo and Battle Creek. Both urban areas are located along the I—94 Interstate highway cor— ridor which runs east and west through the region. Two north-south multilane highways enable residents of the southern, agricultural counties and the northern, sparsely populated county to gain easy access to the major urban ....36— I areas within tne region. Like xegion 2, no m jor problems 11) '- have developed in this region which would preclude the functioning of a multi-county planning and development policy-making body. Region 4: Benton Harbor - St. Joseph Regional Population: 263,360 Regional Center: Benton 3% of State Harbor and St. Joseph Land Area: 1675 square miles Population: 38,000 14% of Region Counties Berrien, Cass, Van Buren Since this three county area is located in such close ’ 3 proximity to South Bend and Chicago, a strong interest is shared by the three counties. This southern region is dotted with many smaller cities (ie. Niles, Buchanan, Paw Paw, etc.), however, a diversity of activities occur with— in this region. Manufacturing, fruit-production, and recreational activity are all characteristic of this region. It appears that this three::dunty region C0D1d: in regard to its location, support a multi-county regional planning and development organization. Region 5: Flint Regional Population 559,733 Regional Center: Flint 6% of State Population: 242,000 43% of Region Land Area: 1840 square miles Counties: Genesee, Lapeer, Shiawassee Region 5 surrounds the Regional Center, the City of Flint. located Highway central (I-75) and two east—vest multilane highways. Flint, a highly Specialized industrial center, is near the intersection of a north—south Interstate The location of the City of Flint and the influence it holds over the surrounding area provides an adequate base for a three county planning and development organi- zation, however, there is a tendency for portions of Lap- eer County to associate With the more agriculturally ori- ented counties located to toe east; and, some portions of Shiawassee County identify these areas do not warrant cause aries during region delineation. Lansing Region 6: Regional Population: 399,500 4% of State . Land Area: 1967 square miles with the Lansing Region. But, re-delineation of Region 5 be— of the overpowering goal to maintain county bound- Regional Center: Lansing a. Population: 138,000 35% of Region Counties: Clinton, Eaton, Ingham Region 6 has often been refered to as an example of the potential success which canaccrue to planning and develOpment regions. The Tri-Countj Planning Commission, organized under Act 281, has been planning for the develop* ment of this this three county region since 1956. Very few persons Openly and seriously criticize the accomplishments — 38 1 I .. a n f 0 ~.. .I o 4 l.— . ." : _ . ' o; tris organization an an include a regional compre- J. hensive plan, a housing plan, a transportation plan, a solid waste plan, and numerous others. The City of Lansing, which is located near the point where the three counties share a common boundary, pro- vides a strong anchor for the region. The total success of the Region and effectiveness of Tri-county Planning C-mmission can be somewhat doc- 1- P 4 a k. .“‘T- canted sin e this or oiz {U tion has been designated by LC) {1; H 1 A- — .LJA —. aka ,- f‘: ... 1...,— “. ' .- 1 . - the Governor as the A—ys metropolitan clea in house for U the area. ’ Region 7: Saginaw Bay Regional Population: 690,281 Regional Center: Saginaw 7% of State Population: 110,000 16% of Region Land Area: 8600 square miles Counties: Roscommon, Ogemaw, Iosco, Clare, Gladwin, Arenac, Isabella, Midland, Bay, Gratiot, Sagnas, Tuscola, Huron, and Sanilac Region 7 is the largest of the 13 regions in land area. The fourteen counties can, however, be categorized into three general types. First, the three "thumb" coun— ties of Huron, Tuscola, and Sanilac are well known through— out Michigan for their fertile agricultural lands. But, within these three counties there is no major regional center. According to the delineation methodology formu— lated by the Office of Planning Coordination, each region -39 .. m-‘ I ,. U) 0 -‘.