Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Among the major findings of the Commission report are that almost all of the Federal aids are available to special-purpose units of government at the State or local level, as well as cities, counties, and other general governments, and almost half are available to nongovernmental persons or groups. Only four of the programs survey so space, urban renewal, community renewal, and public housing) had the positively stated objective of implementing locally adopted comprehensive plans for urban development.

Through one means or another—legislative or administrative, formal or informal—a little more than one-quarter of the surveyed programs provide that aided projects should not be inconsistent with comprehensive plans for urban development, if such plans exist. About one-quarter of the programs operate under formal interagency agree: ments for sharing review responsibilities for plans or projects, and another quarter have legislatively established working relationships.

The Senate Committee on Government Operations has as one of its functions the duty of studying intergovernmental relations and overseeing the work of the o Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. This responsibility has been delegated to the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. The Commission has made a number of fundamental recommendations for reorientation of many of the Federal urban development programs in order that they may be better administered through effective and responsible State and local recipients coordinated with each other and with local planning and deci* This publication will provide the basis for further examination by the subcommittee, by the affected Federal agencies concerned, and by others concerned with the impact of Federal programs on urban development.

EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations.

MAY 30, 1964.

IMPACT OF FEDERAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING

ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIt NS

[As of January 24, 1964]

FRANK BANE, Chairman
DoN HUMMEL, Vice Chairman

John ANDERson, Jr., Governor of Kansas
NEAL S. BLA1sor. LL., Mayor, Honolulu, Hawaii
HowARD R. Bowen, Citizen Member, Grinnell, Iowa
ANTHoNY J. CELEBREzze, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welson c
Edward Connor, Supervisor, Wayne County, Mich.
C. Doug LAs DILLON, Secretary of the Treasury
CLAIR Donnenwirth, Supervisor, Plumas County, Calif.
Flore NCE. P. Dwyer (Mrs.), Member of the House of Representatives
SAM J. Ervin, JR., Member of the Senate
L. H. Fountain, Member of the House of Representatives
EUGENE. J. Keogh, Member of the House of Representatives
KARL E. MUNDT, Member of the Senate
EDMUND S. MUskIE, Member of the Senate
ARTHUR NAFTALIN, Mayor, Minneapolis, Minn.
GRAHAM S. NEWELL, Member of the State Senate, Montpelier, Vt.
John E. Powers, President, State Senate, Boston, Mass.
CARL E. SANDERs, Governor of Georgia
Robert E. SMYLIE, Governor of Idaho
RAYMOND R. TUCKER, Mayor, St. Louis, Mo.
Robert C. WEAver, Administrator, Housing and Home Finance Agency
BARBARA A. WILcox (Mrs.), Commissioner, Washington County, Oreg.
[Vacancy], Governor

[Vacancy], State legislator

[Vacancy], Mayor

W.M. G. ColMAN, Earecutive Director VI

PREFACE

The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations was established by $o. Law 380, passed by the 1st session of the 86th Congress and approved by the President September 24, 1959. Section 2 of the act sets forth the following declaration of purpose and specific responsibilities for the Commission:

SEC. 2. Because the complexity of modern life intensifies the need in a Federal form of government for the fullest cooperation and coordination of activities between the levels of government, and because population growth and scientific developments portend an increasingly complex society in future years, it is essential that an appropriate agency be estab: lished to give continuing attention to intergovernmental problems. It is intended that the Commission, in the performance of its duties, will— (1) bring together representatives of the Federal, State, and local governments for the consideration of common problems; (2) provide a forum for discussing the administration and coordination of Federal grant and other programs requiring intergovernmental cooperation; (3) give critical attention to the conditions and controls involved in the administration of Federal grant programs; (4) make available technical assistance to the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government in the review of proposed legislation to determine its overall effect on the Federal system; (5) encourage discussion and study at an early stage of emerging public problems that are likely to require intergovernmental cooperation; (6) recommend, within the framework of the Constitution, the most desirable allocation of governmental functions, responsibilities, and revenues among the several levels of government; and (7) recommend methods of coordinating and simplifying tax laws and administrative practices to achieve a more orderly and less competitive fiscal relationship between the levels of government and to reduce the burden of compliance for taxpayers.

Pursuant to its statutory responsibilities, the Commission from time to time singles out for study and recommendation particular problems, the amelioration of which in the Commission's view would enhance cooperation among the different levels of government and thereby improve the effectiveness of the Federal system of government as established by the Constitution. Two subjects so identified by the Commission relate to the problems of freeing local governments of restrictions which reduce their effectiveness in providing urban services, and of coordinating the many diverse Federal programs affecting urban development. Despite the great interest in federal programs of assistance for the physical development of urban areas during the last few years, no systematic study had been undertaken of the impact of these programs on the plans and organizational structure of socal government in the United States. The following report provides a detailed and systematic analysis of the major Federal programs assisting urban development, and several policy recommendations for State and Federal action to improve local government organization, local government planning, and Federal interagency coordination. This report was adopted at a meeting of the Commission on January

24, 1964. FRANK BANE, Chairman.

« AnteriorContinuar »