Chapter II CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS The objective of urban development programs is to build better communities-whole communities; it is not enough merely to build better highways, schools, or sewers. How well do Federal aid programs satisfy this essential objective? Is it possible to establish standards of value that should be met by any urban development program if it is to be most effective? In this chapter, six criteria are identified which may be useful in judging the appropriateness and adequacy of organization and planning provisions prescribed by Federal programs aiding urban development. The first of these criteria establishes a standard for Federal interagency coordination; the remaining five deal with Federal aid requirements concerning the role of State and local governments in carrying out and coordinating the aided programs at the operating level. One. The extent to which Federal programs affecting urban development are coordinated with each other.-Coordination among Federal programs is essential if the objective of orderly urban development is to be attained. This is particularly true among such undertakings as laying out an interstate highway system, providing public housing, encouraging economic growth, and clearing slums. Such programs have become increasingly interdependent and their impact on total community goals and values more pronounced with the growth of population densities and the improvement in communication and other technologies. Coordination of separate but interdependent Federal programs would reduce the danger that the benefits of one will cancel out those of another. Coordination would, as well, serve to bring Federal and local objectives into closer accord, and help assure that interrelated projects would be considered together and approved in mutually beneficial forms.1 Two. The extent to which planning for comprehensive urban development by jurisdictions is encouraged or discouraged.-Coordination is no less important among local jurisdictions whose representatives are close enough to any particular project to prepare adequately detailed and realistic plans for the physical development of their urban area. It would not only be prohibitively expensive to maintain Federal employees locally for such purpose but the practice would constitute an unwarranted intrusion of the National Government into State and local affairs. But many local governments, as they stand today, do not have adequate authority to do the required coordinating. Many do not have effective planning processes guiding their own development activities. 1 The importance of coordination between programs has been previously affirmed by the Commission in its April 1961 report on Governmental Structure, Organization, and Planning in Metropolitan Areas," (pp. 52-56) which documented the need for a national urban policy as well as the need for coordination of operating programs. to be the most appropriate for their peculiar circumstances The status quo is supported by inertia * * Therefore, roadblocks to change should be held to a minimum." With Federal policies encouraging localities to plan, organize, and operate effectively in the field of urban development, in accordance with these six criteria, related Federal aid programs could begin to rely upon local governments to provide coordination between interrelated programs, and across traditional political boundaries within contiguous and interrelated areas of urban development. Such reliance would be of mutual advantage, and would greatly improve intergovernmental cooperation. The Federal review could become much less time consuming as the objectives of local governments become clearer. In summary, then, the criteria for judging the adequacy of organization and planning requirements imposed on local jurisdictions by Federal programs of financial aid to urban development are in terms of the extent to which the programs promote (1) policy coordination at the Federal level, (2) local planning for comprehensive urban development, (3) local planning for each aided function, (4) joint planning and performance of work by localities to meet common needs within governmentally fragmented urban areas, (5) general purpose units of local government rather than special purpose units, and (6) organizational flexibility within general purpose units of local government receiving aid. It is against these principles of intergovernmental relations that the surveyed programs are judged. It should be noted, however, that there are wide differences between the programs included in the survey, and similarly wide differences in the objectives sought by individual programs. The criteria may not apply equally to them all. Objectives such as securing the national defense, improving race relations, clearing slums, promoting economic development, equalizing revenue resources between jurisdictions to meet minimum expenditure needs, and alleviating the impact of Federal activities on local communities may present an urgency in certain. situations which takes precedence over general urban development objectives. Nevertheless, all Federal aid programs mentioned in this report affect the form of physical development in urban or urban-rural fringe areas, and since any alteration in one part of an urban environment may start a chain reaction involving many other parts of the environment, urban development objectives should not be set aside lightly. Ibid., p. 69. Chapter III ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS A general review of all Federal aid programs affecting urban development disclosed a wide range of organization and planning requirements which are analyzed in this chapter in terms of five fundamental characteristics of each program. They are (1) Federal interagency working relationships, (2) type of recipient government or other organization receiving aid, (3) the geographic extent of the jurisdiction receiving aid, (4) planning requirements, and (5) other requirements related to planning. The criteria developed in chapter II furnish guidelines for this analysis. (1) Federal interagency working relationships.