- -L t have at less one re LG I _ O f) 51: ...—l 0 ad L. - m‘ ~ 5 . N enter. inereiore, lnat‘ (1 I of these three counties being designated as a rural plan- ning and develOpment region, they were lumped together with another type of region, the urban—manufacuring-trade area of Saginaw, Bay City, and Midland. The second type of counties are those that support one of the manufacturing cities and are greatly influenced 0-. y presence of hese urban-manufacturing-trade areas. Saginaw Count*, Midland County and Bay County are exam- '0 ._..! m H; (1‘ ) I d 1 o, -— 1 I w ' ‘ 2. -..::."v:~.-~.“: ron- Ln”). "A +- 9311' ~—-v 7": n' a. . Jet, “go-:3 U- til--2, .3110: .. 1-..; ’ tallpe viilpfl U) L separates these three urban-manufacturing—trade areas, these three counties should be grouped into support of a metropolitan-type regional planning organization. To the extreme west, the Counties of Gratiot, Isa— bella, and Clare are linked in a north-south direction by the presence of Interstate 75. These counties, which are of an agricultural and recreational nature, face a .3». similar problem of a tremendous highway corridor penetrating 0 through the center of each county. In addition, the like (1' nature of base three counties and the three counties (1' bordering 0 their west is striking. The remaining five counties of Arenac, Gladwing, Roscommon, Ogemaw, and Tosco are sparsely-populated agriculturel—recreational areas which do not support a regional center. However, the similarity certainly war- rants their delineation as a rural planning and develop- ment region. ”J (D fl~ A f ' - ' r‘ 1; Fr" gi 8: orand Rapids - kusnegon Regional Population: 965,813 Reg' 11% of State P Land Area: 7648 square miles Counties: Mason, Lake, Osceola, Ociana, newaygo, Mecosta, Muskegon, Ottawa, tent,-Montcalm, Ionia, Allegan Region 8 is the second largest of the 13 regions; its 12 counties fall into 3 categories and must be considered as.diverse as Region 7: Saginaw Bay. In a description of Region 8, the Office Of Pl nning Coordination states the following: , "The southern part of the region is well within the influence areas of its principal cities of Grand Rapids and ‘-I'uskeg on, both of which have SMSA status "21 Recognizing that two principal cities exist in this region is commendable, however, the following statement erases the importance of the identification of two regional centers: I! ... this region is large and diverse, but retains a unigue identity centered onaGrand Rapids, whose eco- nomic and cultural influence extends throughout west- ern Michigan. "22 Why not delineate only one region in western Michigan with Grand Rapids as the Regional Center? The result wOuld be the same - the existence of a large region with many dif- ferent interest groups which cannot establish a regional planning and development policy-making body. Furthermore, any individual, who possesses even super- ficial knowledge of this area, realizes that Muskegon and m ( L) t (I) I) ‘ r m H (D Q) U) Grand Rapids have very dif of influence, as (D H1 H well as being somewhat competitiv o the power of in- fluence over the areas lying between them. Grand Rapids is located in the center of Kent County and strongly in— fluences the bordering counties of Ionia, Ottawa, and Allegan. In contrast, the City of Muskegon strongly in- fluences, of course, Muskegon County in which it is loc- ated, but also has strong ties with the four counties which lie to the North - Ocieana, Newaygo, Mason and Lake. I H The major portions or these tour, northern counties con— sist of National Forest Land which is sparsely populated and possesses many lakes and streams. The remaining thre (D counties of Osceola, Mecosta, and Montcalm are strikingly similar in comparison to the three