92p CONGRESS ;
ist Session } SENATE

PAPERS ON NATIONAL LAND USE
POLICY ISSUES

PREPARED FOR THE

‘COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND
INSULAR AFFAIRS
HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman
UNITED STATES SENATE
BY

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION
BOSTON UNIVERSITY

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-242 WASHINGTON : 1971

LD

Los
3s
idl

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado
ALAN BIBLE, Nevada LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona
FRANK E. MOSS, Utah CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon
GEORGE McGOVERN, South Dakota TED STEVENS, Alaska

LEE METCALF, Montana HENRY BELLMON, Oklahoma

MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska Fs
JERRY T. VERKLER, Staff Director
WILLIAM J. VAN NEss, Chief Counsel
DANIEL DREYFUS, Professional Staff Member
CHARLES COOK, Minority Counsel

(15)

|

tl

|

LOAN

O 0301 0069344 &

CONTENTS

lhettemoigimane mitted popes Mapes wind) el one neo chapel oes oo fan 1
Letter offintzoduction.js21sizile: alt des gads alia bs ire oodles oe oe 5
Part I. Public involvement in new community development___________-_ a
Introduction
Overview
A. Guidelines for State involvement in the development of new
communities in Massachusetts: Toward a State urban
STOW yPOMC Vs Rey steer OO aye th ee oN ge Ope 9

LAWRENCE ELLIOTT SUSSKIND, MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

The need for effective State involvement in the urbani-
zation process has never been more critical. Constitu-
tionally, the States are the ultimate holders of the police
power. Politically, State governments are at least one
step removed from the interjurisdictional conflicts which
so often impede areawide planning for metropolitan
growth. For these and numerous other reasons, any
rational policy allocating responsibility for the develop-
ment of urbanizing land and lagging regions would more
than likely assign a wide range of powers to the State
governments. State governments need to decide what
strategy they will adopt to insure balanced regional
development and what types of incentive-control systems
they will employ to foster efficient, equitable, and
ecologically sound land usage.

B. Public involvement in new community development: Justifica-
tion, problems and a proposal________________1_-_______ 57

R. STEPHEN BROWNING, HARVARD UNIVERSITY

* * * with all the publicity given to the concept of new

communities, very little positive action has been taken by

either the public or the private sectors to help develop

them * * * the problem with the new community concept

is more political and legal in nature * * * institutional

structures do not exist which would be capable of suc-

cessfully undertaking such a large scale task. Moreover, it

is not yet clear * * * whether they would have the con-

stitutional authority to act.
Pabbeultwecteationall land uselissues.--=—- 22222525220 c oso ee See ee 107
Introduction

A. The crisis in shoreline recreation: A report on land use manage-

mentunetMercoustalezonest. hit == ead Se See ee 107

DENNIS W. DUCSIK, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
TECH NOLOGY

[In the past] there has been no perceived need for
publie interference in the allocative workings of the pri-
vate market (with respect to public recreational lands),
the result is that today, approximately 90 percent of this
limited unique commodity is under private control, 3
percent is restricted military area and only 5 to 7 percent
of the shoreline is publicly owned. Thus land along the
coastline has become one of the most scarce of our valuable
natural resources * * * Jt has become increasingly clear in
recent vears that the private market mechanisms in our
economic system are failing to incorporate important
societal values and are not providing for proper expression
of these values * * *

B. Pricing policies for public recreation lands____________---- 145

(IIT)

IV

W. ROBERT PATTERSON, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY

The supply of: land. for reereation and open spaces
is limited. The recreational use of these available lands
must compete with-all- other possible uses. * * * In the
long run, the people must indicate how they would like
these lands to be used, by their preference in the market
place or indirectly through the political process. This paper
focuses upon the pricing policy in the establishment and
management of parks and recreational areas * * * and
looks specifically at the public or private good arguments

relative to pricing. Page
Part III. HUoinesdil problemsroeticoastalland use 4! _ 29/3 ae 161
Introduction
Overview
A. Land“use estuarine interactions. 222" 3) 3222 22s eee 163

BRADFORD BUTMAN, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY

The coastal counties in the United States account for

15 percent of the land area and support 33 percent of the

population, four-fifths of it in urban areas. These urban

areas constitute 15 percent of the estuarine zone. * * *

With such dense population, estuarine regions have

many use-conflicts. * * * The estuary is an extremely

valuable, nonrenewable resource, and land uses which

modify the estuarine environment should be strictly
examined and controlled..

B. The ecological importance of a salt marsh_________________ 169

B. W. TRIPP, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

A salt marsh is an integral part of the estuarine system
which it borders. * * * [It] is of vital importance to man
and this can be readily seen when commercially important
organisms and: their relationships to salt marshes are
studied. The coastal fishery has its beginnings in the
marsh. * * * The salt marsh serves man in other ways
besides supplying most of the seafood that is consumed
by him. It serves as a buffer zone that protects the up-
land against disastrous flooding and erosion. * * * If the
marsh is destroyed, sediment normally deposited here
becomes available for deposition in channels, harbors, and
other navigable areas.

C. The effect of sedimentation on primary production in the
wet lands Was

JOE MACILVAINE, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC
INSTITUTION

Man may alter the amount of sediment in the wetlands
by a wide variety of actions. * * * Especially delete-
rious to primary production are dredging and filling
projects on submerged banks, tidal areas, and salt
marshes, where the effects of such operations are pain-
fully obvious. That such operations continue to be so
common is testimony to the public’s ee as to the

value of these wetlands.
D. Some considerations of the effects of natural fa manmade

anoxic conditions on the surrounding environment__-_-_-_-- 189

Vv

KENNETH MOPPER, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC
INSTITUTION

The land-sea interface has greater biological diversity
and productivity than any other area in the world. * * *
It is exactly at this interface that pollution and exploita-
tion by man is causing severe and perhaps irreversible
destruction to one of his major food supplies. Also, the
potential for cultivating coastal regions to feed future
generations can be greatly diminished by the continued
practice of dumping highly toxic materials in the form of
industrial and agricultural wastes into these waters. It is
easy to say that the ocean can handle pollutants, even
resistant ones such as chlorinated hydrocarbons (DDT
and its derivatives) and radionuclides (plutonium-239,
strontium-90, cesium-137) by its great dilution powers.
However, such statements ignore the fact that there are
processes in nature which can concentrate diluted pollut-
ants to a point of being lethal to the organisms involved. Page

Part lV Powerplant siting.im coastal areas... 2. 2 199
Introduction
A Ofishoretpowerplant sitingane oly iged) fa, Bry ie bgt 199

DENNIS W. DUCSIK, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY

It is estimated that, by 1980, the electric power indus-
try will require about one-sixth of the total available fresh
water runoff in the entire Nation for cooling purposes and
this demand for water will continue to grow. While cooling
towers and cooling ponds are technically feasible, they can
involve cost increases of up to 20 percent of the capital
cost of an installed generating plant * * * (The offshore
concept) provides a viable alternative to land based power
stations and can eliminate some of the most serious
problems * * * faced in meeting our Nation’s increasing
demands for electric power.

0 ion = 2000. evs err Asc.
| ; Grr ete ay i bp adele
ei, imiggloid + TBE: ol “tia adit Huse baci oat
Phe Abhi ofS oF pers ee wie ees Way Ebon | hire
easiolyx babatifeb time, 2: aaa di ih a8
hae sn as ane Seiten tL gd 3G hie vaved galt
tt 6S ae aie BGT jase
ee te srgnga? bsidss 9 riaent ;
ane inbhrOD re

ate ei otbes . rays
eerily: oa

MEMORANDUM OF TRANSMITTAL FROM THE
CHAIRMAN

To the members of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs:

A major cause of discouragement in contemporary society has been
the lack of adequate opportunity for serious and responsible young
people to make meaningful contributions in important public decisions.
I am concerned that advanced university students particularly have
expressed frustration over the limited opportunities for such involve-
ment. It frequently happens that after they have invested time and
energy in the acquisition of skills and knowledge, and pursued their
advanced academic work they are obliged to apply their talents in
esoteric research and analyses which go largely unnoticed and unused
beyond the classroom. This situation gives substance to the complaint
that much of formal education is not relevant to the pressing problems
of our times.

There is no lack of able young people with good ideas to call upon.
In my view, it is wasteful to allow many man-years of the best in-
tellectual efforts of trained graduate students—tomorrow’s leaders—
to be focused on exercises which lack relevance to today’s concerns.
We must find the means to better utilize this valuable and scarce
resource.

In the activities of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Commit-
tee there are many occasions when scholarly and in depth research,
analysis, and innovative thought by persons trained in a wide variety
of disciplines and unshackled by institutional attitudes and conven-
tional wisdom could be of immeasurable assistance. The committee’s
professional staff can, of course, give only limited time and bring
only a few disciplines—law, engineering, public administration—to a
particular study. These limitations are shared by all congressional
committees and are even more pronounced in the State legislatures.

Recently, the Interior Committee participated in a preliminary ex-
periment which was intended to focus the work of several advanced
students on the information-gathering and research needs of the com-
mittee in a particular subject area. In December of 1969, faculty and
student representatives of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
visited with the staff of the committee to discuss a proposed seminar.
This discussion lead to an agreement that students representing a wide
variety of academic disciplines would be presented with a policy issue
of current interest to the committee. The students would perform re-
search and prepare papers which, while fulfilling academic require-
ments of the institute, would also provide meaningful and timely back-
ground information for the committee’s use and consideration. During
the course of the studies, it was agreed that opportunities would be
provided for discussions among the participating students and. profes-
sors, the committee staff and, if possible, committee members.

(1)

)

_

On December 16, 1969, I wrote to Prof. Carroll L. Wilson of MIT’s
Sloan School of Management indicating my willingness to cooperate
in the development of such a seminar.! During the ensuing spring
term, the program was initiated. National land use policy was selected
as the issue to be studied, because at that time the committee staff
was preparing draft legislation (S. 3354) to establish a national policy
and a nationwide program for land use planning.

Although there was insufficient time to prepare a carefully directed
program for that semester, a number of professors and students who
were engaged in programs related to the general issue expressed interest
in the committee’s activities. Members of the committee staff met with
the participants at MIT twice during the school term to discuss the
legislation. Mr. Michael Telson, representing the MIT group, visited
the committee on several occasions and acted as project coordinator.

A number of students prepared papers which directly relate to
problems of land use policy and land use management. I have ordered
the texts, or in some cases appropriate excerpts from the texts, of those
papers printed for the use of the committee, the Congress, the execu-
tive branch, and others who have an interest in land use management.
Together with the hearings on S. 3354 these papers provide a thorough
and recent compilation of materials dealing with the need for a national
land-use policy. They will be of value to scholars and students of public
administration in evaluating alternative policies and strategies for
future management of the Nation’s land resource base.

I am hopeful that this unique association between the committee
and university faculty members and students will provide experience
for further refinement, expansion, and development of similar coopera-
tive projects. Based on this current experience, I feel certain that the
contribution of the university community to the ongoing work of this
committee can be greatly increased. The potential benefits of such
activities to the committee, the students, and perhaps ultimately to
other schools and legislative groups, I believe, warrant our further
efforts.

Henry M. Jackson, Chairman.

D&EcEMBER 16, 1969.
Prof. Carrot L. Witson,

Sloan School of Management,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Proressor Witson: As you are aware, Messrs. William H.
Matthews and Michael L. Telson of M.I.T. met with the staff of the
Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to discuss your
interest in organizing a seminar at M.1.T.

As I understand it, the seminar would provide advanced students
of various disciplines with an opportunity to participate in studies
which are relevant to a current issue of interest to the Committee.
The particular area of interest to the Committee. The particular
area of interest which was discussed as a topic for a seminar in the

spring term of 1970, and perhaps the following summer, was national
land-use policies.

1 The text of the letter is printed at the conclusion of this memorandum.

3

The committee has a strong interest in national policies for the
development of natural resources, and, of course, the use of our land
resource underlies all resource development planning end decisions.
We have recently seen a very serious example of a failure in effective
land-use planning at the Federal, State and local level in connection
with the Everglades National Park.

In the next few months, the committee will be considering alterna-
tives to improve the way in which land-use decisions are currently
being made. We will particularly be concerned with measures . hich
may be taken to insure that Federal progress and policies are con-
sistant with sound land-use planning, to encourage and assist the
States in implementing land-use planning efforts, and to protect the
Federal investment in public and resources from degradation caused by
unsound development decisions.

It appears that there would be an excellent opportunity for a group
of students with appropriate faculty participation to explore this issue
and to make significant contributions. The results of their studies
might be of value to the committee and to others who will be partici-
pating in Federal decision on landuse policy.

Some examples of the kinds of studies which might contribute to
these decisions are:

Annotated bibliographies of the recent literature on land-use
policy or planning or portions of such literature, particularly with
the alternative ideas and recommendations set forth.

Commentaries on the broad problem of land-use planning drawn
from the viewpoints of various disciplines such as law, political
science, engineering, architecture, resource development, and
sociology.

Examinations of existing National and State plans which in-
volve substantial land and related resource use to see what con-
flicts may be involved as the plans are implemented to see what
major areas of land-use are not covered by existing plans.

Surveys of typical existing State and local land-use planning
entities to analyze the impact of Federal policies upon their efforts.

Surveys of State land-use planning agencies and policies both
existing and proposed.

There are certainly other kinds of studies which might be suggested
according to the interests and backgrounds of the students who would
be involved.

If you decide to proceed with the seminar, I will be pleased to offer
whatever cooperation is possible. The Committee staff will try to
arrange suitable meetings for consultation to assist in orientation of
the participants, in the development of study topics, and in discussion
of the results.

If the studies prove to be useful, it is possible that the papers or
suitable summaries could be incorporated in committee prints and
hearing records to provide background on the issues. If there are
significant findings, it is possible that they might be presented at
committee hearings or at an informal meeting with committee members.

I appreciate having this opportunity to assist in your efforts. Please
keep me advised of the progress of your work.

With best regards,

Sincerely yours,

Henry M. Jackson, Chairman.

yrds» Daas w

| on roan bean

‘mths B54 ails ypf as Oi AGEs het ead ! :

othh defeea _ Vong. eo 9 ee pn naniscal Beusbsd
ony 6). bap vabroitie isheqeiseley oetieD ish

o fob ubetoob: ALTOS ie er Laws Be bossy

Pah Pulia Rota cela Ss aeore auelat RAE A A ie

«(Lees ge “Ey vf *pbiorer Loe qq: WAG olla CRS. eo, hyped a
alined ei Moly, oF. toukeq tal inc thwoehade
eo iT ari te “vias lo eave, yeh actenh chin tion cid

EOE sc] itd, Je WOW, otto Ol bits aad tannon ote
BI Sas a irae at Mak (HOE I “ens ty Nitree HO TL OA RG:

; ry ; ‘ beak . j roti Wa
Ot adiuliytsteg ielphen oul he eas viiyete to haul, ago si

140 saridgiad hiss yearned. to. ayisl pagoda
OL ov .cclpadiy: aA asg y sare dog Ih 41104 0K, 40-8 ential
ies sl PETA yl OOF enti) DEDOETEITO pt Py4 is egy EEG E
i} ote Jey “paint veted 10 caglder Hep Pierre ‘ yf HO Pont
My tig! . peronae

;

aly Leh OIA DL 2d VORA LE a sac

T
i a haere
Laottils Pin MI EDM ABS PEER bee pitta) tee : Diy mate

}
Lyryie ytd

i
(heh 1€

« aay 7 7 f 5 jan ae oer | cal hot
SEL SMA SGI ephaden tee be enti,

hevart ier tyes 4 Rap acti
IO BILE Ate. Ost Seb ey TO Prats |
tad ina ; Kot ees } Hy pep aradies
IW EREV IN. Shen Od { VELLA EY giholey ee et et 0 Sea AKO NN i
Biidetas. Tl bea Fog AOC.

eS ENE splq Seu! ron Ss
seMolls sind 1x0 Sige
r f

fidod saing! LOG Dit (Ral EO Rs a

hipdkeocrn ein +i i ATE Vi)
t Oe | P ‘ 1 p
Apel 7 | f LEY WETS f
y ‘ L “9 }
r Ahi f “Ves ha GY {
Yy i a 4S pe } Tee .
Petes Ay iit ‘f ini a
r . . i i
) riehed freey, ot i fps LOOPY *
os POAT Perks i hy be ld
17 BT ‘Hy a4 Dstt r: ai Ne is ths
hyer; PETE TCL ty Ven TELL Ome. Fie) TCH AS
t a ’ ¥ 1m c r
a" iss LW POR as 8} Bt off} Lee LA
+7." a ORE ie EUR es el os
ipa Hediazst} aT | PIVEN POA Pieri oldiecog. +

DEE APNE 5 cf lercrte tel ics { fas pose
964!" Leh aits LOW Ub tte 33 inmate elated

BIO Or Te eANraOT dy”

Pr oct CMe SLATS EC yee

ie

MDAUIKY HOOAT WE raved

LETTER OF INTRODUCTION

The MIT national land-use policy project was created in the spring
of 1970 as a vehicle to involve students and faculty at MIT and
neighboring universities including Boston University, Tufts Uni-
versity, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in—

(1) A broad interdisciplinary study that would borrow from many
fields of study, promote their interaction, and try to mtegrate their
expertise at the interface relating to land-use policy.

Our groups included biologists, ecologists, physicists, civil engineers,
mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, management and operations
research students, political scientists, and lawyers. This interaction
was particularly valuable since it seems to us that interdisciplinary
teams will in the future play a greater role in the formulation and solu-
tions of our Nation’s, indeed the world’s, increasingly complex
problems. There is a strong need for us as a Nation to develop a team
capability in order to devise effective and comprehensive systemwide
solutions to our problems. We welcome the National Science Founda-
tion’s interdisciplinary problem research program and are hopeful
of its contributions toward developing this capability.

(2) An opportunity to become involved in an interactive fashion
with members and staff of the Senate Interior Committee and the
Congressional Research Service on a major issue of national impor-
tance, the development of national land use policies with special
regard given toward building environmental criteria into such policies.

We would like to point out the project’s timeliness in that the Senate
Interior Committee had introduced preliminary legislation, referred
to as the National Land Use Policy Act of 1970, on January 29, 1970,
so that our project had a focus which provided a clear sense of urgency.
We also feel that the project was particularly useful and interesting
to both parties because of the high degree of close interaction that
developed between the student-faculty group and the Senate com-
mittee and staff as witnessed through Boston visits of the committee
staff on two separate occasions, through Washington visits by the
student study director, Michael L. Telson, to three sets of hearings on
the legislation, and through very frequent telephone and mail contacts.

We feel that on both of the above counts the project was an excellent
learning experience for those involved. We hope that the project will
serve as a model for future cooperative efforts.

We have included for publication within some of the papers that
were written for the project. We have taken the liberty of freely
excerpting from them when appropriate and have broadly classified
the papers into areas involving aspects of land use management
problems.

The papers by Mr. Dennis W. Ducsik have been obtained through
the courtesy of the MIT Press that will publish the papers in full as
part of the book ‘Project NECAP” to appear in the fall of 1971.
Project NECAP (New England Coastal Area Planning) involved an

(5)

6

interdisciplinary graduate study at MIT during the spring of 1970 and
was carried out under the sponsorship of the MIT Sea Grant project
office.

The project was very inexpensive; we owe a debt of gratitude to
those who made it possible: the Senate Interior Committee, its pro-
fessional staff, particularly Mr. Daniel Dreyfus, and its chairman,
Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington, and the Environmental
Policy Division of the Congressional Research Service of the Library
of Congress and its assistant chief, Mr. Wallace Bowman, for their |
freely extended cooperation and advice.

We should also like to thank those faculty and students who partici-
pated in the project in addition to those whose names appear in the
excerpted articles appearing within. The faculty members include:
From MIT, Professors J. Clarkeson, J. Devanney III, M. Driscoll,
W. Matthews, L. Rodwin, J. Schaake, W. Seifert and D. Wilson; from
Boston University, Prof: W. Ryckman; from Woods Hole Oceano-
alas Institution, Prof. J. Teal; and from Tufts University, Prof.

owd.

