fiscal pressures against cooperation are strongest, as well as those which are tax-poor. Too, single programs should not be allowed to drain the local tax capacity; the Federal Government could provide aid in pressing functional areas, such as school construction, thereby releasing the capacity to support metropolitan programs.

Consideration also should be given to programs which would promote the assumption of greater responsibility by the State for certain functions, particularly in the welfare field in which costs impinge very unevenly on communities within metropolitan areas. One justification for this kind of participation is that the socioeconomic forces which create the need for these programs usually do not arise from conditions in one municipality but rather from those in the region, the State, and the Nation itself."

A long-range remedy to mitigate fiscal pressures toward separatism and mercantilist land-use planning is to achieve indirectly a more homogeneous tax base in the metropolitan area. The Federal Government properly may encourage and aid the States in reducing local differences in fiscal capacity by the selective expansion of State aid to substitute for locally levied taxes.

Sometimes taxes on a base other than real property, such as a tax on income where earned, can help produce a more equitable fiscal structure by making residents of one locality contribute to another in which they generate municipal costs. As is suggested in chapter IV-B which outlines alternatives for State action, many States may already be paying, indirectly at least, a part of the added cost of furnishing a particular municipal service.

A solution more directly coming to grips with the problem would be for the metropolitan area to set up a joint multipurpose agency with taxing and bonding powers covering regional areas, as California's Governor's Commission on Metropolitan Problems has suggested for that State's nine urban regions. It is virtually certain, however, that local officials and voters for the most part will continue to protect their public financial resources to the fullest extent. There is little incentive for an independent community voluntarily to distribute taxable resources to assist less-favored communities unless it is feared that too great a decline in public service in the neighboring municipality will have bad spillover effects. There is also no reason to condemn such parsimony; the protection of one's interest is, if not a natural, at least a frequently observed behavior characteristic. However, the National Government and the State must recognize the pressures toward regional fragmentation and the inhibition of cooperation generated by tax inequalities, taking steps to decrease them. As consideration of the effects of taxation and expenditure problems intimates, the barriers to cooperation often lie outside the scope of planning as narrowly defined. A variety of skills must be brought together to identify and restrain the forces which hinder the desired objective of a rationally developing metropolitan environment. Efforts to shape the urban future must involve not only physical planners but also planners whose training has been in the social sciences, economics, law, administration, and urban design. The Federal in

30 Harvey E. Brazer, "Some Fiscal Implications of Metropolitanism," "Metropolitan Issues: Social Governmental Fiscal" (Syracuse University, 1962), p. 81.

terest in metropolitan development implies a parallel interest in the education of specialists to staff the metropolitan agencies and in interdisciplinary cooperation on metropolitan problems. The real obstacles to successful urban development, as Eugene V. Rostow, dean of the Yale Law School has said, "are intellectual, not legal or political. If we knew what we wanted to do, I should not despair of finding ways to do it." 31

5. THE FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT

The nature of the Federal Government's responsibility for and interest in metropolitan development differs in kind from that of State and local governments. Federal action should and does seek limited ends, in terms of assuring and increasing the efficiency of the Federal investment in metropolitan areas. It properly should and does leave to local and State entities the detailed decisions as to the goals, organization, and powers of the bodies set up to do metropolitan planning, review, and cooperation.

Consequently, the Federal Government should not act with respect to the specifics of metropolitan planning, but only more generally, to buttress the climate in which cooperation at the metropolitan level grows. Procedural requirements attached to substantive benefits can contribute to this atmosphere by opening channels of communication and creating areas for negotiation within the everyday workings of the local decisionmaking process. Administrative actions and incentives clarify the roles and purposes of metropolitan planning agencies, thus giving them a more concrete place in the governmental structure, so that the Federal Government may achieve a wiser and more economical use of its programs in metropolitan areas.

Eugene V. Rostow and Edna G. Rostow, "Law, City Planning, and Social Action;" "The Urban Condition: People and Policy in the Metropolis," ed. Leonard J. Duhl (Basic Books: 1963), p. 364.