counties presently found in the Saginaw Bay Region, which border to the east. Undoubtably, the requirement of each county having to belonggto a region with a Reg- ional Center prohibited the joining of these six counties into a rural planning and development Region. Region 3: Alpena Regional Population: 94,l07 Regional Center: Alpena 1% of State POpulation: 14,000 15% of Region Land Area: 4837 square miles Counties: Cheboygan, Presque Isle, Otsego, Montmorency Alpena, Crawford, Oscoda, and Alcona This sparsely populated, forested, eight county region occupies the entire northeastern portion of the lower peninsula. The only diversity in thisarea results from the location of a few cities which are situated along the Lake Huron shore or along the I-75 corridor which borders on the western edge of this region. Typically, streams and lakes can be found scattered through the area and seasonal homes will also be found scattered near these natural features. ~‘ . . 1' Q.-_— \JV-‘ -& J. development agency - Northeastern Michigan Regional Plan- ning and DevelOpment Commission seems to be functioning at a reasonable level, in so far as insuring the-proper. deve10pment of the area's human and natural resources. Region 10: Traverse Bay Regional Population: 158,333 Regional Center: 2% of State ~‘t. Traverse City , Population: 20,000 Land Area: 4837 13% of Region Counties: Emmet, Charlevoix, Antrim, Leelanau, Benzie Grand Traver e, Kalkaska, Ranistee, Wexford and Missaukee Traverse Bay, composed of 10 counties, occupies the entire northwestern portion of thelower peninsula. This region is best known for its scenic shorelines and hilly topography; and, the long narrow lakes and bays resemble the fjords of Scandinavia. The cities which border the shoreline, for the most part, depend on recreation and tourism, however, Traverse City does have several light manufacturing industries and canning factories which prepare the cherries and other fruits that are grown in Grand Traverse, Leelanau, Benzie, and other counties of the Region. The Northwest Michigan Planning and Development Dis- trict has had great success in encouraging participation by representatives from all of themember counties and local ' 1‘“.- 1'." h.~—~V—- U _ l— _. ‘ - ‘ . U u ‘ \ '- —- ,- u— .— , I - , — _, _ O I: I o l ‘ ‘I' ‘ . 'vfi ‘ “1 .3 r" I b‘ . s. A ,a-J '1 1 T— } \fi ‘1 . v .1 IA— , VJ .' .0 —. - 5 ~ \ . —o n - a I — . ... d- —— ~ - M —— a '4. ~' J - .3 o v AV- L‘ ,- L— clt the con. U) (D (‘11"\ o».«}« ._.- ion that this organization and Region sould remain intact. Region 11: Sault Ste. Marie Regional POpulation: 48,816 Regional Center: Sault Ste. 1% of State Marie Population: 18,000 Land Area: 3508 square miles 37% of Region Counties: Luce Cninoewa Mackinac I t“; I 3 t 'I’ . Region ll is composed of the three most eastern coun- ties of the Upper Peninsula. The Sparsely populated area maintains a uniform, forested character throughout the Because of thelow population of this area, there are only 5 planning commission organizations in this Region. The two-hatted regional planning organization - Eastern Upper Peninsula Regional Planning Commission and Eastern Upper Peninsula Economic Development District - has been planning for the develOpment of the natural and human resources of this Region since June of 1968. This organ— ization and Region appear to have been accepted by the residents of this area. Region 12: Marquette - Iron Mountain — Escanaba Regional Pepulation 165,744 Regional Center: Undetermined Land Area 7119 square miles Counties: aft, Delta, Menominee, Alger, Marquette, g This six county region was re-delineated by the Governor on December 30, 1970. Basically, the 6 central counties of the Upper Peninsrla were joined together to form one region rather than constituting two regions as had been origionally designated. The gently rolling, forested land which is dotted with slow moving streams andshallow lakes, support three