Carrout L. Witson,
Professor, Sloan School of Management,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

PART I.—PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN NEW COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT

This part includes excerpts from two papers concerning the appro-
priate role of State government in assisting in and regulating the
development of new communities. Clearly, many of the most. fre-
quently noted and most urgent of land use problems are those in-
volving the metropolitan areas and the influences of uncontrolled
urban sprawl. The predictable population increases of the foreseeable
future can be readily translated into requirements for homes and
services in an urban setting. Many of today’s most serious planning
problems center around the projections of this unavoidable urban
erowth.

We have included in this section only parts of the papers written by
our authors. As the overview statement indicates, the original papers
contain significant additional discussion and data of interest to students
of the new community concept.

OVERVIEW

The need for effective State involvement in the urbanization process
has never been more critical. Constitutionally, the States are the
ultimate holders of the police power. Politically, State governments
are at least one step removed from the interjurisdictional conflicts
which so often impede areawide planning for metropolitan growth.
For these and numerous other reasons, any rational policy allocating
responsibility for the development of urbanizing land and lagging
regions would more than likely assign a wide range of powers to the
State governments.

State governments need to decide what strategy they will adopt to
insure balanced regional development and what types of incentive-
control systems they will employ to foster efficient, equitable, and
ecologically sound land usage. Should the States charter nonprofit
corporations empowered to acquire land and plan and develop new
towns or new communities? Should they authorize groups of cities
and towns to acquire, purchase, or take by eminent domain non-
contiguous tracts of land for open space, transportation corridors,
utility purposes or for private community and environmental de-
velopment? Should the exercise of such powers be subject to the
approval of regional planning and development agencies? Should the
States designate land areas in which the public has a special interest?
Could State planning agencies prepare and administer direct land
use and development controls which would insure that future de-
velopment would meet State objectives? These kinds of questions are
fundamental to the formulation of a State urban growth policy. Each
State will have to wrestle with these questions if we are to establish
a coordinated, overall national urban growth strategy.

(7)

8

One strategy—the new community development stratery—holds
out great promise for effective land utilization and for meeting the
pressing needs of those presently trapped in decaying cities. After
weighing the economic, social, political, and physical/technological
considerations embodied in this approach to urban development, we
are prepared to advocate this approach instead of many others that
have been suggested. Two detailed studies of the potential role of
State governments in planning and developing new communities
as part of unified State land use planning efforts have been completed.
The first paper, “Guidelines, for State Involvement in the Develop-
ment of New Communities in Massachusetts: Toward a State Urban
Growth Policy,” was written by Mr. Lawrence E. Susskind, a recent
oraduate of the MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning.
His paper is concerned with the role of State government in the plan-
ning and development of new communities. Using Massachusetts as a
case study, Mr. Susskind explores a variety of techniques for selecting
sites for new community development and explores the potential
economic impact of developing new communities as growth centers in
metropolitan urban regions. The second, “Public Involvement in New
Community Development: Justifications, Problems, and a Proposal”’
was carried out by Mr. R. Stephen Browning. Mr. Browning is a
lawyer and a recent graduate of the Department of City and Regional
Planning at Harvard University. His paper examines the significant
legal and political issues which underlie many of the present obstacles
to public development of new communities. In addition, he offers a
proposed model statute which seeks to reformulate and reconcile many
of these issues into a new political structure for the development of
new communities at the State government level. There is some overlap
between the two studies, but the political strategies recommended by
the two authors differ markedly.

These two papers should serve as an introduction to the political,
economic, legal, and social problems of new community development.
The annotated bibliography that appears as the end of both papers
should help to identify other studies and readings that would be of
interest.

A. GuIpDELINES FoR STATE INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
New Communities In Massacuusetts: TowarpD A STATE URBAN
GrowtTH Po.uicy

(By Lawrence Elliott Susskind, M.I.T.)

Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt of Mr. Susskind’s paper; from
which we include the introduction, Chapters I, III and IV.

This paper is concerned with establishing guidelines for State
involvement in the development of new communities in Massachu-
setts. State planning for urban growth, specifically State involvement
in the planning and development of new communities must be under-
taken within a systematic and carefully defined intergovernmental
framework. State policies and plans expressed in the form of public
works, the allocation of resources, the use of taxing and borrowing
powers, the development of transportation linkages and the sum
total of all actions taken by various State agencies can ‘make or
break” new community development in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

At present no State policy exists which can reconcile the competing
interests which play a role in directing urban growth in the Common-
wealth: (1) the developers worried about their ability to control,
program, and profit from urban development; (2) the residents of
urbanizing areas concerned about State intervention in local decisions
relative to community and environmental development, and (3) the
wider regional interests concerned about the quality, scope and phas-
ing of development.

Chapter I offers a definition of new communities and establishes
the theoretical rationale for the development of new communities in
metropolitan urban areas as part of a State urban growth policy.
Chapter II measures the potential for the development of new com-
munities of approximately 50,000 persons each throughout Massa-
chusetts, and indicates those areas which are ripe for such develop-
ment. Chapter III examines three alternative new community devel-
opment strategies indicating the political and financial feasibility as
well as the public benefits of each strategy. Chapter IV concludes with
a discussion of alternative incentive-control systems for guiding
urban growth, with an outline for an intergovernmental planning-
implementation framework for new community development and a
series of questions which need to be considered by State officials and
the public at large prior to the implementation of a State program
for new community development.

(9)

10
INTRODUCTION

Tore Roue or STATE GOVERNMENT IN GuipiInc URBAN GrowTH
AND DEVELOPMENT

Kach of us pays for the inefficient and inequitable patterns of urban
development that currently mar the landscape. As metropolitan areas
throughout the United States continue to grow, the social and eco-
nomic costs associated with poorly planned urban growth will come
to represent extremely important political and governmental prob-
lems. There is no simple way of dealing with these mounting social
and economic costs. Even though the rate of technological achieve-
ment has accelerated, the problems that beset our cities and towns
still tend to proliferate. We must face up to the issues raised by
unchecked and uncontrolled urban development:

As our population grows and our technology advances, the decisions about the
use of land and of public revenue become increasingly complex. The governmental
machinery to make these decisions and the governmental influences on private
market decisions have not kept pace with this complexity. As a result, we are
faced with traffic congestion, blight in our central cities, unequal burdens of
suburban expansion, duplication of public facilities, and an inefficient use of public
and private resources.!

At every level of government there are important actions to be
taken if we are to confront these issues successfully. State government,
in particular, has an indispensable role to play in addressing the
problems of urbanization; to a great extent the ability of local govern-
ments to cope with urban growth and development depends on the
attitude and organization of State government (e.g., its willingness to
allocate resources and decisionmaking powers to lower levels of
government). The tools available to localities, the money they spend,
and the powers they exercise are to a great extent determined by a
wide assortment of State constitutional, statutory, and administrative
regulations. Even given the authority and the independence afforded
localities by such provisions as home rule, the State government still
controls and delimits local governmental functioning.”

Even if an overall urban growth policy had been formulated at the
Federal level, planning for future urban development would still be
primarily the responsibility of State governments. It is unfortunate
that the Nation as a whole has not establisled a consistent policy with
respect to the management of the country’s land resources or with
respect to the many Federal programs designed to assist, influence, or
regulate the process of urban development at the State, regional, and
local levels.’ Increasingly there are instances where Federal programs
are in conflict with each other. Federal agencies involved in the
preparation of highway plans, and air transportation plans, water
resource development programs, and community facility improvement
programs, plans to redevelop industrial areas and depollute rivers are
often found to be working at cross purposes. Most of the plans and

1 Guiding ‘Metropolitan Growth’? (New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1960), p. 14.
ie Norman Beckman, “Our Federal System and Urban Development: The Adaptation of Form to Func-
tion,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, (JAIP), vol. XXX, August 1964, p. 155.

# In January 1970, Senator Jackson introduced a bill in Congress to amend the Water Resources Planning
Act (79 Stat. 244) to include provision for a national land use policy by broadening the authority of the
Water Resources Council and river basin commissions and by providing financial assistan’ cefor statewide
Jand use planning. In March 1970 a bill was introduced into the House of Representatives (H.R. 16647)
b y Mr. Ashley ‘‘to provide for the development of a national urban growth policy, and to encourage and
support the rational, orderly, efficient and economic growth and development of our States, metropolitan
areas, Cities, counties, and towns, with emphasis upon the development of new communities and upon inner

city development.” In 1969 Florence Dwyer of New Jersey introduced a bill into the House of Representa-
tives (H.R. 13217) to “provide for the baleuced urban development and growth of the United States.”

11

programs are necessary and desirable. However, to date, these plans
have not been synchronized, nor have they been analyzed to insure
that they are consistent with each other or compatible with local goals
and aspirations. Thus, because many agencies and departments at the
Federal level are pursuing separate programs without adequate coor-
dination, State governments are in a difficult position. They are forced
to deal with a variety of separate agencies, each with its own programs
and priorities and each with its own needs and objectives.

Although several proposals have been made to impose a somewhat
ereater degree of organization on Federal programs and agencies in-
volved in planning for urban growth and development, support for
these measures is far from assured in the near future.* If a national
urban growth policy is not adopted, State government will probably
remain the only level of government sufficiently well structured to
exert control over and bring order to conflicting local and private
interests; or if one of the several national urban growth policies that
has already been proposed is adopted, State government will still have
a crucial role to play since most of the recent proposals rely heavily on
State involvement. In any case, it seems that State governments will
continue to bear most of the responsibility for guiding and directing
urban growth.

State governments possess several critical qualifications that allow
them to play a particularly constructive role in urban development.
States have the power and the financial resources to move broadly on
several fronts simultaneously. States have had experience with far-
ranging programs (highways, recreation, water resources development,
and welfare programs, to name afew) that have had, and will continue
to have, a significant impact on the development of urban areas.°
Moreover, “the State occupies a unique vantage point, broad enough
to allow it to view the details of development within State boundaries
as part of an interrelated system, yet close enough to enable it to treat
urban problems individually and at firsthand.’ °

In the past, the extent to which local governments, especially in
metropolitan areas, have leapfrogged the State to seek Federal
assistance for urban renewal, planning and area redevelopment pur-
poses, suggests that many State governments have been unable or
unwilling to play a major role in guiding urban growth and develop-
ment.’ It would probably be foolish to suggest that all State govern-
ments are presently equipped to deal with the complexities of the
urban development process. However, because State governments
already possess the legal, administrative, and political powers nec-
essary to guide urban development, and because the political and

4 For a discussion of national urban growth policy in the United States, see Lloyd Rodwin, ‘‘Nations
and Cities: A Comparison of Urban Growth Strategies’’ (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co.), 1970.

5 The impact of state agencies in Massachusetts on urban and regional development is described in “‘State
Agencies and Regional Development,’ a study prepared by the Area Development Center, Boston Uni-
versity, for the Massachusetts Department of Commerce and Development through the Massachusetts
Regional Planning Project, October 1966. For an inventory of Massachusetts State programs affecting
urban development see “Myventory of State programs,’’ Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration
and Finance, October 1968, 3 volumes.

6 Council of State Governments, “State Responsibility in Urban Regional Development”’ (Chicago:
Committee on State Planning of the Governors Conference), 1952, p. 18.

7 The present degree of Federal participation in State and local affairs reflects previous failures to antici-
pate needs. This failure in a sense created a vacuum into which the Federal Government moved. Since World
War II, the growth of divect relationships between the Federal Government and cities, counties, and other
units of local government has been of increasing concern to State Governors and legislatures. The tendency
of Federal agencies and of local governments to bypass the States has been “deplored.’’ On the other hand,
the Congress has contended that inaction on the part of State governments should not be permitted to
deprive a local government of Federal aid. (Channelization of Federal Grant Programs for Urban Develop-
‘ment,’ 1966 State Legislative Program of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,
Washington, October 1965.)

57-242—71——_2

12

financial problems of creating new institutional structures with
powers equal to those of State governments are almost insurmountable,
it is important to seek ways in which the leadership potential which
State governments already possess can be realized.

OPTIONS FOR STATE INVOLVEMENT IN THE URBAN
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Many recommendations have been made regarding the need for
State action in the field of urban development.? Most of the recom-
mendations can be grouped under four general headings:

1. The State should provide local and regional governments with
remedial services and assistance when called upon to do so.

2. The State, when it thinks it advisable, should undertake a variety
of direct actions to assist and strengthen local governments in the
exercise of their responsibilities.

3. The State should impose certain controls on the activities of
local governments and private interests in those cases where localities
acting independently of one another cannot reach agreement, or in
those instances where private developers seem intent on taking actions
which are not in the “public interest.”

4. The State should assume an active role in the planning and im-
plementation of new urban growth and/or the redevelopment of
existing cities and towns through a far-ranging program of public in-
vestment and, where necessary, through the creation of new instru-
mentalities.

State involvement in the urban development process will necessarily
vary from area to area within a State, as well as from State to State. In
some instances it may be most appropriate for the State to delegate a
wide assortment of permissive powers to local governments which can
be utilized as the need arises. In other cases, more direct assistance of a
technical or financial nature may be warranted. In some instances,
stringent State regulation or control coupled with the expansion of
State assistance programs in such areas as housing, industrial develop-
ment, transportation, recreation or open space preservation may be
required.

The State’s role vis-a-vis local and Federal Government is change-
able. Actions and approaches will vary widely. In one sense the
options available to State government can be viewed on a continuum
extending from relatively indirect to markedly direct action. In
another sense, the range of State actions can be arrayed on the basis
of how permissive or how regulatory they are. Seven options available
to State government in its dealings with municipalities and private
developers are described below:?

1. The State may enable existing cities and towns to plan, spend
money, raise funds, acquire land, and construct projects for urban
development purposes. The State has a responsibility to make certain
that localities have the basic powers with which to move intelligently
toward solutions to urban problems. In most instances, localities have
these powers, although authority to plan or raise funds for a specific

§ See the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, annual reports, 1968, 1969, 1970 for a
summary of the most recent recommendations. Also see the ‘Proceedings of the National Governor’s Con-
ference,” 1960-68, including the special reports of the Committee on State- Urban Relations, 1967 and 1968,
published by the National Governor’s Conference, Chicago, Ill.

a ese options were presented in ‘State Responsibility in Urban Regional Development,’’ op. cit.,

13

function may not always be included within the general statutory
authorization.”

2. The State may enable localities to collaborate, join together
through cooperative arrangements, or consolidate to provide services
that are difficult for any one town to handle independently. This
would encompass making provision for voluntary municipal mergers,
the transfer of functions from city to special district or vice versa,
the establishment of metropolitan study commissions or multipurpose
functional districts; the creation of metropolitan planning agencies,
regional planning agencies, or metropolitan councils of government.
The State’s aim is usually to foster the enlargement or consolidation
of local government so that municipalities become more capable of
controlling metropolitan and regional growth. Local governments are
usually responsible for taking the initiative themselves in these
matters."

3. The State may provide technical assistance to localities to help
them fulfill their development responsibilities. An arrangement
whereby a State planning agency provides staff service to a local
government to help prepare comprehensive physical plans or special
planning studies is only one of the many ways in which such technical
aid can be utilized. The State usually requires localities to meet mini-
mum standards of performance as a condition for receiving technical
aid.”

4. The State may extend financial assistance to localities in the
form of loans, grants-in-aid, or tax concessions, in order to broaden
the fiscal base the localities may draw upon in their efforts to combat
urban problems. Financial assistance takes various forms. New Jersey,
for example, has a program of issuing grants-in-aid to communities
over a 5-year period to help carry out continuing planning. Several
Northeastern States, including Massachusetts, provide funds to
cities to help them meet their share of urban renewal costs.% A
erowing number of States are taking a more active part in metropolitan
open-space planning programs by authorizing funds which localities
can use to purchase the fee or an interest in the fee on land. In most
cases an adequate standard of local government performance is a
quid pro quo for State financial aid. Grants-in-aid, therefore, provide
State government with substantial bargaining power.

5. The State may regulate or administer certain local activities
that have areawide implications. The State may move directly to
resolve disputes among local units of government in a metropolitan
area, especially disputes that cannot be resolved at the local level
by mutual agreement, or are of such moment as to impede the effec-

10 For an explanation of this situation relative to Massachusetts law, see memorandum from James Powers,
principal research assistant to Daniel O’Sullivan, Director of the Legislative Research Bureau, on ‘‘Devolu-
tion of Powers: Features of Self-Executing Constitutional Home Rule in Massachusetts,” June 26, 1968.

11 For an explanation of this situation relative to Massachusetts law, see report relative to regional govern-
ment of the Massachusetts Legislative Research Council, Jan. 26, 1970, and report relative to voluntary
municipal merger procedures of the Massachusetts Legislative Research Council, Mar. 11, 1970.

12 The department of community affairs has responsibility for the administration of statewide planning
aid programs. Local planning groups collaborate with community affairs and 11 regions participate in
regional planning programs. Through 1969 these cooperative planning projects had an aggregate project
cost of about $6 million of which the Federal Government was supplying about two-thirds.

13 On redevelopment projects for which contracts for Federal capital grants have been signed, the Depart-
ment of Community Affairs is authorized to make a grant from Statefunds up to one-half of the local share
required by the Federal contract. In 1969 the limit on aid authorized to be granted from State taxes was
$40 million with annual payments not exceeding $2 million. These limits will probably be doubled in the
next few years. On projects to redevelop commercial or industrial areas for which no Federal aid is available
State grants of 50 percent of the net cost to the community are authorized up to a limit of $20 million.
There is little redevelopment in Massachusetts in this second limited class.

14

tive performance of governmental functioning in the area.’ Another
form of direct State action includes the establishment of rigorous
statutory standards for the creation of new municipal corporations
within the geographical boundaries of metropolitan areas, and to
provide further for the administrative review and approval of such
proposed new incorporations by an appropriate State unit. This
form of State action is based on the assumption that it is difficult for
localities to take effective measures in these matters, and that the
State must step in to protect the interests of the greater ‘regional
community.”

6. The State may expand the scope of its activities and subsume
many of the responsibilities traditionally belonging to local govern-
ments. The acquisition of land or the purchase of easements for open
space are examples of this form of direct State action. Such measures
may be precipitated primarily by the inability of localities to act
quickly enough in the face of rapid growth."

7. The State may itself exercise local functions—it might wish
to do so if local resources are inadequate or if certain functions cannot
be performed efficiently by the locality even with State financial
aid. For example, the State might act as a developer of new low- and
moderate-income housing or entire new communities.!”

How far and in what direction a State should go depends on several
factors. One factor 1s the State government’s past experience in
dealing with urban development problems. Some State highway de-
partments, for example, have traditionally left many decisions to the
discretion of counties and cities. Since this pattern has been well
established, the States continue this arrangement, rather than assert
more direct control over highway development. The historical pattern
of State financial aid to localities often is correlated with the degree to
which local mitiative has become a tradition. Some States have long-
standing policies of granting considerable funds to localities for gen-
eral operations. Since State standards governing the use of these funds
must be met, State control over local policy is often achieved through
the distribution of funds to localities. In Massachusetts, the traditional
strength and independence of cities and towns must be taken mto
account in the formulation of any public policy to deal with urban
growth. This is not to say that the State, if it wished, could not recoup
much of the power that it has delegated to localities, but it is quite
clear that any program designed to reduce the power and authority
of local government in Massachusetts would face stiff opposition.

14 A unique example of this in Massachusetts is ch. 774 of the Acts of 1969 (H. 5581) which provides for
the construction of low or moderate income housing in cities and towns in which local restrictions hamper
such construction. Should a local zoning board of appeals deny a permit to build subsidized low or moderate
income housing and such housing does not then exist in the community in minimum quantities established
by the general court, then after a hearing into the facts and a review of the local decision, the State housing
appeals committee can issue a permit. For a complete summary of the regulations see department of com-
munity affairs memorandum, summary of 774, September 1969.

“ 15 Bao Massaghenetts General Law, ch. 121A, dealing with the establishment of municipal development
orporations, i

16 See an act establishing a State land development agency submitted by the department of community
affairs to the general court in 1969 and 1970.

7 See pending legislation relative to the proposed replacement housing and community development
corporation (discussed further in ch. 111 of this thesis).

