Clearly, the State role in authorizing local government modifications is one of prime importance. Martin comments on the significance of the State in metropolitan decisions that: *** a city or even a county may be permitted to ignore the fact for long periods; but in the end an issue always arises which hauls it up short before this most fundamental fact of local government law: Every action by a local government is taken under a grant of power from the State. *** In any appraisal of metropolitan decisionmaking, the role of the State must be judged to be of fundamental importance." Finally, Martin notes the increasing importance of the Federal Government in metropolitan decisions-a subject to be considered at some length in the following chapters-and suggests that increased Federal activity in this field is likely in the future. METROPOLITAN PLANNING The problems posed by inadequate local jurisdictions in metropolitan areas have led not only to efforts to widen these jurisdictions through the reorganization methods described above, but also to a notable movement to plan for local services and coordinate local programs and policies on an area wide basis. For many urban services and regulatory functions-water supply, transportation, land development controls-it may well be more important to coordinate local actions through joint planning than to transfer responsibilities to an areawide jurisdiction, such as a metropolitan special district. Where governmental reorganization is not feasible, joint planning may provide many of the same benefits. Even where reorganizations are successful, metropolitan-wide planning and coordination are still needed to assure effective performance. The need for coordination applies to all levels of government whose activities have an impact in metropolitan areas: unless the work of a metropolitan transit authority is coordinated with efforts of the State highway department (operating with Federal aid) and of local public works departments responsible for street construction and maintenance, the overall transportation needs of the metropolis are not likely to be served very effectively. The results of poor coordination have been particularly evident in programs dealing with the physical development of metropolitan areas with land use controls, transportation, public services, and facilities such as hospitals and schools. Within individual localities, city planning has emerged as a major function of government responsible for coordinating the work of local agencies responsible for these activities. As the spread of metropolitan growth has made local boundaries inadequate for many purposes, metropolitan planning agencies have been created to carry on similar functions for entire urban areas. The kind of coordination that is needed in metropolitan development can be illustrated in the case of water supply. In large urban areas, the economies of sharing water supply systems can be considerable, as noted in chapter III. As a result, many communities have joined together by means of intergovernmental contracts or metropolitan water districts to make use of common reservoirs, purification plants, and trunklines. For economic use of the metropolitan 41 Ibid., p. 133. water system, however, coordinated land use planning is also desirable. The system can supply needed water most economically if new industrial and residential development is encouraged at locations where there is excess capacity in the waterlines; otherwise, additional investment may be needed in some areas while other lines are used below their capacity. New development can be guided by means of highway development, local zoning, subdivision regulations, and the provision of streets and schools. Metropolitan planning agencies have been established to deal with just this type of problem by preparing areawide plans for land development in order to lay a sound basis for a variety of local planning decisions. 42 A national survey of metropolitan planning agencies in 1964 indicated that 150 of the 216 standard metropolitan statistical areas recognized at that time had some form of metropolitan planning. Most of the planning agencies covered an area approximately equal to the SMSA. In the largest metropolitan areas, multijurisdictional planning agencies predominate. These cover two or more counties, plus cities and towns in some cases. In effect, most of these agencies are metropolitan special districts responsible only for planning. In two cases, metropolitan planning is carried on by voluntary metropolitan councils (San Francisco and Seattle-Tacoma), and in two cases by regional transportation agencies (Philadelphia and New York). In smaller metropolitan areas, metropolitan planning is a function of combined city-county agencies or county agencies alone. Most of these agencies operate with relatively small staffs and budgets-smaller than those of city planning agencies serving comparable populations. In metropolitan areas with more than a million people, the average metropolitan agency had a total staff of 34; in areas with a population between 100,000 and 250,000, the average staff size was about 10. Average yearly expenditures were $580,000 in areas over a million in population and $100,000 in areas between 100,000 and 250,000. The money is provided not only by the governments represented in these agencies, but also by the States and the Federal Government. Federal financing accounts for about a third of all metropolitan planning expenditures. The members of metropolitan planning agencies are generally selected by the governments that are represented; in a few cases there are also State-appointed representatives on multijurisdictional agencies. The members include elected officials of constituent governments in about half the agencies; the remaining members are lay citizens and appointed officials. The main responsibility of these agencies is to prepare a metropolitan development plan covering transportation, land use, and major public facilities. Virtually all the agencies give high priority to this function and have plans underway. The majority are required by law to adopt an official plan. As background for the plan and as special projects, metropolitan planners also study particular functions Housing and Home Finance Agency, 1964 National Survey of Metropolitan Planning, prepared for the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1965). For additional information on metropolitan planning, see Joint Center for Urban Studies of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, The Effectiveness of Metropolitan Planning, prepared in cooperation with the Subcommittee on Intergovern mental Relations of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1964). and problems, such as population growth, economic development, housing, recreation, water supply and sewage disposal, community facilities, and local zoning and subdivision regulations. Metropolitan planning agencies have made important contributions to urban development by projecting future growth and advising on needed services and other governmental activity. Their research has served as useful background for private as well as public investments. The main problem in metropolitan planning, however, is how to translate plans into action. Only a handful of metropolitan planning agencies have operating responsibilities that enable them to put a few elements of their plans into practice. Most are purely advisory and must rely on their powers of persuasion in dealing with local governments and public authorities. Their relationships with governments and public agencies operating in the metropolitan area are therefore critical. Most metropolitan planning agencies provide information and technical advice to local governments; this function carries with it limited opportunities to influence local decisions. Only about a quarter of them have mandatory referral power to review local plans and regulations; still fewer have mandatory referral power for local capital improvement programs. About half review or comment on some local, State, or federally supported projects.43 Metropolitan planning agencies typically have very limited legal authority. Nevertheless, they have tried to marshal public support by educational and public relations activities, and many have taken the initiative in studying and discussing issues of regional significance. In the absence of stronger metropolitan institutions or leadership, these agencies can play an important role, similar to that of voluntary metropolitan councils, in airing public issues and promoting areawide approaches to problems. As an approach toward strengthening government in urban areas, metropolitan planning is promising, but its technical accomplishments have far exceeded its influence on government decisions. A recent evaluation of metropolitan planning by the Joint Center for Urban Studies of MIT and Harvard University concluded that the potential contribution of such planning to urban development is considerable, and warrants granting additional responsibility and more generous support to metropolitan planning agencies." The Commission has reached similar conclusions and has proposed several ways of integrating metropolitan planning more effectively with government decisionmaking. One is to make local zoning, building regulations, highway plans, and proposals for major physical facilities subject to metropolitan planning review. Another Commission recommendation, to be discussed more fully in chapter VII, is to link metropolitan planning more closely to the coordination of Federal-aid programs in metropolitan areas. CONCLUSION This chapter has reviewed a number of ways in which local governments can be strengthened to cope with urban functions. These ap 43 Joint Center for Urban Studies of MIT and Harvard University, op. cit., p. 133. 44 Ibid., pp. 115-123. proaches involve a broadening of local jurisdictions, transfer of functions between governments, sharing of responsibilities, and similar devices within metropolitan areas. Much can be accomplished by these means, but together they constitute only one kind of approach to the problems of government in metropolitan areas. In contrast to these efforts within metropolitan areas, other metropolitan reforms can be achieved by actions of the States and the Federal Government. This second type of approach, drawing on the powers and resources of States and the Federal Government, will be the subject of the next two chapters. |