cities, Marquette, Iron Mountaie:.and Escanaba on the fringe of the area. However, no one city exerts enough influence over the entire area to be designated as the regional center. Region 13: Houghton-Ironwood Regional Population: 89,724 Regional Center: Houghton- Hancock Land Area: 3,911 square miles Population: 8,000 10% of Region Counties: Keweenaw, Houghton, Barage, Ontonagon, Gogebic Iron, 'egion m l *1 ’4 ....1 w H rt 0 rt 8 O ‘1' ,1 U; C ‘13 a) (0 h '17 (U 2.5 +4 :3 U) f‘ i—J £1) '17 0 ti: P O :1 U) N LU -v , forested region. however, in 14 is a Sparsely pOpulate there is mining activity taking place in certain areas of this Region. Also, the many scenic, natural attract- ions invite many tourist every summer. Like the other Regions of the Upper Peninsula,.a two— hatted planning organization is in existence. No further re-evalueation of the region seems necessary. c, OhIONAGon ‘ HOUGHTONI- IROI'N‘ V000 ‘ GOGES'C— ' m (D m 2 C3 Detroit ' Jackson Kalamazoo-Battle Creek Benton Harbor-St. Joseph . Flint . Lannng . Saginaw Bay . Grand Rapids—Muskegon . Alpena 10. Traverse Bay 1!. Sault Ste. Marie 12. Marquette-Iron Mountain-Escanaba 13. Hangman-Ironwood tomummp‘wgur-r— MAP 4 STATE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGIONS State of Michigan - 1.— : '. _.. ANIRIV Gna~o I stunt] "AW“ om I l i CHI”£WA __aSAULT STE. MARIE 0356 M:- _ Gog. .: (ALIASQA. cnawtonoI OSCOOA E _.AZCONA.’ December 1970 o no (JV-"\I~ ' PIESOUE ISLE i I I ALPG NA ALPENA i l . —---—---—. of EAICN WW5“! wixtono wuss-sure. acsccw-ou ocunw i IOSCO i - TRAVERSE BAY ’ i E . . . E unso-y rue , 05:59... . Cunt jug“ I'-“i~.‘c ; L . . o ' ' .— I : v I uUROh : ! I I E '. , . say “ . r- ! - ._.— .... OCETHA : INEWAvfio? ”ices“! usaauu ' WOLANO . f . ‘ ' . - oi. oi I SAGINAW BA‘r mscou . “we I o .—L‘. . ' L ... .P" ‘ ‘ " . usiéccn MOhTCALM G-‘MHOI’ I sac-MW I '. I... _ , . KENY— I LAPEE“ _. ; ’ _ cause: I 0‘7““ '— VONIA. cL: ~ o~u snuaassts 5' CUM GRAND RAPIDS- 'FUNT I. fausxecom 0...... we»: Min-AM ,: L V ~05'U~‘ ‘03:“? ANSING "‘ 1 "r“ “Munroe can-«mm J®C1 on Ivulnsvut'vl-‘W . W”"‘ KALAMAZOU- DETROIT BATTLE CREEK ‘ __ _3‘N"'C'° _ git-LLSOMET LiNAW-E 1.08”“)? .‘ BEN . di'2'fihnéb’é- ST ‘°“'"i 0 -—_—-—-‘ L—ua-IL—o—II- JACKSON CHAPTER VI RECOMMENDATIONS After analyzing the purposes, criteria, and con- straints which were considered in the formulation of \q' 1 ' I "s ' ... .: :‘x~.-.'1,..-.-, J. 1", . nicnigan s Planning ~n ne'elccnent ~egions; and, a ... .. H] _ ter examination and identification of several shortcomings of the existing Regions, the following recommendations for improvement in the process of planning for the de- velOpment of resources within Michigan are offered. Delineation 9: Planning Regions After consideration of the material presented in the previous five chapters, with an emphasis on Chapter V - Descriptions and Shortcomings of the Regions, it is recommended that multi-county planning agencies be encouraged to establish in the regions delineated as follows: Region 1 - The counties of Wayne, Washtenaw, Monroe, Livingston, Oakland, Macomb, and St. Clair. Region 2 - The counties of Jackson, Hillsdale and Lenawee. Region 3 - The counties of Barry, Kalamazoo, Calhoun, St. Joseph and Branch. Region 4 - The counties of \an Buren, Berrien, and Cass. Region 5 - The counties of Lapeer , Genesee, and Shawassee. Region 6 - The counties of Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham. * Region 7 — The counties of Allegan, Ionia, Kent and Ottawa. * Region 8 - The counties of Huron, Tuscola, and Sanilac. * Region 9 — The counties of Saginaw, Midland, and Bay. * Region 10- The counties of Gratiot, Montcalm, Isabella, Mecosta, Clar-, Oscoela. The counties of Muskegon, Oceana, Newaygo, 3'1 L 1‘ —\ ‘ J—Jajrie, a--a * Region 12- The counties of Arenac, Gladwin, Iosco, Ogemaw, and Rosc mmon. Region 13- The counties of Manistee, Wexford, Iissaukee, Kalkaska, rand Traverse, Bensie, Leelanau, Antrim, Charlevoix, and Emmet. Region