15

Another key factor in determining the appropriate course of State
action in the area of urban development is the relative intensity of
metropolitan urban problems. For example, if the supply of metro-
politan open space were being devoured too quickly, or if the trans-
portation system were not meeting areawide needs for the distribution
of people and goods, then the State might conclude that local govern-
ment was responding too slowly, and that more direct State action
was appropriate. In Massachusetts it may well be that the increased
pressures of urban growth and development brought about by the
recent development of Route 128, Route 495, Interstate 290, and the
Massachusetts Turnpike may have become sufficiently severe to
suggest that more direct State action is required than would otherwise
be acceptable. State government, if it is to avoid permanently
impairing local autonomy, must decide what the limits are beyond
which it cannot go. At what point would State intervention be
excessive? Under what circumstances can local governments be
considered incapable of providing solutions to areawide problems?

Each State, including Massachusetts, needs to adopt a set of
development objectives which can unify the many supervisory and
regulatory actions of the administrative agencies and the State
legislature. Too often State agencies work at cross purposes to one
another and to local governments. But the growimg number of States
which have adopted comprehensive planning programs testifies to the
heightened awareness of the need to provide some overall direction to
the pattern of development in each State.1® Through the establishment
of long-range development programs, the States can implement
recommendations for orderly, coordinated growth. Policies thus
established serve three purposes: local governments have a benchmark
against which to chart the success of their own development programs,
the work of many State agencies in development programing can be
more effectively integrated; and Federal programs can be utilized to
maximize the benefits of public investment through efficient and
equitable use of land to meet State priorities.

Inexercising leadership, the State must decide how aggressive it is going
to be in intervening to redirect the development policies of public agencies
and private institutions. This thesis will examine the implications of
an extremely vigorous State policy which calls for direct State inter-
vention in the urban development process. Specifically, criteria for
State investment and guidelines for State involvement in the develop-
ment of new communities will be discussed.

"18 See “The Social and Economic Impact of Highways: Demographic Patterns in the Interstate Route
495 Area’’ prepared by the Bureau of Socio-Economic Research, Inc., for the Massachusetts Department

of Public Works, 1963.
12 State responsibility, op. cit., p. 22.

} tak | Fie a

ane by) sesitoy oleiqorqya ag gHiitorios ob, ue tod oat aps

Oy)

-oRModt to Vl eis oiht 4g Slgamx to cisiderd LL aX. Lh

eliag vinte, jomihcrerne tend bers: COTE O08 ata
hosssrone ot wiht sd How’ vec ti etdoriidoncen le ih
Ott ge jiodn tigiosd hisniquloysh hes: «ivronve, 4M
O40) bith: OS oi dig ad ch GOk oiodL. BST stnodt to. deotee
ohare .v Mimistoe “smensd Sue ots ot odliquee Lae
wetrnlie tytto yw cuss DOUN BOT eb irokiai-od Le Jones togee
Vidas ieiniasy bine Glo 4

bievad sin -dictal okt dash, obtiels hae. eee ist be
Ok Moiietovrstit ohare. bluow. a

te oly i F iting ; gn Re
SP lt i ewaNiay OO aj idet PA

FLOLE dus yee LA AS) JOE
SC cHiannttyy,.o8 lenol meas: MOLGIGELSTIO.. teelve "Th AE

”
~?

’ ; ; y . . 4 = . pat “ay \ . 4 4
COE ODE BS 02 2 rORt IT toe BITES OSE Vert ihe onthe

1 bo2hopg deol pean aboot dooney rithm

Dis yhogbesantts “ytear ail) 7 teen ges -thairta “NT ESATO
j ‘ \ PS ati re tice | 4 ¥) ‘ ae

MRI, wit bite 2oinn4oa. ova retusahn. sf) 1 EELS

ONGoO! Baeowhid. econ te obi w BOLTED fi OT CIE Chop poy

aah Ye, Oe sey aie f 4 Eerie EG Sr oceek :
PRIA LE POSTE BAILY OLR. 4544 hel co hE YEP EA yo Pp yaad
pit el eotites heawerrog euinas Go ieriodote os Dagens

oh golnoirty lietreve IIOF a ET o'r OF D991). 90120) eect

) srardaildates ert fevowlT) Sad pie Pisses HF Hoh alapesdy lear
Teoh cats fhe ieadeseH eybe} PUES LO TET: Phi iffieeats
eed gotstol. altnew beisaityiags crlishio Yat

Fons dod. 4 sal Anse Foo Lasol ASOT Opt UToRD

See nN 24 r eri { - j i tel
PAI TG Firaitiashs af (P-L Ar lote bt he BETO ED Ty Ors ipaly 2) Ap

1 7 cee f r . t , * y
SG iif. Otiieee nt) JoomnOle rsh yi counts atete yeaah

A ‘ . F yo : rot » [
ot tbondstyn oct chavs acct) BECP ha ba te byt on. 2 eee ia oat ie ace
; 1 ey p ¢ F ; ry
st 4 ot, > . es Wage!
3 aa SD POs es) a WT i. 0. Ea ee 8
;

butt , echiie Be Civ bee ee ae

Hioltg 0) ito pewk to 98
foe Ca Oa ts Moiet Esuyphy mere eondtuchigouas tole ;
neRank scents: ML (3 PRIM Ps: CFE hy he Wid PP aa poate BET

a

, F, j ay ot My
UH MeO ied! teopiperny oy i Mi pet Gh miay
r * 7 . tr r : TCs (
PRO GROG Aire, Hin Stes ably Mit Abie
PPT S CST EE 9 pretceeeae Pee ri 6 na pesaies
y COPPA ED EO tk Saasdee ele LOT Hye
, é l Kt es it
ROS HS Pisa) (2d ei Laeghin: ff) ROE MNOS Vow Pedibte suhd) a
ripolseoly orld ik FasriTs. VO Fig iT Fehon) Et OPT PII | SES TMB ELED NG RTE...
f. sotsvadt ft; ae fii.
: ous
hse Web ML okt 1 q FROMM HYEE
IE podhiah joey hh ik Ta ts 7 PLELL i
Eig veh ee
oa
* ip

CHAPTER |
New ComMunitTiEs AS Part or A State UrsBAN GrowtH Po.uicy
INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this chapter are: (1) to offer definitions of the
various types of new communities; (2) to outline many of the problems
involved in planning and building new communities; and (3) to
examine several critical assumptions about the feasibility and desira-
bility of developing new communities as part of a State urban growth
policy.

Exactly what are new communities? Planners and developers offer
different definitions. Most seem to agree that a “‘complete’”’ community
is implied, but some projects, not intended to be complete communities,
have also been dubbed new communities. To clarify matters, the
National Association of Home Builders has adopted an umbrella
term—“Open Space Communities.”” Under this rubric they recognize
three categories of development: clusters, planned units, and new
communities. A large-scale residential development, because it in-
cludes no commercial or industrial property, is classified as a cluster
development. Projects that combine residential uses with commercial
facilities, and perhaps some institutional uses, are termed planned

unit developments. The simple definition then for a hew community
is that it has a full range of urban community uses: housing, industry,
and institutions scaled within a reasonable balance of one another.’

There are a variety of types of ‘“‘new communities” or “new towns”
as they are sometimes called.”

The real estate salesman’s ‘‘new town.’—This is usually a sales
gimmick, an attempt to capitalize on an increasingly popular term
in order to help sell housing in a development which sometimes is a
planned residential community—that is, a development which includes
at least schools, recreation facilities, and shops for food and other
everyday needs—but, too frequently, is merely a residential sub-
division which includes no provision for neighborhood or community
facilities.

The isolated “new town” or “new city.”—No area in Massachusetts
is sufficiently isolated, in terms of distance or traveltime, from other
population centers for an isolated and quite independent new town
or city to be possible.

1 Craig Noren, ‘‘New Towns of the United States’? (Washington, D.C., National Association of Home
Builders Land Use and Development Department), 1967, mimeo, page 4. An even more specific definition
is provided by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations: New communities are large-
scale developments constructed under single or unified management, following a fairly precise, inclusive
plan and including different types of housing, commercial and cultural facilities, and amenities sufficient
to serve the residents of the community. They may provide land for industry or are accessible to industry,
offer other types of employment opportunities, and may eventually achieve a considerable measure of
self-sufficiency..With few exceptions, new communities under development today are within commuting
distance of existing employment centers.

2 Jeanne Davis, ‘‘A Review of the Problems Involved in Planning and Constructing a New Community,”

in New Towns; proceedings ofa symposium held in Newark, Del. (sponsored by the Delaware State Plan-
ning Council), J uly 1, 1969, pp. 12-24.

(17)

18

The relatively self-sufficient new community with a dwersified eco-
nomic base.—This should include provision for a variety of industries
and offices, so that a high proportion of wage earners living in the
town would have the opportunity to work there. In addition, this
type of new community includes all needed educational, recreational,
and commercial facilities; housing of various types and prices; some
health facilities; and should include a public transportation system.
This definition implies that the population size of a relatively self-
sufficient new community is fairly large; it is unlikely to be less than
25,000 and probably would be 75,000 or more. The community may
be self-governing, or may be within the jurisdiction of a local
government. Ry

The relatively self-sufficient new community based primarily on a
single industry—This type of new community, also, would include
job opportunities for many of the wage earners living in the town. It,
too, would include the needed educational, recreational, commercial
and health facilities; housing varied in type and in price; some cultural
facilities; and should include a public transportation system. A rela-
tively self-sufficient new community with only one type of industry as
its primary economic base is likely to have a smaller population than
one with a more diversified economic base.

The satellite new community.—This type of development contains
many of the facilities of the relatively self-sufficient new town, but
has strong ties (hopefully including rapid transit) with an existing
city. It depends on the existing city for governmental functions and
services as well as many of the employment opportunities needed by
its inhabitants.

The planned expansion of an existing town, or growp of towns.—
Expansion around small cities, towns, or a group of towns can be
planned and built to provide all needed facilities and services for a
much larger than the original population, the community surely
deserves to be included in the category of ‘new’? communities.

The_restructuring of existing suburban sprawl to create communi-
ties.—With very careful planning for the location of needed new
facilities—such as schools, parks, recreation places, shops, and rapid
transit stops—some suburban areas could be reconstructed as satellite
communities, with a minimum of urban renewal and the resulting
economic and social costs.

The “new towns in town,” through urban redevelopment.—Harvey
Perloff apparently was the first to articulate the concept of building
“new towns in town” rather than urban renewal projects which have
usually produced only one or a few portions of a community—high,
medium, or upper priced housing, for example.?

RECENT PROPOSALS CALLING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW
COMMUNITIES IN THE NEW ENGLAND AREA

Proposals for the development of new communities in Massachusetts
and the rest of the New England area have come from several sources.!

& The “New Southwest” in Washington, D.C., an example of public planning and private construction,
and Universal City, in Los Angeles, an example of private planning and constiuction, might be considered
a8 steps toward “new towns in town” but neither really meets the requirements of a hew community.

Including members of the general court, State agencies, private developers, local officials, and even
the Federal Government. .

19

The New England Regional Commission in its recently released
regional development plan proposed to—

Identify, develop, execute * * * four model demonstrations of new communi-
ties in New England. These demonstrations will meet housing needs in a form
appropriate to the selected areas and will emphasize the development of com-
munities within the fabric of existing metropolitan areas * * *.5

In a study undertaken for the New England Economic Research
Foundation it was reported that:

A new community * * * in a suburban area of Springfield, and drawing on
the Springfield area for a sizable measure of infrastructure facilities and services,
might be plausible. This would be a new community with a sizable share of its
own economic base and infrastructure. Similar cases could be made for the
Bridgeport, New Haven and Worcester areas, and perhaps, one or two others.®

Several legislative resolves have recently been introduced by mem-
bers of the general court calling for an investigation by a special com-
mission relative to the establishment of new communities in Massa-
chusetts.’ Thus, there is a significant and substantial interest in the
potential role new communities could play in meeting some of the
current needs as well as anticipating many of the future needs of the
Commonwealth.

In the past several years, a variety of proposals to develop new com-
munities in Massachusetts have been introduced:

There are proposals to create small, modern towns in depressed rural areas as
a means of providing a superior urban infrastructure, facilities, and services at
an economic scale, to depressed rural populations, living in surrounding settle-
ments too small, too dilapidated, too deficient in services to provide a base for
growth and development. There are new resort communities, with second vacation
homes, springing up with the boom in New England’s greatest. export industry—
recreation and tourism. There are large-scale urban development projects, serving
middle-income families, under construction in the suburban cities and towns in
some of the more rapidly growing metropolitan areas of the region. There are
detailed proposals to create new towns-in-town on manmade or newly cleared
land in the harbors of some of the very large central cities of the region, to provide
new industry and a new urban environment, in part for urban poverty neighbor-
hood residents. There is an elaborate design for a full-blown new town, with its
own economic base, fashioned to give urban poverty neighborhood residents an
opportunity for better jobs and a superior environment in a new city to be built
on the outer fringes of an expanding metropolitan area.

The suburban cities and towns of New England’s metropolitan areas
may experience a population growth of three-fifths im 20 years’ time.
Can new communities address some of the problems that can be
expected to develop as urbanization continues?

NEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN METROPOLITAN AREAS: “THE
GROWTH POINT THEORY”

The issue is not whether metropolitan growth and expansion will
occur, but rather how, where, and when it will occur.® Although some

5 ie ee Regional Commission, Recommended Regional Development Plan (Washington, D.C.)
uly , Dp. 33.

6 Alexander Ganz, et al. “New England’s Urban Development: Emerging Patterns and Issues,’ ch.
IX, “Potential Role of New Communities as Growth Centers,’’ (New England Economie Research Foun-
dation), January 1969, p. 23.

7 Bills numbered H. 4554, H. 2258, S. 184, spring session, 1970 of the Massachusetts General Court.

§ Ganz. op. cit., p. 2.

9 In response to this need, several of New England’s States are already involved in some stage of planning
promotion, and development of new communities. Connecticut’s interregional planning program outlines
‘our alternative patterns of urban growth emphasizes communities with a high degree of self-sufficiency,
and accommodates new community development. Rhode Island’s comprehensive transportation as a
Jand-use planning program presents five alternative land-use plans, including two which lend themselves
to new community development. Vermont is actively engaged in planning for new rural communitiees as
well as resort communities. In Massachusetts, the Department of Administration and Finance, Office
of Planning and Program Coordination, has the question of new communities on its agenda; but as yet
there has been no interagency effort made to consider the question carefully.

20

relatively isolated, semiautonomous, or economically specialized
new communities might be built in outlying rural areas (and certain
arguments have been made in support of a few such developments in
certain lagging regions of the country), the overwhelming orientation
of new communities has been and probably will continue to be
toward metropolitan locations where the major population gains and
the primary economic growth are taking place.’? New communities
stand a better chance of being economically feasible and socially
and politically acceptable if they are developed as part of the “metro-
politan regional system, related directly to the metropolitan social
and cultural structure, its economy, its transportation system, its
open space and land development patterns, and the full range of
its market systems.’’!!

There are a number of important economic considerations that
need to be considered in selecting sites for new communities. The
hope is that it will be possible to identify growth points in communities
and subregions. Available public funds would then be concentrated
in those areas offering special promise for growth in order to bring
about self-sustaining momentum for future development.

A growth point may be defined as the nucleus of sustamed growth
from which the impulses of development are transmitted to other
places, especially the immediate surrounding area. [t may be that
impulses of growth transmitted by one nucleus to others get a feed-
back from other growing points. ‘“The center should have one or more
economic activities that have shown signs of sustained growth over a
period of time, that could be reinforced to create capacity for further
development in the region, and that might even provide the impetus
for growth in the entire State, or for a major portion of it.”’ ? A leading
French advocate of this hypothesis, J. R. Boudeville, defines a
regional “erowth-pole” as ‘‘a set of expanding industries located in
an urban area and including further development of economic activity
throughout its zone of influence.” ®

In order to locate appropriate growth points, it is necessary to
specify criteria that must be satisfied. These criteria help to determine
whether a given area or subregion has sufficient potential for develop-
ment to be classified as a nucleus. According to a study by Mirza
Beg, these potential growth points should satisfy criteria pertaining
to (1) sources of stability; (2) sources of reinforcement; and (3)
possibilities of a breakthrough."

(1) Sources of stability—There should be one or more industries or institutions
that provide sources of stability to the economy of the general area and to the
particular community. Employment should be free of pronounced seasonal
fluctuations. Examples of industries or. institutions providing stability to the
local economy would be a large governmental administrative unit; a school,
college, or university with several hundred persons on the payroll; or a sizable
manufacturing or commercial establishment. A steady and relatively large rate
of population increase may foster economic stability in the area. Such a com-

munity may be already well developed and likely to grow at an above-average
Tate if development projects are located in the vicinity.

a Robert Gladstone, “New Towns Role in Urban Growth Explored,” from Journal of Housing, X X1IT
(January 1966), pp. 29-35, reprinted in “Urban Renewal: People, Politics, and Planning,” edited by Jewel
pone and tamney Hausknecht (New York: Doubleday), 1967, p. 536.
id., p. 537.

12 ‘Profile and Analysis of Economic Data for Massachusetts” (Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Office
of fanning and Program Coordination), October 1968, p. 51.
se os 5; RCL) “Problems of Regional Economic Planning” (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

4 Mirza Amjad Ali Beg, “Regional Growth Points in Economic Development,’”” Economic Development
Series No. 8 (Morgantown: West Virginia University), December 1965. ;

21

(2) Sources of reinforcement.—To qualify as a potential growth point the com-
munity or area should possess additional sources of strength. Superior means of
communication, a major highway passing through the area, an intersection of
interstate highways and toll roads, financial institutions, recreational and cul-
tural attractions, a good publie school system, freight terminals, available land
for industrial parks, and many other factors provide reinforcement to the growth
point. The traditional locational considerations, such as availability of raw ma-
terials, nearness to markets, access to skilled labor, and agglomerative advan-
tages due to urbanization, are also relevant and will provide some communities
with a higher than average potential for growth.

(3) Possibilities of a breakthrough.—There should be some potential in the area
for a major breakthrough into rapid regional growth. Expansion in the volume
of total opportunities must occur if steady growth is to be maintained. Aggressive
leadership in the area may be the crucial variable here. Each growth point must
be strategically located to consolidate the existing position of the community
and to attain maximum returns from the developmental effort, in order to spread
the stimulus into the surrounding regions. The selection of a relatively more
progressive and better developed area, with a greater degree of stability and
immediate possibilities for expansion, is rather important. Progress at the growth
point may inspire confidence within the region and motivate surrounding areas
to duplicate the development. The existence of local initiative on the part of
responsible leaders in business, professional, and community circles seems to be
a critical factor in the successful implementation of programs of development.

In theory, a regional economic growth point should serve a dual purpose. It
should create the infrastructure for consolidating existing advantages and stabil-
izing the base from which the plan for sustained development; also, it should be
integrated with smaller cities in the region to activate them to launch their own
plans for development, if possible.

The concept of a growth center or a growth point is related to a
notion, though difficult to define, of an optimum size production and
population center at which maximum advantage is gamed from scale
and external economies without incurring serious diseconomies of
agelomeration.” Growth points have a critical minimum size which
permits scale economies and promotes development over the growth
area as a whole, and an optimum size beyond which net diseconomies
occur.

New communities as growth points argue for centralizing economic
resources at certain key locations rather than spreading them thinly
over a whole region.

This case rests upon spatial differentiation in resources, a given
uneven distribution of population and markets that can only be
changed in the long run, indivisibilities in production plants and in
public investment projects, scale economies in manufacturing,
“central services,’ and public utilities and upon external econo-
mies of interindustry linkages. But the growth point concept,
particularly its justification as a policy tool, also involves the
hypothesis that centers of agglomeration have zones of indifference
around them and that income will be maximized in the growth
areas as a whole by concentrating development at the growth
point. This is the argument used to justify disproportionate
allocations of public investment for infrastructure purposes at
the growth point itself.

The existence of a growth point or a new community must
involve a certain degree of structured imbalance over the region
as a whole. If a new community means, among other things, a
new industrial complex, then this complex will be heavily con-
centrated in or around the growth point itself. The growth point
philosophy is that such areas are bound to stagnate in any event,

18 Harry Richardson, Regional Economics (New York: Praeger Press), p. 423.

22

and that the structural imbalance that results from concentrating
expansion at the growth point will result in higher average in-
come per capita for the region as a whole.

Secondly, the key industries emphasized in growth point dis-
cussions are, since their function is to accelerate growth within the
region, probably export industries (i.e., industries serving a
national market).