V. CONCLUSIONS

There can be no "one best way" to resolve the problems of our complex and diverse metropolitan areas. Yet certain conclusions of general applicability do emerge which deserve serious consideration by the legislative and executive bodies which must respond to increasing pressure to expand the capacity of existing governments to meet civic demands in metropolitan areas.

A. MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Metropolitan planning, properly conceived and executed, will make substantial contributions toward the coordination of governmental programs-Federal, State, and local-and toward the orderly development of urban areas. This report has identified clear advantages of metropolitan planning for all three levels of government.

2. Metropolitan planning offers strong advantages for the Federal Government in facilitating the efficient administration of Federal programs in urban development. It brings in a level of oversight and review that is close to the local scene, and can foster wise local use of Federal programs on a coordinated basis; moreover, it does so without necessitating an expansion in the number of Federal personnel in the agencies affected.

3. Valid principles can be applied to identify metropolitan concerns. Reasonable distinctions can be drawn between the concerns of metropolitan planning and those of local community planning, so that metropolitan planning can focus on problems and issues of greater than local impact without interfering with matters of purely local concern. A sound technical basis for metropolitan planning can be established by means of studies and projections within the competence of a well-staffed agency. These technical studies would also form the logical basis for review of federally assisted projects in urban areas.

4. Procedures to require metropolitan planning agency review of federally aided projects would provide a needed measure of strength for metropolitan planning, while assisting the Federal agencies in administering their programs. The principle of metropolitan review contained in S. 855 is a logical and commendable development in the evolution of Federal policy. Its approach could be implemented on an overall basis for as many Federal programs as are relevant to urban development.

5. Federal approaches, on a program-by-program basis, can also help secure the advantages of area wide coordination and planning, although the route of S. 855 seems preferable. Requirements for metropolitan workable programs or for consistency of project proposals with metropolitan plans can be made part of particular aid programs. Grants for open space acquisition and

mass transportation are now conditioned upon conformity with comprehensive plans for urban areas. For maximum benefit, such requirements should call clearly for compliance with plans that are comprehensive rather than limited to a single type of operation-such as transportation or sewerage and areawide rather than limited to a single jurisdiction. Many current planning requirements for Federal programs require only single function plans for the activity in question and plans covering only the unit of government where the project is to be located.

6. Better interagency coordination is also needed at the Federal level, to bring Federal programs, affecting urban development, in line with one another. The above approaches will set up a useful framework for achieving such coordination, but much will depend upon the day-to-day administration of the Federal programs. It will be incumbent upon the Federal administrators to give careful and sympathetic attention to metropolitan plans and review recommendations. If these are subject to inconsistent interpretations by Federal officials, or if they are used primarily to insulate Federal agencies from local conflicts and promote increased program expenditures, the Federal Government will derive little longrange benefit from metropolitan planning.

7. Additional Federal action is also desirable to promote effective, coordinated action at the local level. First, financial incentives for local cooperation and joint action are desirable, such as those now included in the open space and sewage treatment plant programs. Second, Federal programs should take account of the widespread inequalities in tax resources and service needs within urban areas and should be administered so that the financial burdens will not further widen the disparities between tax-poor and tax-rich localities which, by distorting local decisionmaking, can interfere with the sound direction of metropolitan growth. Third, because of the strong Federal interest in effective metropolitan planning, continuing financial assistance to metropolitan agencies, as well as educational assistance for training personnel in this field, is clearly warranted.

8. The Federal Government should continue and increase its present direct support of metropolitan planning through the 701 program. In addition, it should contribute to the metropolitan agencies on a cost or cost-plus basis for any advisory services rendered.

9. There is a considerable potential for new and creative State legislation in forwarding metropolitan planning. The metropolitan planning agencies are and will be instrumentalities of the States, operating within the authorization defined for it by State legislation and having greatest and most intimate effect on State and local concerns. New State legislation is needed to create viable metropolitan planning agencies where none exist and to reorganize ineffective ones whether on a decentralized, region-byregion basis, as divisions of a central State planning body, or as commissions working directly through the Governor's office. Clearer definition of agency duties and powers, as well as surer sources of financing are necessary conditions of future success. 10. State administrative action could be geared more to metro