l4- The counties of Alcona, Oscoda, Crawford, Otsego, Montmorency, Alpena, Presque Isle, and Cheboygan. Region 15- The counties of Luce, Chippewa, and Mackinac. Region l6- The counties of Schoolcraft, Delta, Algen, Men ominee ckinson, Marquette. Region 17- The counties of Iron, Barage, Goegbic, Ontonogan, Houghton, and Keweenaw. * These Regions differ form Michigan's existing Planning and Development Regions. (See Map 4, p. 47 and Map 5, p. 50) Dereloome nt f Regional Commissions Delineation of Regions will not correct all of the deficiencies \ SCOES-C ' ‘ .AIAGA _ HOUGHTON— IRONWODD I IRON “A “CU E T7 EC KI ”15.0.9“! MAP l SCHOOLCflA‘Y l DELTA— MARQUETTfi—RON MOUNTAIN- ESCANABA Cl ._. SAULT STE. MARIE 5 PROPOSED ; CHIPPEWA -..—_.- ' ';'°€30YGM ; i EMMQT v- CWLIVOG l_ orsmo.’ WW» ANIRIM ‘ ”0" an ! I ' ‘ . nesouusu ‘Q vuuisu. cuévroaéi" oscoo: AMJ ! “‘1'“ ravens: :@ ALPENA i STATE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGIONS ALP‘NA J 0 " —A;CONA . , sums"? EE wexmno :MISSAUIEI' Roscomi OGEMAW 1 CWlflAf :® o L UA‘LANO 'IWWV'I I ALLIGAN [IA-4H1 um!» '. Mot-Lu“ *""""u~| @ i LANSING ‘®i. “N mum uuMAzOo; cainozm - ”0.50,. WASHIINAW 9 wnmi KALA‘MAzoo- C2) DETROIT € BATTLE CREEK , _ ".. sen waxééfié" “5““: "3"“ «Jim? ST. JOSEPH JAQKSON --_--_--‘---_--—- TRAVERSE BAY i . _ I MASQ~ LAKé i 05:53» (...-.26 Guam 3. | - ... .. - . - i . .. ecu.“ “qu3 wccsu ; vsneuu . -‘ . I '- . ' ‘ I ' : _ _ . ,- .-. {__ _. wstGON: - MONICALM cannot -Anmic IOSCO l fliHY I IOK:A Ct.NYU~V ' b--&--.—- t1 flat have been identified in Michigan's regional planning {...- U) and develOpment system. There a need for the appoint— ment or establishment of a single, regional planning and development policy-making body for each of the designated Regions. This organization would be charged with a multi- plicity of tasks, however, the coordination of planning and development activities undertaken at the local level is paramount. First, a development strategy, which spells out how the Region will utilize available resources to meet pr e- sent and future needs must be formulated. ‘For some Re- gions this task has adequat ely been accomplished; for other Regions, several different strategies have been de- veloped by competing agencies (ie. Economic Development Commissions, Regional Planning Agencies, and various sin- L) ( gle purpose agenci s); and, others have been unable to formulate any type of future—oriented strategy. Thus, each region must be required to formulate or approve a development strategy which would provide the base for evaluation of projects and programs that are proposed within the area. It is important that developmental projects be co- ordinated with similar projects in the Region for more effective utilization of resources. With this end in mind, the United States Office Of Management and Budget's Curcular A—95 outlines a Project Notification and Review Svsten. Therefore, it is recommended that eacn Region‘s planning and development policy—ma'ing body be designated‘ by the Governor to administer the A—95 review process. Also, all State departments and agencies must be directed to inform and/or work with the regional policy-making body in matters pertaining to planning and develOpment. ' In order for a regional policy~making body to deter- mine the needs and identify the concerns of local gover — ment, as well as provide for and guide regional plannin 1,. ' P and CEVEICDT’ -, tne memb~r3nro c: - i. \J ("1‘ (T .L .LJ'\J’ - b ineéb/ must be as representative of the region as possible. There- fore, it is recommended that the policy-making body consist elected officials within the H) of at least 51 percent 0 Region. Elected officials are considered the official Spokesmen by residents of individual communities. The county board of commissioners of each county in Y the .egions should appoint to tne body an elected county U D official, an elected official of themost populace munici- pality within the county, and a member of the county's planning commission. Non—elected membership, which is to be appointed by the county board of commissioners of each county, must represent the private sector or interests of that county. Non—elected membership should be apportioned> according to the population of themember counties, but no county should have less than one or more that three non- elected members. (T r tor and (I) 0 DJ rd. 