Thirdly, the growth point will, in time, service its surrounding
area by providing the population of that area with supplies of
goods and services that need a high minimum population threshold
for viability. Such goods and services will include: physical com-
modities, such as consumer durables supplied by department
stores or specialty stores; services supplied by the private sector
such as the professional services of lawyers and accountants, or
entertainment. and leisure facilities; public services that lend
themselves to economies of scale (technical colleges and special
hospital services).

Finally, the growth point or new community has a socio-
economic function to apply, that is to affect prevailing attitudes
toward the desirability of economic growth. In regions with a
slow growth record, one of the objectives of importing an advanced
technological industrial complex to the growth point is to trans-
form social attitudes and to make economic growth more likely
in the future. This is achieved by the incentives of higher wages
making local workers more productivity-minded and by the
growth industries showing local entrepreneurs the possibilities of
erow th and highlighting the existence of investment opportuni-
ties.

In summary, agglomeration economies make concentrations of
production and population more efficient than dispersal. These econ-
omies include increasing the return to scale within firms, external
technological economies and economies of scale in the supply of
urban services. Even in a free market economy there is unbalanced
growth spatially. Industrial activity, establishments supplymg public
utilities and other services that require a high population threshold
for viability, and population expansion itself will cluster around
certain focal points. The operation of market forces will have selected
these focal points because they have special locational advantages—
access to raw materials or markets, unique nontransportable facilities,
or favorable topological features. These growth centers have influen-
tial effects on activity in the region where they are located. Their
expansion may divert activity from peripheral areas which may lose
population and fail to gain a proportionate share of capital and
entrepreneurial talent, but from the point of view of the region as a
whole this diversionary tendency will be more than offset by the
induced economic expansion in the “zones of indifferences surrounding
each center.” These induced benefits will include:

_ Provision of employment for the zone’s population and markets

for input-supply and primary industries. The assumption behind

growth point analysis as a planning tool is that the agglomeration

that proves profitable for the private investor and entrepreneur

also results in benefits to society as a whole (especially in the
16 Thid., p. 425.

23

sense that the region is better off than if economic activity were
dispersed). This assumption is more reasonable if we recognize
that there are limits to the build up of activity at the focal points
i.ec., that there is some optimum size beyond which net dis-
economies emerge."

NEW COMMUNITIES AND THE PLANNED EXPANSION OF EXISTING TOWNS

This thesis is concerned with strategies for creating relatively
self-sufficient new communities (with a diversified economic base) in
presently sparsely developed areas within metropolitan urban regions
and with strategies for the creation of new communities through the
planned expansion of existing towns or groups of towns. Both options
coincide with the growth point hypothesis. In Massachusetts the two
options may in fact be one and the same. Since all land in the Common-
wealth is incorporated into one of 351 cities and towns, then a new
community developed anywhere in the State is in fact really an
expansion of an existing city or town. (There is another case where a
new community can be developed within or across the borders of
several existing towns.)

Across the State there are over 150 towns with a population of
less than 6,000 people. Only 25 cities have a population of 50,000 or
more people. So the creation of new communities expected to grow
to an estimated 50,000 people will certainly alter the population dis-
tribution throughout the State in a significant way. A town that grows
from less than 6,000 people to an estimated 50,000 people over a period
of roughly 15 years will undoubtedly be changed substantially; so
much so that the planned “expansion” of existing towns in Massa-
chusetts is very much the same as creating relatively self-sufficient
new communities.

The centralization of metropolitan economic activities in urban
erowth centers or new communities and the inevitable gravitation of
population to these centers will help to solve many urban problems.
The development of new communities will enhance the economic
development of entire metropolitan regions. They will create higher
average incomes per capita for entire regions, thus enhancing the
purchasing power of the areas and ultimately of the State. Secondly,
they will improve the level of productivity per worker by facilitating
the use of more highly productive methods of production. Third, new
growth centers will attract export-oriented industries which draw on
markets and sources of capital outside the area. Fourth, they will
allow for the provision of services which require a high population
threshold, and finally, the creation of new communities will help
create a more positive attitude toward growth throughout the Com-
monwealth—adding the incentives of higher wages and a_ higher
standard of living."

The development of new communities as growth centers that are
integrated with the transportation and communication network of a
metropolitan area makes a great deal of sense.!® One proposal which

" Tbid., p. 427. .
1 Tbid., ch., 15, “The Strategy of Regional Policy.”

19 Rules Hansen, ‘‘Urban Alternative for Eliminating Poverty,” Monthly Labor Review, vol. 92, No. 8,
pp. :

24

calls for the creation of new communities through the expansion of
existing towns on the fringes of our metropolitan areas is based on
the assumption that:

Public funds may be integrated with actual or potential external economies to
produce rapid growth in [existing towns] with a minimum of external diseconomics
of congestion.?°

As part of the program for expanding medium size cities, it has been
suggested that formal channels of migration or commutation be
developed through which workers living in depressed areas nearby
could be guaranteed new employment opportunities.

In the past city planners have tended to draw heavily on the
British “garden city” concept (adopting the idea that greenbelts
should be developed around the periphery of a new community in
order to protect it from the future onslaught of suburban sprawl).
This has led to the belief that new communities must be physically
divorced from other settlements. As a result, many developers have
limited their purchases to ‘‘unspoiled” farmlands or natural areas
beyond the fringe of suburban development. For several reasons, this
approach has been unnecessarily expensive and has placed restrictions
on the residents for whom housing and jobs in the new community
would be available. New communities conceived and constructed as
extensions of existing settlements and as integral parts of already
well-developed regions can make a significant contribution to meeting
the needs of the disadvantaged.

There are several reasons why it is more desirable to concentrate
on the expansion of existing suburban communities (or the creation
of expanded new communities) rather than on investments in en-
tirely new, physically isolated new communities. The first reason has
to do with the fact that land located at a distance from existing settle-
ments is generally unimproved and unserviced by infrastructure. The
argument is usually made that this vacant land is more suited for new
community development because of its low costs; however, the ex-
perience of all large-scale developers to date has shown that the
initial purchase price of land is only a small percentage of the final
sale price once the land has been fully improved or serviced for high
density development. Thus, it can be argued (purely in economic
terms) that land close to an existing settlement will be more easily
serviced through the extension of surplus capacity of available infra-
structure. Another economic argument supporting the closer location
rests on the fact that land values and the demand for vacant land is
generally higher close to existing developments. Thus, buying land at
a closer location, it will be possible to market the housing or sale of
developed land at a faster rate than would be possible at a more |
remote location. This would help to eliminate many of the high front-
end costs that currently plague private developers and reduce the
time of exposure before a positive cash flow is achieved.”

Another set of arguments for selecting new community sites that
are extensions of existing settlements is based on the belief that new
communities should be planned within a regional framework and_
must directly address themselves to the opportunities for uplifting
the economy of lagging areas. By locating close to an existing area,

20 Thid.
41 See Frederic J. Osborn, Green Belt Cities (London: Evelyn, Adams, and MacKay), 1969.

2 R. Bruce Ricks, “New Towns Development and the Theory of Location” in Land Economics,
February 1970, pp. 5-12.

25

a new community can offer new jobs and housing for residents in the
surrounding area.

Planning new communities as extensions of existing towns will help
the new community developer overcome many of the ‘‘chicken and
ege”’ problems that have haunted several developments in the past.
Imbalances in the initial attraction of either jobs or residents will be
more easily absorbed by the existing employment and housing in
the area. The problem of not being able to attract employers until
there are people and not being able to attract homebuyers until
there are jobs will be somewhat alleviated by the existence of both
jobs and employees. Furthermore, churches, social institutions, and
community-serving facilities that the developer is usually unable to
provide for the initial residents in an isolated new community are
already available. This will help to cut the developer’s costs and
provide better services to initial residents. (There are, of course, the
disadvantages of not being able to plan and nurture these new institu-
tions according to more idealized goals or in ways that would be
more responsive to the future needs of the new community’s residents.)

Economic arguments for building new communities in open rural
areas depend on the assumption that the difference between marginal
per capita product and marginal cost in a new community wil be
greater than in existing urban areas. In fact, though, the opposite
seems to be the case if we judge by existing cities that are comparable
in size to proposed new communities.” That is, the gross product per
worker is higher in more densely developed cities than it is in suburban
areas.

New communities in metropolitan areas can be designed to take
advantage of (1) the existing employment opportunities in the suburbs,
(2) the rapidly growing population potential, (3) the availability of
existing physical and social infrastructure, (4) transportation access
to a variety of urban and suburban centers, (5) the obvious economies
of scale which accrue to large scale development.

A growth strategy based on the new community concept would seek
to develop growth centers in metropolitan areas (where new urban
gains are likely to occur) which will help to improve the overall pattern
of urban development. “The role of the central city would remain
strong. Rather than competing with central cities, in a rational
redistribution of the region’s activities in a high-growth area, new
communities would complement and relate to the central city.”

The feasibility of a new community depends on three general
factors: Accessibility, availability, and developability. Accessibility is
essentially a measure of the degree to which the proposed development
will link into the transportation and communication network of the
metropolitan region. Availability relates to the possibility of assem-
bling a site at a competitive price with manageable financing. Develop-
ability deals with the geographic and topological suitability of a site
and is closely related to the kinds of technologies (land-fill techniques,
bridgebuilding capabilities) available.

23 William Alonso, “‘The Mirage of New Towns” in “‘The Public Interest,’’ No. 19, spring 1970 (based on
an earlier paper, ‘‘What Are New Towns For?” prepared for the research conference of the Committee
on Urban Economics, September 1969, Cambridge, Mass.), p. 5.

24 Alexander Ganz, ‘“‘Our Large Cities: New Directions and Approaches,” (MIT, Laboratory for Environ-
mental Studies), December 1969, p. 46. (Table VI: hypothetical contribution of our large cities to na-

tional growth and welfare.)
25 Gladstone, op. cit., p. 538.

26

New communities built in outlying rural areas would probably not
serve to stimulate the economy in those lagging sections; a new
community which seeks to achieve a self-contained economic market
will find that seeking closure at such a scale will result in lower capital
production.» From the point of view of making a successful public
investment it would be most. sensible to build new communities in
metropolitan areas where they could draw on neighboring and sur-
rounding settlements for a substantial part of their economic base and
infrastructure especially during the early stages of development. Not
only would the initial capital investment in a new community in an
outlying rural location have to be much greater (since there would be
no existing infrastructure and job base to draw on), but the operating
expenses would always be greater since a new community in an outlying
area would have to be built at considerably larger scale if it were to
succeed.

New communities developed as growth centers within metropolitan
areas are probably more likely to succeed because of the immediate
accessibility of existing settlements; although other difficulties arise
in such situations because long-time residents are resistant to new
large-scale development which seems to threaten their style of life
and the power they have over the political situation. These political
issues are examined more fully in chapter LUI.

NEW COMMUNITIES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO SUBURBAN SPRAWL

It is often argued that the development of new communities or
large-scale planned urban growth will help to avoid a replication of
past suburban development with all its attendant problems—sub-
urban sprawl, segregation of social groups, political balkanization,
and municipal fiscal imbalance.” The concept or strategy of planned
urbanization seems to offer an opportunity for the development of
completely organized environments with the most efficient, least
wasteful uses of land and the most equitable provision of public
services and facilities. Some of the public advantages which stand to
be gained by planning for urban growth include: “hs

1. Lower per capita costs to the resident because of the advantage
of carefully planned uses designed to reduce unit costs (thereby
achieving economies of scale) .?®

2. The optimum development of open space and recreational areas
through careful planned unit or cluster development within the new
community.?®

3. Maximum choice of housing for a full range of income and racial
groups because of lower development costs and avoidance of dis-
criminatory zoning practices.*°

_4. A comprehensive transportation system not only for internal
circulation but also for travel to larger urban centers and outlying
communities through comprehensive planning.

26 Alonso, op. cit. fies

27 Donald Canty, ed. “The New City” (The National Committee on Urban Growth, Policy published
by Urban America, Inc., by Frederick A. Praeger, New York), 1969 or “New Towns: A New- Dimension.

of ; Urbanism”? International City Managers Association, Chicago, 1968.
hes William H. Whyte, “Cluster Development” (New York, N .Y., American Conservation Association) ;*

““ William H. Whyte, ‘The Last Landscape” (New York, N.Y:: Doubleday), 1968.

30 This is not to say that new communities can provide a range of housing opportunities without govern-
ment subsidy, because they can not. See M.B. Zuckerman, “Zurban Report,’’ prepared for President
Johnson's Lask Force on New Communities, 1968, for a full discussion of mechanisms for financing low-
and middle-income housing in new communities.

27

5. A high level of employment through the creation of new markets
by coordinating housing, and. transportation, programing with in-
dustrial relocation to the suburbs. | |

6. A wider range of cultural opportunities through, higher density
and more heterogeneous development of suburban areas.*t

Existing patterns of urban growth and development are conditioned
by an interrelated set of public and private decisions. ‘While the
private market by and large sets the tone, scale and pace of develop-
ment, public actions directly or indirectly affect, influence, and struc-
ture the shape of development.*? Thus, a critique of present urban
development patterns must take into account the full range of political
and economic forces at work.

What are the specific consequences of urban sprawl or unplanned
urban growth? It has been shown that— *

1. Asprawled or discontinuous suburban development is more costly
and less efficient than a more compact one, each at the same density
within settled areas. Many costs depend on maximum distance or maxi-
mum area; if these were reduced, costs would be lower per capita or
per family served.

2. Sprawl wastes land since the intervening lands are typically not
used for any purpose.**

3. Sprawl encourages land speculation which is unproductive,
absorbs capital, manpower and entrepreneurial skill without com-
mensurate public gains. It destroys or impairs economic calculations
that ideally lead to maximum general welfare.

4. It is nequitable to allow a system in which the new land occupier
is required to shoulder such a heavy burden of capital charges and
debt mainly for site costs—costs which in large part are unnecessary
and unavoidable.

Most of the problems of sprawl relate to density. Since there are
fewer houses per acre in the suburbs than in the city, it follows that,
with respect to infrastucture, there are fewer requirements per family
for infrastructure in the city than in the suburbs. Thus, if the suburbs
could be developed at higher, more urban densities, less money/family
would have to be devoted to infrastructure costs.*° This assertion was
recently given some support in a study undertaken for Fairfax County,
Va., which demonstrated that an expenditure of $20 million for sewers
could support a new community population of 465,000 people—twice
as many people as under sprawl conditions. These savings accrue for
other infrastructure items, such as streets: For example a Baltimore
study indicated that a new community development may require up
to 200 fewer miles of streets—a savings approaching $800 million.*°
8! See Herbert Gans, People and Plans, ‘‘“Homogeneity versus Heterogeneity” (New York, N.Y.: Basic
Books), 1968.

32 Kaplan, op. cit., p. 3.

33 Marion Clawson, ‘‘Urban Sprawl and Speculation in Suburban Land,’”’? Land Economics, May 1962.

34 Two articles, “The Case for Scatteration’’ by Lessinger and ‘‘The Nature and Economics of Urban
Sprawl” by Harvey and Clark are often cited to show that sprawl] works effectively to withhold land from
premature development at low densities. While sprawl does seem to have this effect the wasteful sprawl
pattern is haphazard and uncontrolled. A public policy to create land banks or to channel suburban develop-
ment by means of coordinated public programing of capital improvements or by offering incentives (tax
abatements, etc.) to private developers would have the same effect but would be much more predictable
and would also serve to capture the increase in land values that usually accrues to the private developers
(who artificially hold land off the market) and return it to the public coffers.

8 Cited by Prof. Charles Harr in testimony presented before the Subcommittee on Banking and Cur-
rency, Oct. 22, 1969, p. 7. The question of a breakpoint is unanswerable because different services operate

more peutelently at different levels—the optimum point is unknown.
id.

57—242—71——_3

28

In many cases a city dweller in his flight to the suburbs may build
his house in the middle of a vacant 1 acre lot. In doing this, he will
have unwittingly insured greater infrastructure costs for himself if
the suburban development becomes sufficiently urban to require a
central sewer system. Wilbur Thompson describes these hidden costs:

Then, what was gracious living on ex-urban lots becomes suburban sprawl,
too densely populated to be rural and too sparsely populated to be efficiently
urban, and property taxes rise to ‘‘confiscatory”’ levels. For example, an assessment

of $2,000 per acre for a storm drain trunk line comes to a staggering 14 percent of
the value of a $15,000 home, with laterals and catch basins still to come and

sanitary sewers to follow.??

In addition to the advantages listed above, new communities—if
Government controlled and ‘subsidized to some extent—hold out the
prospect of (1) increasing the housing supply for low- and moderate-
income people while reducing the costs of infrastructure, services, and
facilities and (2) maximizing the employment potential of low- and
moderate-income workers. It has been pointed out that new com-
munities can provide unique opportunities for the construction of
large quantities of new housing at moderate prices:

The economies of producing housing on a large scale in a single area reduce
the cost considerably. The large-staged market will enable builders to organize
their time and work efficiently : . . and perhaps, of even greater significance,
are the possibilities of experimenting with new technology in housing production;
technologies that many large and exceedingly competent corporations have been
investigating and which they are eager to put into practice. It is also possible that.
the volume of housing production in new communities could free many existing
suburban units for purchase by moderate incoeme people.*8

In addition, new community development may help to solve several
other problems associated with providing sufficient housing for all
eroups of people.*?

First, new sources of investment funds—sources outside the traditional capital
market—can be tapped. Second, new communities can solve the problems of site
assembly that so often frustrate housing entrepreneurs in already developed
areas. Third, they can provide land for housing development at substantially
lower costs (per acre through large lot acquisition)—and it is sharply rising costs
of land that has priced many builders out of the market; this is especially true of
the small builder, the characteristic unit of production in the industry. For new
communities ean provide a continuing supply of housing sites for smaller entre-
preneurs at rates far below the $250,000 per acre paid for slum buildings to be
razed in renewal areas or far out land that has risen in value as much as 2,000
percent in rapidly expanding urban centers.* * * 40

Another, and perhaps more important, argument made in favor of
new community development is that large-scale planned urban growth
can insure low and moderate income families (especially black families
which have been confined to the ner city ghetto) a better oppor-
tunity to secure jobs and to achieve upward economic mobility.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau only 5 percent of black Ameri-
cans live in the suburbs. Yet, suburbia is where nearly 80 percent of the
Nation’s new jobs are. During the 1960’s, industries in increasing

AS Thompson, ‘‘A Preface to Urban Economics’? (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press), 1968, pp.

88 Harr, op. cit. The basic difficulties of building industrialized housing (presuming the production tech-
nology can be mastered) are “making a market”’ for new applications, transporting and stocking standard
parts and pieces, and restrictive building regulations.

49 Albert Katz, ““Lower Rent Cost—Net Social Gains Through New Towns,” ‘Land Economics,’’ 1962.

40 Harr, op. cit., p. 5.

29

numbers chose to locate farther out in the metropolitan suburbs."
The blue-collar jobs created by industrial expansion outward remain
inaccessible to blacks trapped in the inner city.”

Several solutions to the ‘‘core-ring”’ (inner city-suburban) disparity
in jobs and industrial growth have been proposed. Some suburbanties
advocate improving the transportation system between urban ghettos
in the inner city and suburban industry. This strategy has failed to
provide positive results.“ Some politicians and many blacks favor
moving industry back into the inner city.“ This scheme also has its
drawbacks, and although the problem of providing jobs for inner city
residents can possibly be handled in the short run by various schemes
to redistribute governmental revenues and by writing down inner city
property to make it more attractive for industrial development, a
preferable long-run solution would involve a major dispersal of the low
mcome population, particularly blacks.” Attempts to ‘‘open’’ the
suburbs to urban blacks have been unsuccessful. First, even though
200,000 middle class blacks are moving to the suburbs each year, white
hostility tends to confine them to black suburbs. Legally, the suburbs
are open to blacks. But while the Federal Government and 27 States
(including Massachusetts) have antidiscrimination laws on the books,
they are often unenforced.** Another obstacle to opening up the
suburbs is that each municipality has the power to block any increase
in its low- and middle-income population—black or white—through
refraining from taking the positive steps of public interest and subsidy
necessary to produce moderate and low rent new housing. Although at-
tempts are currently being made to break down the exclusionary tactics
of existing suburbs, the chances of significant breakthroughs do not
seem particularly promising.’