--Working relationships among different Federal agencies administering related programs have been established in a number of ways-by legislation, by Presidential direction, by formal interagency agreement, and by informal agreements. In addition, working relationships have been established between units within agencies and departments by legislative and administrative means. All except shared revenue programs have at least one of these types of relationships in some portion of their activities. Informal relationships between agencies and departments, and between major component units within the larger agencies and departments, are by far the most common. These cover two-thirds of the programs, if not more. About one-quarter of the programs operate under formal interagency agreements for sharing review responsibilities for plans or projects, and slightly more than one-quarter have legislatively established working relationships. Less than one-fifth have working relationships established by formal Presidential policy. There is no evidence of any general urban development policy for coordinating all Federal programs in the field. A useful example of an interagency coordination policy affecting physical development projects is found in Federal programs concerned with water and related land resources.1 It is a combination of a formal interagency agreement, a presidentally approved interagency coordination policy, and a legislatively established policy. The policy document was prepared by the President's Water Resources Council, composed of the Secretaries of the Army, Interior, Agriculture, and Health, Education, and Welfare. It represents the culmination of many years of interagency coordination and study which began with the National Resources Planning Board in the 1930's and various interagency committees, such as Federal Interagency River Basin Committee (FIARBC) and the Interagency Committee on Water Resources (IACWR). There has also been specific legislation 1 U.S. President's Water Resources Council, "Policies, Standards, and Procedures in the Formulation, Evaluation, and Review of Plans for Use and Development of Water and Related Land Resources," S. Doc. 97, 87th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962). to be the most appropriate for their pecul In summary, then, th zation and planning Federal programs of the extent to wha the Federal level, t velopment, (8) planning and m within goven" units of local g organizational a ernment r of 1 Vith s Composer Lairma Commiss mista r their des Teation. # at the N e past to y. The Pra, nem* mental re It show Act; sec. 1, 1945 Coordination Act. all water resources departments and has e with Senate Resolusuch a berment. The y were curces policy is aferan developish and restoration. andment facilities. the broadest which was set Housing additions wi Home FiS" Commisr the Home ministration, Commerce; There is no as wontributed veral urban the one bei Home Fining project rent allows Touis DepartSon (Housnsportation ve urban desors underint regional amber of biance in ad →an Renewal aring overall 2) the Small applications, a preparing iral areas. ating urban eaith, EducaBY Facilities for engineerassistance in Sortation plan greement in objectives in objective is The localities S economical use OGRAM reements have both types of objectives or some bor. Actual joint administration of pooled as common, however, as the sharing by ation review duties by advisory referrals ole for approval of the application to another e subsidiary program interest or technical com or overall coordination of the public works acceleraas given to the President by Congress, and delegated ent to the Area Redevelopment Administration of the t of Commerce. Other examples of Presidential involveeragency coordination include his vesting of responsibility all coordination of Federal programs in the field of outdoor on in a newly created Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in the rtment of the Interior, which later received legislative status for Sluties. Disaster relief is coordinated directly from the Executive ce of the President under legislation establishing specific roles for number of other executive agencies. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act is an example of legislatively prescribed interagency coordination. It requires that any Federal department or agency wishing to alter any stream or body of water must first consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the purpose of preventing loss of and damage to such resources as well as providing for the development and improvement thereof in connection with water development. The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 established the General Services Administration as a governmental coordinating agency for surplus land disposal. The Federal Airport Act of 1946, as amended, establishes interagency coordination between the Federal Aviation Agency, the Civil Aeronautics Board, and the Departments of Air Force, Navy, and Interior for purposes of preparing the national airport plan and planning the safe use of airspace. Although not exhaustive, the above listings of interagency coordinating devices indicate the range of possibilities available. (2) Type of recipient.-Governmental recipients of Federal aid are most commonly defined by legislation in one of two ways: (1) a specific type of agency such as a State highway department or a metropolitan planning agency, or (2) a full range of governments, including general purpose as well as special purpose units of government, and even giving a choice between State and local units in some cases. Nearly half the Federal programs require some degree of State supervision or involvement. This ranges from the total involvement of State highway departments in planning and constructing interstate and primary highway systems, to a simple certification by State education agencies that the data submitted by local school boards, on applications for Federal aid in federally impacted areas, appears to be correct. State supervision in many of these cases can be exercised to aid coordination across local political boundaries, if not between different types of aid. A few programs provide for coordinating committees or cooperative agreements to bridge jurisdictional gaps and overlaps perhaps best known is the 1962 Highway Act that requires any metropolitan area wishing to remain eligible for Federal highway grants after 1965 to |