'Each RC ional body must appoin‘ a d (u LQ H (l: '1 staff to provide needed technical assistan e i O :5 o e to guide the planning and development of each Region, as well as providing technical assistance to local govern- ments. Local governments should be helped to develop and maintain the capability of effectively managing their af- fairs. Assistance could be offered in the areas of plan- ning and developmental issues; in analyzing and obtaining Federal and State funds; in preparing sound budgets; and, ;._3 1 .-"‘ \av—A.$L‘ D. ‘r ’u h... -.s U u Establishment of a single, regional planning and de- velOpment policy—maki.g body would impose a considerable financial burden on t.e counties and municipalities of each Region. Therefore, is is suggested that the State provide incentives in the form of funds on a matched basis with the counties' share. If, however, no substantive action is taken, by the counties or county of any Region, I. Q J: . the State should withhold all grants-in-aid which are de- signated for those local bodies of government. [\3 UI O.) 10 ll 16 FOOTNOTES Office of Planning Coordination, Bureau of Planning and Program DevelOpment, Executive Office of the Governor, State of Michigan, Michigan's Planning and Development Regions: Delineation Criteria and Comments, March 1968, p. l. See United States Government's Office of Management and Budget Circular A—95 (Revised), February 1971. -: ' 1—v A a v‘ -s . CLflC; of Pianling Coordi.arion, et. al., Planning and faxelobmant foriaos TD‘ _-ehiran° Techrrdal Racfirt Nun- , 1 a f _ oer 14, Februar', l9oS,‘p.1C. Barlowe, Raleigh, Land Ressurce Economics, (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1958), pp. 249-250, 259-261. Office Of Planning Coordination, Planning etc., pp, cit., pp. 21-22. Ibid., p. 28. Ibid., p. 46. Ibid., p. 62. . t, Ibid., p. 64. Commission On Local Government, Report Of The Governor's Special Commission On Local Governemnt, March, 1972, p. 23. Ibid. Ibid. Office of Planning Coordination, et. al., Statewide Inf ventory of Community and Area Planning In Michigan, Feb— ruary, 1970, p. 4. ‘ Commission on Local Government, op. cit., p. 24. Ibid., 17 18 19 FOOTNOTES (CONTIN'ED) Michigan Statutes, Act 46., P.A. 1966, Chapter 125.1232. See the United States Government's Office Of Management and Budget Circular A—9S (Revised), February, 1971. Statistical data used in the section "Individual Regions” has been abstracted formz‘Michigan's Planning_And Develop- ment Regions: Delineation Criteria and Comments, and the Report 9£_the Governor's Special Commission On Local Gov—s ernment. Office Of Planning Coordination, et. al., Planning ect., pp. cit., p. 5. BIBLIOGRAPHY Barlowe, Releigh, Land Resour Hall, Inc., Englewood Cl e Economics, (Prentice- ff 3, N.J., 1958). C 1 Commission on Local Government, Report Of The Governor's Special Commission On Local Government, March, 1972. fl Michigan Statutes, Act 46. P.A. 1966, Management nd Mud get, Office of the President, tat ~nvarnment, Circular A~9S (Revised), ,Office Of Planning Coordination, Bureau of Planning and Program Developnen , Executive Office of the Gov- ernor, State of Michigan, Michigan's Planning and Development R gions: Delineation Criteria and Com- ments, March 1968 Office Of Planning Coordination, et. al., Planning and Development Regions For Michigan: Technical Report Number l4, February, I968. Office Of Planning Coordin n, Inventor: Of OTIlC‘t ta.d A igan, February, 1970. al., Statewide Planning In Mic h— (0 rr LU ° IIHIHIIIIHIIIIIIIIHIIHm 1293 02656 .....