The one strategy, however, which does seem to offer a great deal of
promise is the building of integrated new communities. John Kain
points out that—

Even in the face of continuing practices of residential segregation, the suburbani-
zation of the Negro can still continue apace. The presence of Negroes in the suburbs
does not necessarily imply Negro integration into white residential neighborhoods.
Suburbanization of the Negro and housing integration are not synonymous. Many
of the disadvantages of massive, central ghettos would be overcome if they were
replaced or even augmented by smaller dispersed Negro communities. Such a
pattern would remove the limitations on Negro employment opportunities
attributable to the geography of the ghetto. Similarly, the reduced pressure on the

central city housing markets would improve the prospects for the renewal of
middle income neighborhoods through the operations of the private market.

41 With the new kinds of goods and services being produced in new growth industries and with the improve-
ment in transport facilities, traditional plant criteria—proximity to supplies and markets—are becoming less
important and the availability of urban amenities—good water and sewer systems, schools—more impor-
tant. Land costs have driven the new mechanized industries to the suburbs and elsewhere, but these are the
very industries offering the greatest potential source of jobs for semiskilled urban dwellers. The new inter-
state highway system has made it easier to serve a large ubran area from the rim ofa circumferential highway
in suburbia than from the congested hub ofa metropolitan area. Substantial diseconomies of scale in public
services in large cities ecourage industry to relocate in suburban areas. (ACIR Urban and Rural America:
Policies for Future Growth,”’ p. 58.)

42 J oP een and Martin Persky, ‘‘Alternative to the Guilded Ghetto,” ‘“‘The Public Interest,” No. 14,
winter ;

43 Carol S. Greenwald and Richard Syron, ‘Increasing Job Opportunities in Boston’s Urban Core,”’
New England Economic Review, January-February 1969, pp. 30-40.

_ 44 See John Kain, “Race and Poverty’’ (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall), 1968. Also see, for a sammary of
job creation strategies, ‘“Proposal for Urban Development, Job Creation and Job Upgrading,’’ Laboratory
for Environmental Studies, MIT, Cambridge, Mass., 1968.

46 Kain, op. cit., ““The Public Interest.”

46 The U.S. Justice Department has assigned 13 lawyers to enforce the 1968 Fair Housing Act; they have
brought 44 cases to court and have won 13 of those cases. eeatt

47 Paul Davidoff, of Suburban Action in Westchester, N.Y., is attempting to test the legality of discrimi-
natory zoning practices for the NAACP.

48 Kain, op. cit., ‘‘The Public Interest.”

30

Ghetto enrichment would accelerate programs aimed at upgrading
the urban areas presently occupied by the Negro underclass. But
since any program that significantly improves life in the ghetto also
accelerates Negro migration to the same ghettos, this alternative is
nothing more than another way of choosing a permanently divided
country. There are two other options: the first calls for vigorous efforts
to open the suburbs for Negroes, complemented by some firefighting
programs of ghetto enrichment. The second choice includes ghetto
improvement accompanied by a program to create new communities
where Negroes can be masters of their own lives and shape their own
environment. The creation of new communities in suburban areas
in close proximity to existing job opportunities could be coordinated
with the creating of new communities by black developers and black
enterprise.°°

The three major goals of a new community development program
should be (1) to maximize regional productivity (by attracting
private capital investment through increased efficiency); (2) to
minimize public expenditures for capital improvements and services,
(3) to maximize advancement opportunities for disadvantaged
groups. Although the economic evidence is not conclusive, it would
seem that these three goals are potentially realizable through the
development of new communities because new communities allow for
a greater degree of public coordination and control over the shape
and pattern of urban development, allow for economies of scale in
public expenditures, and allow for increased labor mobility by aggre-
eating new industrial and commercial development. In addition,
because new communities are typically built at a higher density than
typical sprawled developments, they insure economies of scale in
housing and infrastructure development, they reduce the number of
miles of public highways and roads needed to link settlements, and
they offer advantages to new industry through agglomeration.

Black new communities are only variant of the new community
idea. The basic point is that new communities—whether integrated
or black run—offer a wide range of opportunities for low- and middle-
income people because of the economies of scale, the possibilities of
increased housing production, the linking of job possibilities with
new urban development, and—most important—the potential for
politically feasible direct action and massive subsidy by higher levels
of government.

New communities, developed under the guidelines of a State urban
growth policy, could provide the housing for low- and middle-income
people within close range of jobs created by industrial relocation in the
suburbs. The State government has a residue of as yet underutilized
powers to influence the growth and structure of urban areas. Pro-
graming and development of public facilities can create an envelope
within which more efficient and more equitable patterns of urban
growth and development can take place. The timing, location, and
scope of public investment decisions influence, if not control, the
physical form of the region. New community development seems to
hold out a very real alternative to urban sprawl, an alternative which
is directed at helping to meet the critical housing shortage and at

w See Arnold ScLuchter, “White Power/Black svecdon Gocte, Bee Be tga a MT, Alan dee

Planners For Equal Opportunity position paper on New Communities, presented at the American Societ
of Planning Officials Conference, New York, April 1970. ae J

31.

helping low- and middle-income people (especially inner city blacks)
realize their full economic potential.

The role of State government in new community development

One reason that countries in Europe and elsewhere have gone so
much further and been so much more successful than we have in the
development of new communities is the more active role played by
government. To point this out is not to minimize the need for private
involvement. Rather it is to stress the need for cooperative involve-
ment of all levels of government and private industry.*! The risks in
building a new community are tremendous for the private developer
who must go it alone, and to date the record of achieving public
objectives has not been too good.” The enormousness of the under-
taking, the lack of eminent domain power, the total lack of early
return on a large initial investment and the inevitable uncertainty of
doing something new are only a few of the considerations. The great
risk is one of the primary reasons that large investors have been
reluctant to back private efforts to build new communities. The
private developer, though, is an essential partner without whom new
communities probably could not be built at all. Government involve-
ment is needed not to substitute for private action but to attract it.

Considerations for State involvement in private efforts to build new
communities *

“The risks are high and the potential benefits minimal . . .” is
the conclusion reached by Hichler and Kaplin in their comprehensive
study of new communities currently being developed in the United
States.* They consider the possible benefits and costs that could
result from public involvement (through capital improvement pro-
eraming, grants-in-aid, or direct subsidies) in the development of
new communities throughout the country. They present three argu-
ments against the use of public funds for these purposes:

1. New communities only help the middle and upper income
group in society;

2. Public funds would only help to finance poor investments
(i.e., ones for which a private developer would be unable to
secure private financing) ;

_3. New communities do not achieve any valuable social objec-
tive.

These conclusions may be justified insofar as they refer to priva-
tely developed new communities of the past. |But strong arguments
can be made to support the contention that a public-private partner-
ship in new community development could overcome each of the three
assertions made by Eichler and Kaplan.

Critucism No. 1. New communities only help the middle and upper
income groups in society—Certainly it is true that most new commu-
nities developed in the past have been directed toward the middle
and upper income markets due to the financial constraints imposed
on the private developer. But the addition of public funds for housing
subsidies, job training programs, industrial location incentives or

61 This point is made by Samuel C. Jackson, Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan Development of Hous-
ing and Urban Development in a speech before the annual meeting of the Federation of Rocky Mountain
States, September 1969.

‘2 Edward P. Eichler and Marshall Kaplan, ‘The Community Builders’? (University of California
Press, Berkeley), 1967.

8 This section is based on a study prepared by New Community Planning Associates, “New Com-

munities: A Public or Private Venture?’ December 1969, Boston, Mass., mimeo
& Kichler and Kaplan, op. cit.

32

improved transportation facilities can vastly expand the income
range of potential residents. Eichler and Kaplan tend to oversimplify
the impact of new communities by disregarding the development’s
effects on surrounding areas. Strategically located new communities
can have a significant impact on existing central city areas through
the filtering process in housing, the attraction of new employment
opportunities to the region, and the development of prototypical
solutions and technologies that can be applied in the inner city.
Criticism No. 2: Public funds would only go to help finance poor
investments—To the private developer a ‘“‘good’’ investment is one
that produces a high rate of return (in relation to the degree of risk)
during the development period which in the case of new communities
may be anywhere from 10-20 years. The success of the project after
that point is of little concern—except in so far as the developer has
an equity interest in leased properties. However, from the public
point of view, an investment is considered over a longer time span
because of the continual costs that must be borne in the provision
of public services and facilities. Frequently public investments are
made for their long-range or secondary effects rather than their
short-range viability. If a public commitment to build new com-
munities can lead to the prevention of a major transportation crisis
in our central cities, then the decision would be justified in the eyes
of a public agency or authority, even if the investment would be
viewed as a poor one in the short run by a private developer.
Criticism No. 3: New communities do not achieve any valuable social
objectwes.—Privately developed new communities (there have not
been any publicly developed new communities in recent years)*
have been able to achieve critical social goals (providing low-income
housing, increasing the job base of the region, maximizing open
space) only in so far as these goals coincide with the private de-
veloper’s objective of making as high a profit as possible on his
investment. Several new communities have been able to maximize
public open space through careful planning, to increase the employ-
ment base in the area, as well as to improve the educational and
cultural facilities. But these are often improved. by sacrificing other
equally significant objectives—more lower income housing, greater
income integration and innovations in housing and. transport tech-
nology. Clearly the private developer is under a constraint to provide
only what will be marketable or profitable. This is no reason, how-
ever, to condemn the entire concept of new communities as being
incapable of achieving social goals. On the contrary, it merely indi-
cates that the private market as it is currently structured is not
capable of maximizing the broad range of social goals that could be
achieved through increased public involvement.
_ The private community. builders have traditionally begun. their
involvement with the purchase (or prior ownership) of large parcels of
land, Then they have continued to plan their new community given
the constraints of the market, their financial capabilities, and local
governmental regulations on land use. There are two critical problems
inherent in this traditional land-first approach. First, because the
developer fails to clarify the goals of new community development

® ‘The planning for several new communities in New Yorb ky the New York State Urban Development
Corp. seems to indicate that this is the case.
ae) Yor a history of earlier public efforts in the United States to build new communities see Mary Mullarkey
i anes of a New Community: Problems of Government,’? Harvard Journal of Legislation, May
, Dp. 462-495,

33

through careful planning before he purchases the land, he is frequently
forced to make many sacrifices to meet the (political, financial, and
social) constraints imposed on his site. The developer frequently
finds that the final purchase price for the land is the critical factor in
determining what types of uses and what types of densities will be
possible regardless of what he might think is most appropriate.

The second problem with the land-first approach is its failure to
complement the needs and growth potential of the entire region. The
private developer is, essentially, given the right to determine the
future growth pattern for the region in which he selects, his site. His
decision to build is based primarily on the anticipated marketability
of the site and the ability of the surrounding area to service his project
and provide the level of facilities he requires. He is generally not
concerned with the following:

1. The impact of his development on the entire region’s growth.
(Is his site the most appropriate location to develop a new growth
center?)
2. The employment and valuable cultural activities it will
attract away from areas of greater need within the region; and
3. The changes in priorities in regional and State appropria-
tions of funds that will be required to provide the community
with the desired level of facilities.
The major criticism of new communities built thus far in the United
States (and in England for that matter) rests on the argument that
they are not conceived as part of a regional analysis and rarely occupy
a coherent place or role as part of the regional plans or, indeed, of any
regional planning framework.

The key factors in the success of a new community development
are sufficient capital, a short development period, a location which is
developable, accessible, and available, ownership of the land prior
to starting, as few legal restrictions as possible, and a competent
administrative and marketing team.®* Hach phase of the new com-
munity development process (regional analysis, hiring of stafi/con-
sultants, financing, site analysis, site planning, intergovernmental
relations, land acquisition, management, infradevelopment, tract
development, marketing, evaluation) involves certain requirements
that can best be handled by a different level of government or by the
private sector»? The purchase of land might be handled by a public
body with the power of eminent domain. At each stage a variety of
public powers might be exercised to enhance the final outcome of the
development. Different levels of government (agencies, instrumentali-
ties) might perform different functions at each stage of the process:
The Federal Government (HUD, HEW, Interior) might provide excess
Federal land and subsidies for land acquisition, housing development,
open space and transportation, and infrastructure planning. State
agencies (DCA, DCD) could select the sites that make the most sense
in light of state objectives and they could subsidize certain apsects
of planning and development. A State corporation (with broad powers
such as local override) might handle the intergovernmental relations.
~ 8 For a full discussion of the problems faced by a private developer in building a new community, see
“The Role of Private Enterprise in Developing New Towns,’’ Harvard Business School, Intercollegiate
Case Clearing House, ICH, 13@45, PR 8A.

58 For an elaboration of these considerations see the case prepared by McKinsey & Co., on Soul City, the
hew community being planned and developed in North Carolina by Floyd McKissick Enterprises.

62 For a discussion of which phases can best be handled by which units of government, see New Com-
munity Planning Associates, op. cit.

34

An independent development district with power to act in a particular
area (like the Massachusetts Port or Turnpike Authority) might
handle’ a different aspect of the development process. Regional
planning commissions, municipal. agencies, municipal corporations
(such as local planning agencies, or municipally created development
corporations), and, of course, the private developer (who could best
handle the buildmg and marketing) would all ideally be involved.

State government has an important role to play in new community
development: Just what that role should be depends on several
things: What the potential for new communities in the State might
be (how many new communities should be built, where, at what size) ;
what kind of intergovernmental planning framework can be estab-
lished; what financial resources are available and what moneys can
be obtained from different sources such as the Federal Government;
what kinds of instrumentalities presently exist and what kinds can
be developed in the legal, political, and social context of State govern-
ment. These and other questions will be considered in the next two
chapters.

Cuarpter III
New Community DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
INTRODUCTION

Constitutionally, the States are the ultimate holders of the police
power and “are the legal masters of local governments and far superior
to localities in their ability to raise revenues.’’! Politically, State
governments are at least one step removed from the interjurisdictional
conflicts which so often impede areawide planning for metropolitan
growth. For these and numerous other reasons, any rational policy
allocating responsibility for the development of new communities
would more than likely assign a wide range of powers to the State
government.

Unfortunately, direct State involvement in land-use planning,
development control, and the creation of new communities has
tended to be minimal.” On occasion there have been recommendations
made for greater State action in promoting local development; part
of a recent report to the National Governor’s Conference contains a
section entitled, ‘“‘The Challenge of Orderly Growth,” which spells
out the kinds of State policies needed in the areas of zoning, land use,
planned unit development, and new community development.*
Various States have already taken steps to insure a greater degree of
State involvement in overall planning for urban growth.*

Increasing dissatisfaction with the pattern of metropolitan develop-
ment has generated still more proposals for modifying existing arrange-
ments and creating new concepts and instrumentalities. This chapter
does not deal with proposals that call for the abolition of local govern-
ments, but rather with various supplements to local action on issues
of urban development proposed; and in particular with the issue of
new community development.’ Proposal to (1) facilitate metropolitan
area planning for regional development, (2) create new agencies, short
of metropolitan government, (3) generate private development incen-
tives (all of which would provide for greater state control over the
new community development process) have been suggested in a report
for the National Commission on Urban Problems.®

1 Rdward Banfield and Morton Grodzins, ‘‘Government and Housing in Metropolitan Areas” (New
York: McGraw Hill), 1958, p. 151.

2 The exception to this statement is, of course, New York where the New York State Urban Development
Corp. is very much involved in the development and planning of new communities.

3 The National Governor’s Conference, ‘‘The State and Urban Problems: Staff Study for the Committee
on State-Urban Relations of the National Governor’s Conference,’’ October 1967, pp. 68-79.

4 Some States have already taken steps to control certain types of land. Wisconsin, for example, in 1962
began a major open-space acquisition program. Since then, such States as New York, New Jersey, Pennsyl-
vania, Connecticut, and California have also adopted laws to preserve recreational areas. In Colorado, a
county must submit any proposed zoning ordinance to the State planning director for advice and recom-
mendation. Similarly, Michigan counties are required to refer an adopted ordinance to the Michigan depart-
ment of economic expansion. Substantial attention has been given in Connecticut to the development of
regional planning agencies covering the entire State and to the integration of State and local development
activities. (“Fragmentation in Land Use Planning and Control,” prepared for the consideration of the
National Commission on Urban Problems, Research Report No. 18, by James Coke and John Gargan,
Washington, D.C., 1969, p. 57.)

5 For a discussion of proposals calling for substantial reorganization of metropolitan government see,

ACIR ‘‘Alternative Approaches to Governmental, Reorganization in Metropolitan Areas,” June 1962.
6 “*Fragmentation in Land Use Planning,’ op. cit.

(35)

36

A proposal to integrate the planning and regional development
processes has been offered by F. Stuart Chapin.’ For each metropolitan
area he proposes that a metropolitan area general plan be developed.*
Under Chapin’s scheme, the general plan and a development “in-
strumentality” of some kind would be made operational through a
metropolitan area public works program and urban development
code covering zoning, subdivision, and housing regulations. This
program would take into account the fact that: |

* * * The provisions of public services in strategic locations
can be used to divert growth into certain predetermined areas,
and: the withholding of public services can have the effect of
dissuading development in other areas. The programming of
public works and improvements and the budgeting and building
of public facilities in particular locations, of course, is a related
and a very fundamental lever in the followthrough on plans and
policies for shaping growth.?

His plan would provide for different mixes of regulations and public
investments in areas at different stages of urban development. In
Massachusetts, the annual budget of the Commonwealth is close to
$1 billion per year and the carefully planned investment of these
funds in public improvement could have a substantial impact on the
pattern of urban growth.”°

A second proposal calls for the establishment of metropolitan special
districts that could plan and install certain critical components of the
urban infrastructure. These would include transportation facilities,
open space, and utilities. This presumes that metropolitan expansion
is largely determined by the location of capital facilities, both public
and private. By controlling the critical investments, growth could be
diverted without the need for anew agency to assume the responsibility
for traditional zoning and subdivision controls.”

In 1960 a suggestion was made that a new type of special district—
a suburban development district—be established. The basic power of
the suburban development district would be an authorization from
the State to acquire all land within its boundaries through purchase
or option. The power of eminent domain would not be granted.”
Another similar proposal designed primarily to preserve open space in
metropolitan areas was proposed in 1961 by Jan Krasnowiecki and
James Paul.” They proposed that ‘metropolitan development com-
missions” be established which would operate through an adaptation
of the British system of nationalization of development rights.“

+ ins and Needs,” 0p. oe Techniques for Shaping Urban Growth” in “‘Urban bible Prob-

° Thid., p. 224.

10 Proposed Study: ‘‘A Public Investment Plan for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” first staff
Reyes Lee ee pueicnal Commission, Publication No. 799, September 1967, p. 21.

, e Problem of Special Districts in American Government” (Washington, D.C., U.S. Govern-

ment Printing Office), 1964.
Me eS Clawson, “Suburban Development Districts,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
18 Jan Krasnowiecki and J ames Paul, ‘The Preservation of Open Space in Metropolitan Areas,” Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 110, No. 2, Dec. 19, 1961. i P i ‘
14 That system has been described as follows:

(a) When the area to be preserved or developed for open space purposes has been chosen, through pro-
cedures and within a governmental structure which best assure maximum benefit to the community,
the properties in the area are valued;

(6) The valuation is based on the same principles and is accomplished under the same procedure as is
par Ptaaagee of Pee oe ete of inst compensation in condemnation;

values thus established for eac 0) i =
dagtiant butuoriiy, property in the area are guaranteed to the owner by the gov

(d) The aggregate of those guarantees for the whole area is equal to the compensation which would be
payable if the whole area were condemned in fee‘on the date when the open space program goes into
effect; the fee, of course, is not condemned; instead; detailed regulations controlling the uses of the prop-
erty for open space purposes are imposed against the guarantees; to the extent that such controls depress

37

Another proposal, made by William Slayton, calls for the establish-
ment of State chartered, public development corporations with the
authority to acquire land, prepare plans, install community facilities,
and dispose of land by lease or sale to private developers. The power
of eminent domain is included in the powers granted to such a de-
velopment corporation. Slayton points out that “the public develop-
ment corporation must, be able to control land development and the
appreciation of land values should accrue to the public—not to the
private landowner merely because he happened to own land at the
time of adjacent development.” %®

It has already been noted that a substantial portion of the capital
investments made within a metropolitan area results from decisions
of individuals functioning as consumers or corporate officials.” Any
realistic system of incentives and development controls must take
the private decisionmaking process into account. Land banks,
mortgage guarantees, and other types of incentives-controls systems
have been suggested. A variety of such mechanisms will be con-
sidered in chapter IV.

One of the most viable incentive-control systems for encouraging
orderly development within the private sector is State investment
in new community development. Investments in transportation,
health, education, and welfare are all part of a State investment pro-
eram. A public investment program focused on new community de-
velopment would be aimed at economic development as it relates to
social and political objectives. The creation of totally new communi-
ties would permit large-scale social and economic planning as well as
the establishment of the “proper relationships among land uses” from
the earliest stages of development.!® Not only the commitment to on-
going guidance of development but also the inclusion of a mix of
social classes and commercial-industrial activities would differentiate
new communities from more familiar suburban sprawl.’® At present,
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development authorizes
FHA loans for land purchase and development subject to the require-
ment that new communities house low income people and conform
to metropolitan development plans.2? New Legislation is currently
under consideration that would provide further subsidies for public
agencies (as well as private investors) interested in developing new
communities.”

Footnote 14—Continued

the value of the land for uses actually being made of it at the time they are being imposed, the owner is
permitted to draw on his guarantee for damages; to the extent that such controls depress the value of the
property for other than existing uses—depress or eliminate the development worth—the owner may draw
on his guarantee through an administratively supervised public sale of his property; the guarantee
established for any property in the area is reduced by each payment of damages or compensation. Thus
the damages and compensation payable by the community cannot exceed the guarantee established for
each tract. What this means, in effect, is that development values not existing on the date when open
space controls are imposed are not compensated. (“New Techniques for Shaping Urban Expansion,”
ASPO Planning Advisory Service, Information Report 1960, July 1962, pp. 16-17.)

15 William L. Slayton, “The Development of Needed Metropolitan Policies: Policies for Metropolitan
Development,’’ paper presented at the second annual conference on urban regionalism (Kent: Kent State
eae Center for Urban Regionalism, 1966),

id.

17 For further elaboration and statistics on this point see William L. C. Wheaton, “‘Public and Private
Agents of Change’’ in ‘‘Urban Expansion, Problems and Needs,”’ op. cit., p. 65.

18 See for example, Daniel R. Mandelker, ‘(A Legal Strategy for Urban Development,” in Sam Bass
Warner, Jr. (ed.), “Planning for a Nation of Cities’? (Cambridge, MIT Press), 1966, p. 213.

19 See ‘Alternative to Urban Sprawl: Legal Guidelines for Governmental Action,” prepared for the
National Commission on Urban Problems, Research Report No. 15 by Fred Bosselman.

20 Title IV, Housing Act of 1968.

21 The Nixon administration is currently preparing legislation that would amend title IV of the 1968
Housing Act to allow public development corporations to apply for money presently restricted under
title IV to private developers. Money would be made available for the planning of new communities, in
addition to the funds available for land and development. : :

38

State governments need to decide what strategy they will adopt
to insure balanced regional development and what types of incentive-
control systems they will employ. Should the Commonwealth estab-
lish a State-chartered, nonprofit corporation empowered to acquire
land and plan and develop new communities? Should the State author-
ize groups of cities and towns to acquire, purchase, or take by eminent
domain noncontiguous tracts of land for open space, transportation
corridors, utility purposes or for privately developed new com-
munities? Should the exercise of such powers be subject to the approval
of a regional planning and development agency? Should the State
(through the Department of Community Affairs, Commerce and
Development and/or the Department of Natural Resources) designate
land areas in which the State has a special interest? Could the State
planning agencies prepare and administer direct land use and develop-
ment controls which would insure that new community development
would meet State objectives?

In this chapter three new community development strategies are
evaluated. Each strategy is considered in terms of its political and
financial feasibility and the public benefits it is likely to offer. The
first strategy would authorize existing regional planning agencies to
assume some of the powers of a regional development authority and
to plan for new community development in their region. The second
strategy calls for the establishment of a State development corpo-
ration to build new communities. The third strategy provides for the
establishment of new community development districts which would
be financed by the State but run by a board of directors made up of
community representatives.

STRATEGY NO. 1

Providing regional planning agencies with the power to act as
industrial and economic development authorities.

Description

Legislation presently exists which provides for the industrial
development of cities and towns through the establishment of indus-
trial development finance authorities.” The creation of these authori-
ties must be preceded by the finding that (1) unemployment or the
threat of unemployment exists in the municipality or (2)-seeurity
against future unemployment and lack of business opportunity is
required in the municipality. By attracting new industry to the
municipality or by substantially expanding existing industry, it is
assumed that the industrial development finance authorities can help
to combat these problems. Two or more contiguous municipalities
may agree to consolidate their respective industrial development
financing authorities into a single authority.” These authorities can
acquire and sell land but they do not have the power of eminent do-
main. The general laws of Massachusetts provide for the creation of a
State industrial finance board which on the request of any city or town
can establish a local industrial development finance authority.

In 1966, 1967, and 1968 the Massachusetts Department of Com-
merce and Development proposed enabling legislation that would
allow all regional planning agencies to act as industrial or economic

2 Massachusetts General Laws, sec. 772, ch. 40D.
% Tbid

39

development authorities.“ In other words, the idea of municipal
industrial finance commission was extended to encompass all the cities
and towns in a given regional planning area. (See map 2 in ch. 2 for
outline of regional planning areas in Massachusetts.) The proposed
legislation failed to receive the necessary support and ultimately
it failed to pass. However, in 1969 one regional planning agency, the
Southeastern Massachusetts Regional Planning Agency, did succeed
in getting special legislation passed which empowered them to assume
the responsibilities and powers of an economic and industrial develop-
ment authority. Such an economic development authority is author-
ized to assume the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of a title IV
redevelopment area designated pursuant to the Public Works and
Economic Development Act of 1965.

If enabling legislation such as that proposed by the Department of
Commerce and Development could be passed, most of the State would
be subsumed under one or another regional, economic development
authority. New community development proposed within an agency’s
jurisdiction would be planned and coordinated by the regional planning
and economic development authority. (Sample legislation is provided
in app. D.)

Political feasibility

Past experience seems to indicate that there is not much support for
the establishment of regional planning and economic development
authorities. However, the experience of the Southeastern Mass-
achusetts Regional Planning Agency indicates that giving such powers
to regional planning agencies is politically feasible. The passage of
enabling legislation (as opposed to the special legislation which was
passed in the case of southeastern Massachusetts) would be possible
if an effort was made to educate the public. The department of com-
merce and development has no explanation of why the proposed
enabling legislation failed to receive the wide-spread support in the
past.

Financial feasibility

Regional planning agencies are currently functioning in Massa-
chusetts (see app. Ei for a discussion of the legal basis for regional
planning in Massachusetts). They are funded by per capita assess-
ments on each member locality. Legislation which would alter existing
regional planning agencies and bestow upon them the powers of a
regional development authority would not empower these agencies to
issue bonds. At present the State does not offer tax incentives to
industry, in the usual sense of the term, nor does it authorize local
governmental units to do so. Local governments are not authorized to
issue either revenue or general obligation bonds for industrial develop-
ment purposes in Massachusetts.” It is not proposed as part of this
strategy to empower regional planning and development authorities to
issue bonds. Thus, this strategy would cost no more and accomplish
slightly more than the present approach to regional planning.

Public benefits
New community development under the control of regional planning
and development authorities would at least be coordinated to a greater
24 House bill No. 48, 1967, General Court of Massachusetts.
% “Review of Regional Economic Research and Planning on New England,” (U.S. Department of Com-

merce, Economic Development Administration), prepared by the New England Economic Research
Foundation, 1968, p. K-50.

40

extent than at present. The selection of sites for new community
development would be the responsibility of the development authori-
ties. This would insure that efforts to attract new industry in the
area could be coordinated so that new community development would
strengthen the entire regional fabric.

This strategy does not provide for direct State subsidy for new
community development nor even for a pledge of State credit behind
the issuance of bonds to support industrial development. The regional
planning development authority would be responsible for insuring
flexible enough zoning arrangements to allow new community devel-
opment at a higher density than would otherwise be permitted.” A
provision requiring the approval or disapproval by a majority vote of
the regional planning commission on all local zoning and subdivision
ordinances (and variances) related to proposed new community devel-
opment would insure a greater opportunity to work for the needs of
the whole region. Regional agencies might also work with State plan-
ning and development agencies to see that transportation, health,
education, and welfare expenditures were diverted to coincide with
the needs of new communities being planned. The regional authority,
since it would have no money to build housing, could work with the
Massachusetts Home Finance Agency (MHFA) or other nonprofit
corporations (or the State) to build a wide range of housing types for
families of all incomes.

Under this strategy new communities would, more than likely, be
privately developed but they would at least be planned to some
degree by the regional authority. It is assumed that this strategy
would enhance the possibility of meeting State urban growth objec-
tives. State government could maintain some degree of control over
the new community development process by contributmg funds
(under certain conditions) to the work of the regional agencies. This
strategy would probably be politically feasible and financially possible
since new communities under this strategy would almost certaimly be
privately financed and developed. The regional authority (through
the State) would be involved in the planning of the new community,
but only in a minimal way.

STRATEGY NO. 2

Providing for the creation of a State-chartered, nonprofit new
community development corporation.

Description

A variety of model new community development corporations have
been proposed.” Recently the Governor of Massachusetts proposed
the establishment of a replacement housing and community develop-
ment corporation. As described in the Governor’s proposal, such a
corporation would have the power to replace housing demolished by
public action and it would also have the power of eminent domain to
accomplish its objectives. It would have the capacity to develop new
communities anywhere in the Commonwealth. This is not to say that
it would be empowered to create new municipalities. Rather, it would
work within existing boundaries to guarantee that population and

% See, for example, Howard County 1985, technical report prepared by th i i

Section of the Howard County Planning Commission, Atl 1967. B Fee ee eT aay aie aioe

Re bear mae “State Legislative Program: New Proposals for 1968” (Washington: Government Printing
5 ;

41

economic growth would be carefully planned to coincide with State
objectives. The proposed ‘corporation would be empowered to promote
industrial development projects relating to residential expansion (for
Federal tax benefits unavailable now to exclusively industrial develop-
ments are still available to’ projects related to residential develop-
ment). This new entity’ could act. only after the community has
formulated a new community plan. Lacking such a plan, the corpora-
tion could act when a local governmental body designated a given
location ‘as a new community area. And lacking such a designation,
the corporation itself with the Governor’s approval could make such
a designation and begin development.

The agency as proposed would be permitted to borrow at least
$500 million at relatively low interest rates through the sale of tax-
exempt bonds. In turn it could buy land and lend money to developers
at relatively low interest rates to build housmg and mdustry and
community facilities. Developers. would pay back the loans from
income they made on property.

Political feasibility

The corporation would put together sites, insure development, and
arrange for financing. No project could be undertaken without local
approval—or, failing such approval, a two-thirds affirmative vote of
the corporation board of directors and the approval of the Governor.
The prime difference between the Governor’s proposed corporation
and the New York State Development Corporation, which serves as
the only model of a State development corporation, is that there are
more checks and balances on the powers of eminent domain in the
Massachusetts model. No project area can be less than 100 acres, and
no project can be developed im any town with less than 500 acres of
vacant land. The corporation would also be empowered to override
local zoning codes and building codes. This would be a direct challenge
to the recently passed home rule amendment in Massachusetts.** The
Governor’s proposal is perhaps not the most impressive proposal for a
State development corporation that could have been made,”® but since
it has already been proposed and since it has received some support
from municipal officials, it is the model that should be considered at
this point in time. It is not yet clear whether or not the proposal will be
accepted, but the careful system of checks and balances certainly
enhances its political acceptability.

Financial feasibility

The Governor of Massachusetts has set as his goal the creation of
230,000 units of housing in the next 10 years.*° Many of these units
will be included in the development of new communities throughout
the Commonwealth. At present construction prices (about $20,000
per unit) that much housing would cost about $4.6 billion. That does

28 One of the problems facing the Massachusetts Replacement Housing and Community Development
Corporation bill is its direct challenge under section 8 of the home rule amendment to the Massachusetts
Constitution (HRA 8). Under HRA 8 the general court may act ‘‘in relation to cities and towns either
by general law or special law in enumerated circumatances.” The findings of the proposed bill emphasize
certain points to meet the challenge of HRA 8. First to assure its reading as a general law, and not just as a
special law, the bill stresses the statewide breadth of the Commonwealth’s urban problems, and need for at
least several community development efforts to meet the problems. Second, the emphasis on statewide
aspects of the Commonwealth’s urban problems anticipates and hopefully overcomes the challenge that
development within a single municipality is activity only in relation to that city or town, and therefore is
not proper activity for the corporation. F

29 A superior proposal has been prepared by a group of students at the Harvard Law School, December
1969: ‘Proposed Legislation to Establish a Massachusetts New Communities Development Corporation”
(Browning, Herfel, Scott, Silberman, and Susskind).

30 Remarks made by Governor Sargeant at the annual meeting of the Citizens Housing and Planning
Association of Metropolitan Boston, Dec. 8, 1969.

42

not include all the costs of developing complete new communities
(e.g., infrastructure, industrial development, commercial develop-
ment, recreation, and open space) which would probably total an
additional $5 billion. The initial cost to the Commonwealth of the
Governor’s proposal is estimated at $2 million yearly—most of that
money would go to finance the agency itself.*! Additional money would
be available for housing loans if the legislature agreed to raise the $50
million borrowing limit on the Massachusetts Housing and Finance
Agency (at least 25 percent of the housing built through the housing
agency must be low income and it has so far committed $22 million).
The new corporation would be in a good position to push for the full
utilization of existing State and Federal subsidy programs. New com-
munities would be developed by the State development corporation,
although residential and commercial development could be subcon-
tracted out to private developers. Ultimately the new communities
would be subsumed by the existing municipalities in which they
were located.

Coordinated State investment in capital improvements could
reduce the actual costs of a new community (ie., transportation
planning could be coordinated with new community development to
eliminate the need for additional costs for roads). Federal, State,
regional, and local moneys could be pooled under this strategy.
The program seems to be financially feasible.

Public benefits

Along with the problems of finance and land assembly, existing
building codes, development standards and land use controls pose
substantial barriers to a program that has as its general goal the
successful development of new communities with a full range of
housing, facilities, and jobs. Short of complete, new, statewide en-
abling acts, the creation of a development corporation with local
override powers is the best way of insuring that local standards
will not impede the development of balanced new communities. The
development corporation strategy insures coordination of planning
and investment decisions at the State level. It insures a wide range
of housing types and (as compared with strategy No. 1) gives the
State government a greater measure of control over comprehensive
planning for urban growth in the Commonwealth.

STRATEGY NO. 3

Providing for the establishment of new community development
districts.

Description

This third strategy is derived directly from a proposal made by
Marion Clawson to establish “suburban development districts.” ®
District boundaries would follow ‘natural features,’ and the size
would vary from 10 to 20 square miles. The basic power of the new
community development district would be an authorization from
the State to acquire all land within its boundaries through purchase
or option. However, the power of eminent domain would only be
granted once the development district had acquired 70 percent of
the land it needed by direct purchase or by purchase of options.

a1 “Who Will Replace Housing—The State?” Boston Globe, by Janet Riddell, Dec. 16, 1969.

2 See “Operations Handbook for Mortgage Loan Financing of Multi-Dwelling Housing and New Con-

struction,” MHFA, July 1969,
%3 Clawson, op. cit.

43

The governing board of the new community development district
would be composed of members from several interest groups: munici-
palities, other special districts, real estate developers, present land
owners, citizens, State government and regional planning agencies.
Each of these groups would be permitted to purchase stock in the
development district. The new community development district
would be empowered to plan, to acquire and control land, to contract
with private developers for the development of the area, and to supply
necessary governmental services.

The immediate objective of the new community development dis-
trict would be to channel and coordinate private and public develop-
ment activities to insure the development of compact new communities.
A further objective would be to assist in the preservation of open space
by providing an ample supply of well-located land that is ready for
development, thereby accommodating development pressures that
might otherwise overwhelm the defenses erected to protect the open
space.**

The new community development district is a means of carrying
out a staged development process in which development occurs in a
limited number of areas at a given time, and most of the unbuilt land
is reserved for later development or permanently retained as open
space. Each new community development district would cover an
area large enough for a new community, but small enough to permit
detailed design of the whole community, efficient coordination of all
development activities and completion of development within a span
of several years.**

Two kinds of actions would need to be taken to secure development
of the new community by private enterprise. Owners of sizable tracts
of land designated for development at lower and medium densities
would be encouraged to submit application for planned unit zoning,
and all remaining land in this category would be rezoned.*® Land des-
ignated for interim development, and other land not developed within
a reasonable time would be acquired by the development district for
sale or lease to developers (subject to specific conditions as to the
character and timing of development).

34 Henry Bain, ‘The Development District: A Governmental Institution for the Better Organization of
Urban Development Process in the Bi-County Region,’”’ prepared by the Washington Center for Metro-
pohian Studies of the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, 1968.

1d.

36 When the development plan for the district is completed, landowners and prospective developers should
be given an opportunity to apply for planned-unit zoning in areas which are designated for development at
the lower densities (single-family housing, row housing and small apartment groupings). Approval of such
requests should be subject to strict criteria to assure that the planned-unit developments will fulfill the
development plan, and should also be subject to the requirement that development proceed in accordance
with a schedule. After ample opportunity has been provided for planned-unit proposals, the rest of the land
in this category should be rezoned by asectional map amendment initiated by the agency.

This pair of regulatory techniques provides a simple and effective means of securing private development
of the large single-family residential areas of a new community. There is a great gain for all concerned, in
terms of certainty and procedural simplicity, and a great strengthening of Government’s ability to secure
development in accordance with plan.

Initiative is first placed in the hands of the larger landowners and developers, who are in a position to
perform detailed planning and design and to finance development at a sizable scale. The planned-unit zone
gives them broad latitude in proposing new developments, while vesting in Government the power to
control development features that affect the public interest.

Initiative then passes to Government, which completes the rezoning in a systematic manner rather than
awaiting applications from individual landowners, each intent on increasing the density of his tract. The
sectional zoning map amendment initiated by a public agency is a convenient way to effect the regulatory
action that is a prerequisite to development, in areas where numerous landowners would otherwise be put
to the trouble and expense of individually filing applications for rezoning. This technique has the further
advantage of placing initiative in the agency that is designing and coordinating development, instead of
permitting it to remain indefinitely with the individual landowners who would be tempted to apply for more
intensive zoning categories and thus necessitate time-consuming and costly administrative and judicial

Tee easy” (Henry Bain, ‘“‘The Development District,” Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies,
,» p. 68.

57-242—71——4

44

Political feasibility

A State agency (possibly the department of community affairs)
would establish all development districts with the approval of the
Governor and perhaps the General Court. This agency would designate
the boundaries of the development district and elections would be held
for the board of directors. The district would be established as a semi-
public corporation which would be independent but manned by a
board of directors directly responsible to the State government. The
development district would be dissolved as a managerial unit when the
new community development was substantially completed. However,
the new community would remain as a separate fiscal unit in the
State’s accounts until all of the capital advanced for development was
repaid. Initially, only one or a few development districts would be
established in those areas where the potential for new community
development is greatest. Much development would continue to occur
outside these development districts in a traditional manner. However,
after experience was gained through the use of this instrumentality
the building of new construction might beconcentrated in such
districts.2”

This proposal would provide each new community developmen
district with authority over zoning and subdivision control in the
development district during the initial planning stages. Since new
communities will be planned initially in those areas where new growth
is most likely to occur, resistance should be minimal to this strategy.
That is, new communities will be planned in areas where the pressures
created by high growth potential wiil already be felt by the citizens.
The alternative of suburban sprawl and haphazard growth will be very
real to them. The development district would include representatives
of all levels of government. This is an improvement over the regional
planning and development authority described in Strategy No. 1.
Resistance to strategy No. 3 would probably be less than that to the
State development corporation. Development districts would be
established only as needed and would be controlled in part by members
of the local cities and towns. Since the development district would not
have the power to eminent domain it would be less offensive to the
localities involved. It is likely that political resistance to this proposal
will come from the undeveloped areas of the Commonwealth, while
highly urbanized areas would probably support this strategy as a way
of building more low and middle income housing outside the central
city.

Financial feasibility

Each new community development district would constitute a
separate fiscal unit:

The development district can help to achieve four important
financial objectives. First, it can provide the large amount of capital
that is needed for public facilities early in the development process
and for acquisition of land for high density development; and it can
recover this capital during and after development. Second, it can
capture for the public treasury the increases in land value that are
due to public decisions to concentrate intensive development at
certain locations. Third, it can employ special assessments, taxes and
user charges to assure that the residents and property owners of a

37 Bain, op. cit.

45

new community pay the full costs of the facilities provided for them.
Finally, the staging of the development process in districts, would
make possible a more equitable treatment of landowners in acquiring
land for public purposes and in assessing land for taxation.*®

The capital needed by the development district agency (or corpora-
tion) can be raised by the State sale of bonds, which should be placed
at the disposal of the agency from time to time for definite purposes
stated and justified by the agency. Much of this capital would have
to be raised by State bonds and local bonds even if development were
to proceed in the conventional manner. A small amount of additional
capital might also be needed to finance the agency’s operating costs,
includimg the detailed planning and urban design work, site prepara-
tion, promotional activities, and administration. The capital advanced
for construction of public facilities would be recovered from the public
agencies responsible for the provision of such facilities when money is
available from their usual sources of funds. The payment might come
in a lump sum from an agency capital budget, or in annual installment
payments, or in rental payments. *° The initial capital investment in
the district and the agency’s operating expense might be recaptured
completely by a combination of the existing sources of funds from the
various public agencies and profits from the sale and lease of land.
However, the establishment of the development district would offer
a good opportunity to maugurate an improved method of paying for
public improvements.*°

All taxes collected in the district would be shared with the towns
which comprise the district. Services might be purchased from towns
prior to the new community’s completion. The sale of stock to all
interested public and private agencies and individuals would also
provide considerable revenue. These development districts would be

38 Tbid., p. 77.

39 Tbid.

40 ““Dhree closely related devices are now employed in various circumstances in the two counties. Special
assessments are used to finance the extension of local water and sewer lines, and the paving of streets and
construction of sidewalks in areas that were developed or subdivided without these amenities. The construc-
tion of streets and sidewalks by homebuilders who add the cost to the price of the houses in a similar and
common financial arrangement. The compulsory dedication of park and school sites (or payment ofa fee in
lieu thereof), which is likewise reflected in the cost of new houses, is another such device.

Use of special assessments to finance most or all of the other public facilities, including schools, libraries,
and community centers, would have the advantage of confronting the home buyer (or renter) with the full
cost of the facilities that will be needed to serve him, thereby enabling him to make a wise decision on the
amount that he can afford to spend for housing. This system would help residents to avoid the plight of all
too many suburbanites, who become overcommitted by failing to allow for the tax increases that will be
necessary to provide the full complement of public facilities needed as the community matures.

Separate assessments would have to be levied for facilities that are of direct and sole benefit to a given
property, and facilities that generate wide benefits. Two important considerations dictate thi <distinction.
Assessments for water and sewer lines, frontage streets, and a few other facilities needed to make a tract of
land usable, can properly be levied against tax exempt institutions, since such assessments are similar to
the prices that any user must pay for any facility or service, public or private. Furthermore, these assess-
ments are not deductible in computing taxable income, since they are more akin to an investment in the
property that is benefited than to a general tax (which is deductible).

By separating the two kinds of assessment, it will be possible to charge nonprofit organizations for the
facilities directly appurtenant to their proper ty, and to assure the tax deductibility of all other assessments.
To make the distinction abundantly clear, the second kind of assessment should be given a new and more
accurate name, such as “lump-sum tax for community facilities.”

The two kinds of assessment could be spread over the properties in the development district in any of
several ways. The cost ofstreets, water mains, and sewers might be assessed, as is now usually the case, in
proportion to the length of the street frontage of the properties served. The cost of other facilities might well
be assessed on an ad valorem basis. In some cases, the cost of facilities serving residential areas might be
paid by the assessment of equal amounts against all dwelling units, but this basis would have a regressive
tendency that would probably be unacceptable in most cases.

The use of special assessments would necessitate a careful estimate of the cost of all facilities to be provided
in the new community, and determination of the value of each assessable property as ofthe time that the
assessment is imposed upon it. While these calculations would not be easy, the agency would have sufficient
information on the public improvements program to permit reasonably accurate cost estimates, and data

on property values would be readily available if the assessment is not imposed until the time that the
develope :d property goes on the tax rolls. Since the development process would be completed within a few
years, the possibility of error would be limited.” (Bain, op. cit., pp. 78-80.)

46

eligible for Federal funds (e.g., Title IV: New Community Develop-
ment) as well as for State subventions. MHFA could become involved
as easily under this strategy as under strategy No. 2.

Public benefits

The benefits accruing under this strategy are the same as those
that would accrue under strategy No. 2. The comprehensive nature of
the planning for future growth is sacrificed somewhat, since the
development corporation would be responsible for planning for the
entire State at all times. But, perhaps, this third strategy is more
realistic and more politically acceptable. The State would still be
responsible for formulating a coordinated and synchronized overall
public improvements program and it would be the State government
that identified what high growth areas in which new community
development districts should be established.

CONCLUSIONS

In Massachusetts it is fairly obvious that the multiplicity of
localities (351 cities and towns) creates financial hardships and politi-
cal fragmentation. A strong county system or metropolitan council
of governments might provide a more efficient government. These
possibilities have been discussed elsewhere.*! Given the strong tradi-
tion of local government in Massachusetts, however, it seems unlikely
that governmental reorganization will occur in the near future.
Urban expansion, though, is occurring now and will continue at a
vigorous pace. The new community development strategies proposed
in this chapter offer possibilities for channeling and coordinating
urban development. Each of the three strategies is politically and
financially acceptable, although the third strategy seems most.
desirable.

The State development corporation holds out the greatest promise.
for meeting public development objectives (e.g. providing more low
and middle income housmg in locations which correspond to job
opportunities, preserving open space) yet the new community develop-
ment districts are a reasonably good second choice. Empowering
regional planning agencies to act as industrial and economic develop-
ment authorities is a third possibility—although regional planning as
it is currently structured in Massachusetts is less efficient than it.
might be.”

The two most critical problems facing any attempt to create new
communities in Massachusetts are (1) finding ways of financing the
operating costs of a new community during the development period
(assuming that capital construction can be paid for by State bonds
and State agency programs), and (2) overcoming the political opposi-
tion offered by longtime residents to the creation of a new community
expected to grow to 50,000 people within the boundaries of an existing
town. The first problem can be dealt with rather efficiently by staging
and managing the development process in order to keep a positive

“ For example, see Massachusetts Legislative Research Bureau re ort on regional goy-
ernment and report on substate regionalization, Office of Planning aa Program paarainee
tion, Massachusetts Department of Administration and Finance, 1969.

MG REE DD, Marsa chusetts Reexamined,” a report prepared for the
ts) ommuni a i
Susskind, Apel 1970, y rs by R. Stephen Browning and Lawrence

47

*seale YjMols jeljuajod ysiy ul
yuauidojsaap ajqejinba pue paouejeq 40) apiAoid
PINOM Ng *Z “ON Ad9}e1}S UeY} BAIsuayaIdWOD ssaq

: “eiqeyleae ase Sqof aiaym duisnoy
@woou! ejyeJapow pue Mo} BuIpjing 4o suet
POO “aplijano0 ajeys Yysnosy} saoioesd usWdO
-jaAep Aleuoisnjoxa uMop sulyeasq jo sajuesensy
"JuaWidojaAsp Mau Y}IM adualladxs oljqgnd 40
UONEUIPIOOD ‘jUsUIdOJaAapP MAU Ul UBLWAAJOAUI
8}E}S 9941 “S}Yauaq d1]qGnd jsoje0I3 ay} Joyo pinoy

*BUISNOY BwWOdu! a]ppIwi
pue Mo} JO Sulpjing ay} Jo yuawdojaAap jeny
-SNpul Jay}a oJNSu! 0} alge eq jou pjnoM ‘s}udW
-9AOIGUII Jijqnd ul JUaWyseAU) pue Sulwessold
8} pue Jueuidojanap Ajiunwulod Mau 104 sazIs 40
UO!}DaJaS a4} J8AO UOIeUIPI00D dIjgnd ules pynoj

*SPUOg pulyag o}e}s 94} JO }1Pasd 6y} se |jaM
se “Aauou! ajeAlid yo JUaWIAAJOAU! JOaJIG “eae

Po}W] e 0} pajzoisjsad asneveq ajqiseay Ajjeloueul4

“ynowyip Asan Ajjeroueul4 “yw
3949p V4HIN UL Sseel9u! UO pue spuog UO Ajal
}SNi "Jeluejsqns aq pjnom palinbes saoinosal
OY} 2}2}S asjua By} Jnoysno1y, jUeuidojenap

10j ajqisuodsay aq pjnom uoelodioo siuj esneoag

*Ajjeloueuly ajqiseay Ajawia1yxy
*A\JSOU! UONEUIp1 009 pue Susuueyd 104 ajqisuodsad
8g jng ‘s}9efo1d oyioads Jo; Aeuow apiaoid
JOU p[NoMA “}Uasedd je se ysn{ sumo} pue saizl9
JaquiawW UO JUBUUSsesse e}Ided Jad Aq peoueul4

“spuog anss! 0} }Ipesd aje}s Jo asn OU SeAIOAL|

-qold yolym Sease ueqin wody yoddns Jeoiztjod
ules pinoy “Jemod ulewop jusulWwea jo yor] pue
juauidojanap Mau Aq pajoayje saljiunwiwos jo

*s}OlJ}SIp JuowdojaAep Ayiunw

uoedioiied JoasIp jo asnedag ajqiseay Ajjediyijog -WOd MAU al} JO JUaWYSI|qe}Se ay} Joy BUIPIAOg

"oisijeasun
Ajjeoijijod siyj sayew osye uolyesodsoo ayy 4ano
Jo1}U09 pue diysiaquiaw woJy s}uapised eso]
JO UOISNjOXy “Ada}eI13S SY} 0} AZII}SOy sajzeaso
Sapod sulu0z pue sUIpjing je90) aplwieAo 0}
Jamod ay} os|y "uleWop juauIWA Jo Jamod ay} Jo

€ “ON ADALVYLS

*u0NeJ0d109 yUaWdojaAap yyos1duoU

asnedag jUa}xe JeeI8 e 0} alqejdaooeun Ajjeo!}i[oq pasayJeyo a}eyS e yO UOI}easD Bu} JO) BUIpIAO!d

*juasaid ye
waas ou JJoddns o1jqnd peasdsapijy “AyWoyIne
JUaWdojaAap dIWoUode pue jelysnpul jeuoisas
B jO Slamod ay} aWinsse 0} Aouesy suluueld
yseayinos ay} SuULamodwa UoOlje|sisa| jeloads jo

2 ON ADALVYLS

*sal}Joujne Juawdojanep
dIwouo0dd pue jell}snpul se joe 0} Jemod

asessed ay} Aq pajessuowep se aqiseay Ajjediyi[o4 94} YyIM Selouese Sujuuesd jeuolsed BuIpiAold

T “ON ADF LVYLS

_—<—— Se Se EE EE SS

S}Jaueq I1}qNnd

Ayligiseay jeloueu!4

Ayl|igiseay jeoiy!|og

SSE a a

SAIDALVYLS LNAWdOTIAIG ALINAWWOD MIN SAILVNYILIV—IA LYVHO

48

cash flow from the sale of housing and land, and the rental of com-
mercial and industrial property. Some services can be purchased from
the existing municipalities (e.g., school and health) until the new
community reaches a size sufficient to support the building of their
own facilities. In addition, taxes can be collected from the new com-
munity residents as they move in (just as in any other municipality)
although some of the tax revenue will revert to the new community
development district agency and some will be used to pay the sur-
rounding municipalities for services purchased. If necessary, Federal
loans can be obtained at very low interest rates to cover costs during
the early stage of development.

The second problem, political opposition, is much more difficult to
deal with. One principle that ought to be observed is to involve long
time residents in the planning and development of any new community.
Present residents of any area that is included in a new community
development district should be given representation on the board of
the agency as well as options to buy stock in the development district
corporation. One good argument that can be made is that the new
community, once completed, will certainly offer many benefits to the
present residents that they could not possibly provide for themselves—
improved schools, improved health care, additional community sery-
ices and facilities. In addition, the development of a new community
will certainly enhance the value of their investment in a home in the
area. Longtime residents are obviously going to be afraid of being
taxed to pay for newcomers’ services and afraid of being politically
submerged, but both of these fears can be allayed through the develop-
ment district strategy. In the long run, if the State assumed the costs
of education and the Federal Government assumed the costs of wel-
fare programs, property owners would be less resistant to new develop-
ment (in any form) since property taxes would not have to be so
severe (to pay for the costs of education). However, until such a shift
in fiscal responsibilities is made, the third strategy seems to present
the best means of coping with these two serious problems.

CHAPTER LV
CoNcLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION

An essential characteristic of new large-scale urban development
should be its reliance on effective land use planning and development
euidance regulations. Even though large scale planned urban develop-
ment when accompanied by strong and effective land use planning and
regulation at the state level stands a good chance of being effective,
the evidence available seems to indicate that the establishment of
large, new, planned communities with a balanced composition is not
economically feasible without significant governmental subsidy. This
infeasibility stems from the investment costs resulting from the long
period required for land assembly and improvement and the construc-
tion of infrastructure and utilities before revenue from the sale of
sites or structures is sufficient to provide a net profit.

A number of strategies which could facilitate new community de-
velopment by easing the problems of assembling and improving land
were outlined in Chapter ITI. Additional methods for removing some
of the land use and development constraints impeding new community
development and for enhancing the possibility of meeting public
development objectives will be discussed in this Chapter. Incentives
to encourage individuals and industries to locate in new communities
will also be outlined.

Urban development grants, loans and other federal assistance
programs are available and probably necessary for successful new
community developments—even new community development under-
taken by state government. But conscious state efforts to pursue a
new community development program can significantly assist private
developers and investors while at the same time insuring a more
efficient and equitable pattern of urban development:

State urban development plans related to a national urbanization policy
could identify appropriate sites for new community development through the
use of planning techniques and application of market analysis approaches. De-

tailed site identification and additional analyses [could] be incorporated into
local and regional plans.?

1 Jn light of this ACIR concludes that the states have a significant role to play in planning for and assisting
in new large-scale urban and new community development. The state should be empowered to 1) acquire
land by negotiation and through the exercise of eminent domain; 2) arrange for site development and con-
struct or contract for the construction of utilities, streets and other related improvements, 3) hold land for
later use, 4) sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of land or right thereto to private developers or public agencies;
and 5) charter local, regional or state land development agencies. All such powers should be exercised in
accordance with, and in furtherance of, the State’s urbanization plan.

These activities could be financed as appropriate, through direct appropriations, charges and rents, grants,
sales of land, and borrowing, if authorized. Borrowing authority should be granted on a revenue basis in
anticipation of land sales and rents. Revenue from land sales and rents could provide a major source of
income and a significant part of the operations of state land development instrumentalities could be on a
revolving fund basis after an initial appropriation of working capital.

State assistance in making credit more readily available for business and industrial location in certain
areas by establishing State and regional industrial credit agencies; placement of State and local procurement
contracts and construction projects to foster urban growth in certain areas; and assistance and guidance for
urban growth through State property tax deferral for new community development are all possible options.
Cos R., Urban and Rural America, op. cit.)

-» Pp. 156.

(49)

50

The state government through any one of a number of instrumentali-
ties it might create could acquire land and make it available either by
competitive bid or negotiated purchase at reasonable market rates as
it is needed for development, thus relieving the developer of the risk
of inflated land prices and heavy carrying costs. Different mechanisms
or strategies could be utilized by the state to insure the installation of
water and sewer lines and roads as required.’

INCENTIVE-CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR LAND USE GUIDANCE

New techniques and new ways of using existing techniques for
guiding urban growth are needed to insure more equitable and more
effiient patterns of urban development. Guiding the use of land in
urbanizing areas to achieve the planned expansion of existing towns
or the development of relatively self-sufficient new communities in-
volves the followmg major problems: (1) shaping regional and com-
munity growth; (2) curbing urban sprawl; (8) assuring an adequate
supply of land for certain kinds of private developments; (4) acquiring
land for public purposes; (5) protecting land with unique character-
istics; (6) lowering the cost of public improvements; and (7) regulating
the relationships between landowners.

The process of new community development spans a period of at
least fifteen years. During that time effective controls and techniques
for guiding land use in a new community as well as in areas surrounding
a new community are required. Zoning, subdivision control, the use of
eminent domain, the purchase of development rights and scenic ease-
ments, taxation and economic incentives, the use of holding zones and
planned unit development are land use guidance techniques that vary
in effectiveness.

1. Effectiveness of zoning as a control

Local zoning regulations are ineffective for several reasons: *

(a) In most cases, these ordinances do not emanate out of the
planning process. In some instances, zoning regulations and
zoning administrators substitute for the plan and the planning
process. Wot

(b) Zoning ordinances were framed to regulate the develop-
ment of individual lots by individual interests. They are presently
not adequate to offer a prescriptive or regulatory envelope for
newer design and development techniques.

(c) Zoning ordinances concentrate on individual uses, rather
than the linkages between and among uses. Thus, they are
difficult to utilize in an overall public planning and development
strategy. duiutt at ¢

(d) Present zoning ordinances do not take into consideration
overriding metropolitan and regional goals. Each city and town
is an island unto itself with relatively little coordination between
cities and towns in either the construction of zoning ordinances
or overall land development policy. !

(e) In the often indiscriminate use of low intensity zoning,
“sprawl” and speculation appear to be encouraged.

3 Thid. ;
4 Marshall Kaplan, “Implementation of the Baltimore Regional Pl: It ives’? | isco:
Institute for Planning and Development), 1965, pp. 26-27. ay a Bae pan eer ¥%

5],

‘(f) Because zoning generally does not emanate out of a plan-
ning framework and almost always is unrelated to market behavior,
it creates at times ‘‘artificial”’ limitations on suprluses in certain
use categories restricting private, choices which, if made, would
be in the public interest, and result in public benefits.

2. Effectiveness of subdivision control

Like zoning, subdivision regulations are directed more at controlling
incremental lot development rather than providing a solid basis for
evaluating and setting standards for regional development practices.°

(a) Subdivision costs vary from town to town. These differ-
ences. . . apparently reflect not the choices of citizens but
different. skills and concerns of technicians. Efforts of the mem-
bers of the building industry to operate in more than one juris-
diction are impeded. Complexities appear to have increased de-
velopment costs.

(b) In many localities, subdivision codes do not agree with
zoning bylaws, again adding to the frustration and cost of local
Seielopers as well as thwarting the implementation of public
policy.

(c) Throughout the region, subdivision control is generally a
“one shot” affair, with no appropriate public overview of contin-
uing development.

3. Effectiveness of eminent domain
Mel Scott has pointed out that—

as the scale of government activity increases so does its need for land on which
to locate public facilities, such as schools, parks, offices, hospitals. . . . Similarly,
governmental participation in urban redevelopment is becoming a larger and
more important public activity . . . with the broadening responsibility of gov-
ernment and the increasing complexity of problems facing urban areas, the power
of eminent domain has become an exceedingly important means by which gov-
ernment can guide physical development. Public activities such as the highway
and urban renewal program have been made possible through the use of eminent
domain.®

The extention of eminent domain powers to include the taking of
open land has not been evaluated by the courts in Massachusetts. It
appears as if the constitutionality of enabling legislation allowing
public entities to acquire open land for future development purposes
or for “structuring” urban regions would be upheld by the courts.’

4. The effectiveness of development rights and scenic easements

Constrained by the relative ineffectiveness of zoning and subdivision
codes, many states have adopted an additional control: the right to
restrict the development of land through the purchase of land develop-
ment rights. In effect, what this means is that in return for compensa-
tion, private owners accept a diminished version of their former fee
simple title.’

There are some difficulties with this approach:

(a) Legal difficulties in ascertaining public purpose justifying
expenditure of public funds and use of the police power.

5 Tbid., p. 27.

6 Mel Scott, Effectwation of the Urban General Plan (Berkeley, California: University of California}Adult
Extension Program), 1963, Section 2, p. 4.

7 Bloise Morgan, “Certain Legal Problems Suggested by the Creation of New Towns in Massachusetts,”’
Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs, April, 1969.

§Kaplan, op. cit., p. 33.

52

(b) Difficulties in determining the value of the rights taken (a
diminished title is still left in the hands of the private individual)
by the public entity.

(c) Public costs associated with acquisition of development
rights approach costs associated with “taking” land through
eminent domain procedures. ;

(d) Securing of development rights does not usually permit
unrestricted public use of land.°

5. Effectiveness of taxation and economic incentives as land use controls

Manipulation of tax policy, credit programs and subventions are
rather important mechanisms public decision makers have to affect
basic land development. Effectuation of a coordinated strategy relative
to the use of these economic incentives is a difficult task. “To achieve
fine grain effects by economic controls requires highly sensitive
management and close attention to relative shifts in the magnitude of
effects.” 1°

(a) The property tax is the most important tax affecting the
course of land development.'! Reliance on the property tax leads
to noticeable differences in the ability of cities and towns to
provide urban services. This fact is somewhat related to noticeable
disparities in the tax base and the regressive tendencies in the
State tax structure.” Flexible use of this tax as a strategic tool
for affecting land use, is impeded by legal requirements neces-
sitating uniformity of taxation within specific areas and assess-
ments of property at market value.®

(b) Preferential assessment indicates a break with a rigid legal
criterion for assessing at market value. A preferential assessment
law is designed to preserve open space and agricultural land.
Agricultural assessments may be valuable, too, in implementing
certain public policies for structuring growth, if combined with
a state and regional development plan and program of imple-
mentation to guide the urbanization process."

(c) Capital gains tax. ‘Perhaps the tax provisions with the
most influence on the land development pattern in suburban
and ex-urban areas is the federal capital gains tax and the deduct-
ibility features with respect to property taxes of the Federal
income tax. Both these provisions seemingly unrelated to any
national land policy encourages the withholding of land from
development on the part of those playing the optimization of
income game.”’ ® ) |

The treatment of land areas as capital gains allows owners
(especially those with large financial resources) to retain land
with relatively little holding costs. No income tax is collected
until the land is sold. Upon sale the return from the transaction
is taxed up to 25% rather than at ordinary income tax rates.
Elimination of capital gains benefits might cause large land

9 Ibid. ; MER
‘0 John Dyckman, “The Control of Land Developments and Urbanization in California,” Appendix to
the Report on Housing in California (Sacramento, California: State Printing Office), 1963, p. 310. ae
i aplan, op. cit., pp. 34-39. : SB as
v

18 Thid.

14 Thid.
15 Tbid,

53

owners to revert to long-term leases, thus freezing land in its
present use.1®

6. The effectiveness of holding zones

Several recent reports on land use policy suggest the possibility of
authorizing local or state government to designate holding zones in
which development would have to be delayed for several years.”
Holding zones are a form of police power regulation. They differ from
land banks in that they do not involve governmental acquisition of
land, although they might entail the payment of compensation under
some circumstances.’®

The Douglas Commission suggests making provision for the—
establishment of holding zones in order to postpone development in areas that are
inappropriate for development within the next three to five years. Local govern-
ments should be authorized to limit development within such zones to houses on
only large lots (e.g. 10 to 20 acres) agricultural and open space uses. The State
legislature would require that localities review holding zones designations at least
every five years.19
Such a device would allow the state to post pone urban development
when financial or other legitimate considerations made it impossible
to provide services for more intensive use of an area.

7. The effectweness of planned unit development

The planned development of land, especially of large tracts, offers a
promising device for dealing with many of the problems associated
with present development procedures and patterns. Planned develop-
ment, as distinct from new communities, can be applied to small scale
development.

The Douglas Commission recommends that—

State governments enact enabling legislation for, and local governments adopt
provisions establishing regulatory process for planned unit developments. Such
legislation should authorize provisions to vary according to the size of the property
(e.g. to permit high rise buildings of light industry only in projects of more than a
specific size) .?°

Contrary to the usual practice of not mapping planned unit develop-
ment districts until a project is approved, a more effective technique
would be to enable the localities to ‘‘classify undeveloped land in
planned development districts within which development would be
allowed to occur only at a specific minimum scale. If a community
were unwilling to purchase land for development, provision could be
made to require that new development in specified undeveloped areas
take place at a fairly large scale.”’ 7!

When a specific development proposal of modest scope is announced
by a property owner somewhere in the undeveloped sections of Com-
monwealth, the burden of proof naturally lies upon those who would
restrict the use of land by its owner. That burden can rarely be
overcome, except in cases where there is an exceptionlly clear and
immediate public interest in prohibiting development. Therefore, a
steady progression of scattered development appears to be inevitable,

16 Ibid.

17 David Heeter, Toward A More Effective Land Use Guidance System (Chicago: American Society of
Plannine Officials), 1969.
18 7b2

19 The National Commission on Urban Problems (Douglas Commission), Building the American City
(Wwashmelon D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office), 1968, p. 245.

20 Jbid.

21 Jbid., p. 246.

54.

as long as the long-run public interest in preserving a given area as
open space for example, must undergo reevaluation time after time,
in competition with immediate pressures generated by each proposal
for private development. This scattered development in turn sets the
precedent for more development by destroying some of the open
space values which have helped to justify public control, and by
siphoning off development that would otherwise create compact
centers in more appropriate locations.” The most effective technique
for dealing with this problem is “land banking.”

The land bank provides a community with an effective means of controlling
the character and timing of urban development. Fundamentally, the local govern-
ment acquires land and holds it until conditions are appropriate for public use
or sale on the private market for purposes that are included in the community’s.
comprehensive plan. This idea has not been used widely, although it seems as
if it would work quite effectively.

In order to achieve the seven objectives mentioned at the beginning
of this discussion of incentive-control systems for land use guidance,
the State government needs to enact legislation enabling State,
regional, and/or local development authorities or agencies to acquire
land in advance of the development for the following purposes: (a)
assuring the continuing availability of sites needed for development;
(b) controlling the timing, location, type and scale of development;
(c) preventing urban sprawl, (d) reserving for the public gains in land
values resulting from the action of government in promotion and
securing development.

At such time as the development of such land is deemed to be
appropriate and in the interests of the region, such land could be
sold or leased at no less than its fair market value for private develop-
ment or public development in accordance with approved state and
regional urban growth plans. Wherever feasible, long term leases
should be the preferred method of disposing of any public land, and
leases should be set so as to permit reassembly of properties for
future planning and development. Legislation should specify maxi-
ite period that such land may be held by the public before lease or
sale.

AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR NEW COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT

Implicit in any decision to provide for state control over the de-
velopment of new communities is a coordinated public decision making
and planning process. To implement the development of new com-
munities requires the full and coordinated use of existing and pro-
posed public powers to guide and structure the urban development
process. Any implementation strategy should be based on a statewide
development plan and planning process as well as an accepted, ordered
set of goals. In essence, consistency and conformity with area-wide
plans will be the most important criteria in evaluating the desirability
of expending public as well as private resources.”

22 Bain, op. cit., p. 43.
2% Kaplan, op. cit.

% Douglas Commission, op. cit., p. 250:
2% Heeter, op. cit., pp. 58-59.

55

Responsibility for planning and implementation has to be shared
among all levels of government.” Planning would include (1) the
completion of a state wide urban development plan, (2) completion
of area-wide development plans by regional planning agencies, (3)
acceptance of regional plans by state and local public bodies, (4)
widespread dissemination of the plan throughout the region. Imple-
mentation of a new community development program would require:

1. Review of all public and private actions of regional im-
portance for consistency with area-wide plan.

2. Utilization of public works, public facility and transporta-
tion planning to structure and direct growth.

3. Complementary use of land use controls and regulatory
mechanisms with public works and facility programming and
development.

a Coordination of tax and assessment policies with area-wide

ans.

5. Regional review of those federal programs (implemented by
the public and private sectors) affecting the regional development
pattern.

6. Creation by the state of a state development corporation
or new community development districts empowered to coordinate
and regulate public and private development actions to insure the
development of balanced new communities.

7. Encouragement of private participation in new community
development through the selected and careful application of land
use controls, public provision of water and sewer facilities, as
well as transportation.

8. Immediate acquisition of strategic high potential growth
areas by existing state agencies or new instrumentalities.

9. Reservation of land intended for future development
through the combined use of low intensity zoning, control and
development rights, compensatory zoning, and the programming
of public facilities and improvements.

The present land use planning and regulatory system fails to protect
adequately the interests and issues which transcend local governmental
boundaries. In addition, in most instances they are not sufficiently
strong nor sufficiently flexible to permit and sustain the planned
development of a new large scale community. To rectify this, it has
been suggested that a state planning and review agency be created to
promote and protect extra-local interests and resolve disputes.” The
state should assume an active role in applying land use guidance and
control techniques in an effort to insure the successful development of
new communities. The state agency should have the authority to
(1) prepare and effectuate state and regional land use policies and
plans,?® (2) review local plans and ordinances for compliance with
state legislation and state plans and policies,”® and (3) directly regulate
the use of land and public facilities in those areas in which there is a
state-wide interest.*”

2 [bid., p. 56.

: Pesos op. cit., p. 46.

2% See the American Law Institute, A Model Land Development Code, Tentative Draft No. 1 (Philadelphia:
American Law Institute), 1968.

3° See New Directions in Connecticut Planning Legislation, (Chicago: American Institute of Planning
Officials), 1967.

06

POSTSCRIPT: QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN TO BE ANSWERED

Many assumptions have been made in the course of this exposition.
The questions which underlie these assumptions need to be discussed
publicly. This thesis concludes with a series of questions which need to
be considered by public officials and private citizens alike prior to the
implementation of a state new community development strategy:

1. Can we set specific goals for state urban development? Who
should set goals? What kinds of citizen participation can there be in
the goal setting process?

2. Can we move quickly enough once we have established a clear
set of development objectives? Can we overcome the bureaucratic
slugeishness of the governmental bureaucracy?

3. What mix of incentives and controls makes the most sense, given
the political realities of Massachusetts?

4. What rate of urban growth does it make the most sense to try to.
sustain? Who should set that rate? Should it be a constant rate?

5. Should a disproportionate amount of state funds be spent to meet
the needs of low-income families since their level of need is highest?

6. Should growth occur evenly throughout the Commonwealth, or
should new developments be concentrated in only a few areas?

Answers to these questions have been assumed throughout this
thesis. Whether or not they are the ‘‘right’’ answers remains to be seen.

B. Pusuic INVOLVEMENT IN New Community DEVELOPMENT:
JUSTIFICATION, PROBLEMS, AND A PROPOSAL

(By R. Stephen Browning, Harvard University)

Editors Note: This is an excerpt of Mr. Browning’s paper. Within
we present part of chapter 1 and the entire chapter 2 which deals
with public involvement in new community development, as well as
his accompanying bibliography.

New communities are a vast paradox. Many urban writers claim
that new communities can provide a better way of life. Yet, with all
the publicity given to the concept of new communities, very little
positive action has been taken by either the public or the private
sectors to help develop them. Is it because new communities in fact
cannot produce the manifold advantages claimed for them by their
advocates? This paper takes the position that it is not a lack of
capacity in providing the claimed advantages; on the contrary, the
problem with the new community concept is more political and legal
in nature. That is, new communities have not been developed because
institutional structures do not exist which would be capable of success-
fully undertaking such a large-scale task. Moreover, it is not yet clear
that even if these institutions were to be created tomorrow, they would
have the constitutional authority to act.

This paper will approach the problem in three ways. First, it will
present a general analysis of the concept of new communities and the
strategies for their implementation. Second, it will examine the more
significant legal and political issues which constitute the bulk of the
problems now impeding public development of new communities.
Third, it will present a proposed statute which seeks to formalize a
reconciliation of these issues into a proposed political structure for
the development of new communities.

Both the legal analysis and the proposed statute are based largely
on Massachusetts case and statutory law, not because it is particularly
typical, (although much of what is said does have broader application)
but because the State is among the first to broach these issues. More-
over, solutions arrived at in Massachusetts may serve to some extent
extent as prototypes for other State new community programs.

Tur New Community CONCEPT AND STRATEGIES FOR ITS [MPLEMENTA-
TION

A. THE NEW COMMUNITY CONCEPT

1. A brief look at the record

New communities are not new. Conceptually, they doubtless date to
the dawn of human settlements. One of the earliest expressions of the
contemporary new town concept has been attributed to Leonardo da
Vinci, who suggested that the city of Milan be ringed with eight

(57)

58

satellite cities in order to relieve urban congestion. Four centuries
later, Ebenezer Howard, an uneducated court stenographer, proposed
a similar solution for relief from London’s urban growth and initiated
the modern new town concept.’

Early notions of modern planning originated with social theorists
and utopian planners who were essentially reacting to the effects
wrought by industrialization on the cities.*'The rapid change from
agrarian to urban living, resulted in crushing population influxes
which so pressurized existing urban infrastructures that government,
which had previously operated at a relatively relaxed pace and primi-
tive level, was unable to provide basic urban services. Perhaps more
significantly, government was legally and politically unprepared to
control urban growth patterns.’ | ,

These conditions suggested that something more than “natural
forces’? was needed to shape future urban growth. The accompanying
notion was that city planning in an industrial age required far more
than planning for grand boulevards and vistas and that urban develop-
ment patterns must be shaped by planning for human values. The
new town concept emerged from these notions.

Social theorists and planners had recognized the effects of industrial-
ization, but Howard was the first to order the components of the city
into a coherent form and formulate a complete strategy for alternative
development—the garden city. Suggesting that relief from crowded
and unsanitary urban conditions might, be had through decentrali-
zation,* Howard proposed that London be surrounded with a series
of self-contained urban centers of 30,000 population each. These
carefully planned communities, protected from external encroachment
and internal growth by surrounding greenbelts, were to combine the
virtues of intense urban living with those of the more rural life style.

The garden city concept was imported and introduced to this
country by Clarence Stem during the 1920’s and 1930’s.5 Although
far short of the isolated, self-sufficient English garden city, Stein
planned several residential developments, including Radburn, N.J.,
one of the more significant contributions to the development. of
modern planning. Combining concepts of Howard’s comprehensive

roposals with the neighborhood concept delineated by Clarence
erry,’ Radburn reflected Stein’s belief that the typical suburban
environment lacked both essential amenities and the feeling of
community.

Stein reasoned that limited dividend corporations or government
agencies could provide a framework for the heavy financial investments
and flexible continued planning that would be necessary for such
development. He further argued for positive governmental inter-
vention into the field of urban development. His principal efforts were
directed toward the creation of governmental, legal, and financial
frameworks that could address the task of new community develop-
ment as a continuing long-term process rather than a methodical

1%. Howard, Tomorrow: ‘‘A Peaceful Path to Real Reform” i fe iti
of Tomonow" ak orm” (1898), later published as ‘‘Garden Cities
or illustrations and analysis of utopian and conceptual new town pr i sf
of the Ideal Community in Urban Planning” (1962). e Bronosalsy se] ey ater diee ae
2 A. Gallion, “The Urban Pattern” (1962).
4. Howard, op. cit.
5 C. Stein, ‘““Toward New Towns for America’’ (1951).
6 A. Gallion, op. cit.

59

pursuit of a predetermined end. Despite these efforts, most of Stein’s
communities were not entirely successful. The large initial investments
and the high cost of capital carrying charges pushed the price of their
housing units above the reach of low-income workers.

The large scale planning efforts of Stein and others depended to a
ereat extent on federal financial aid. The early Federal efforts at new
community development were typified by complete governmental
ownership of land control of planning and initial financing with the
result that the projects were both well designed physically and
rapidly developed. However, the communities later suffered because
of poor planning for the transition of administration from the Federal
agency to local government and as a result of the adverse economic
impact accompanying the termination of Federal subsidies.

in contrast to the rather minor and inconclusive role that the
Federal Government has played in new community development, the
British Government has committed itself as a matter of national
policy to the development of new towns. The New Towns Act of
1946 * authorizes the Minister of Housing and Local Government to
select new town sites and to appoint development corporations, under
the direction of prominent citizens, to carry out planning and develop-
ment. The development corporations then acquire land, by compulsory
purchase if necessary, undertake planning and contract for construc-
tion services. Although they have power to construct certain public
services, the services normally provided by local authorities are not
undertaken. The corporations are funded by public loans and exercise
virtually complete control over development, but are not conceived
of as a substitute for local government. initially, town boundaries are
to be coincident with existing lines of jurisdiction and upon completion,
of development, the corporation is dissolved and administration passes
to a national commission which assumes ownership and control of the
new town. Although, upon transferral to the Commission for the
New Towns, further local control is permitted, the new towns remain
essentially under the control of the National Government.®

One of the most significant concepts underlying new town planning
in England is the concept that incremental increases in land values
resulting from the development of new towns should accrue to the
public; and that public ownership provides the most effective method
to control iand use.

Since passage of the original New Towns Act, over 20 new towns
have been designated.® Originally conceived as vehicles for the decen-
tralization of population and control of urban growth, new towns are
now used as a policy instrument to stimulate industrial and economic
growth in underdeveloped regions and to coordinate population and
industrial growth.

While the British new town program has been the most extensive,
it has not been exclusive. Stockholm, Sweden, bas undertaken to build
satellite new towns as part of its municipal growth policy.t° Tapiola

79 and 10 Geo. 6, c. 68. ¢

§ For a history of the English new towns, see F. Osborne and A. Whittick, “‘The New Towns” (1963);
See also L. Rodwin. ‘‘The British New Towns Policy’’ (1956).

® For an excellent discussion of the history and development of new communities with recommendations
for governmental action, see Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, ‘Urban and Rural
America: Policies for Future Growth,” ch. 1V: New Communities and Their Objectives (1968) (hereinafter
cited as ACIR: Urban and Rural America) at 67.

10 Tbid., See also R. Duckworth and D. Kertzman, “Development Corporations,’’ The Maryland-Na-
tional Capital Park and Planning Commission (1968).

57-242—7T1——_5

60

is a well publicized Finnish new town undertaken in response to the
post war housing shortage and is often cited for its excellence of
design and ability to achieve an effective socioeconomic balance of
population.” :

Up until 2 years ago, contemporary new town development in the
United States has been exclusively a creature of private enterprise,
and its origins were in the post-World War II period. Although a
housing shortage followed World War II, the economic condition was
one of growth rather than recession and large-scale merchant-builders
moved into this favorable market.

These merchant-builders differed from the earlier developers who
had initiated the suburban movement primarily in terms of scale of
operation. The merger of land acquisition and improvement with
standardization and merchandising of residential construction per-
mitted more efficient production of housing units and greater returns
on invested capital. The result of the merchant-builders operations
during the late 1940’s and 1950’s was the full maturization of the
suburban movement which had begun decades before.”

During the late 1950’s and 1960’s the contemporary community
developer emerged with a new product—total environment—which
was designed to answer the criticisms which have been directed at
suburbia while retaiming profitability.* Contemporary new com-
munities have been developed by a variety of developers. Both Reston
and Columbia were initiated by individuals who believed that a better
quality environment could be profitable. Corporations such as Gen-
eral Electric, Westinghouse, and Boise-Cascade have become in-
volved in new community development, primarily to stimulate sales
of their products and to provide a test market.44 Other corporations
such as Gulf Oil and Sunoco have become involved probably because
of tax savings. Corporations with large landholdings and families with
extensive holdings, primarily in California, have also begun to de-
velop new communities. However, the common thread of all developers
to date is the problem of returning a substantial profit on invested
capital.

In 1968 the Federal Government made its first significant gesture
to help the private new community developer.!® Seeking to reduce the
pressure of the heavy ‘front end investment’? which characterizes
large-scale development, Congress offered a Government guarantee
for the loans of new community developers. The novel aspect of the
new legislation is that it permits the developer to issue “cash flow
debentures” which require no repayment until the new community
project begins to generate a positive cash flow.1® In spite of the theo-
retical advantages of the Government guarantee, it has been neither
enthusiastically received by the private sector” nor adequately

11 ACIR: Urban and Rural America, op. cit., at 67; See also discussion in H. Elderi fe i -
Boo (1967) at 835. ; : Ee eee

12 See discussion in E. Hichler and M. Kaplan, ‘The Communit lders”’ i
mighlewetd Kaplan) at 20. gene, y Builders’ (1967) (hereinafter cited as

13 Tphid.

14 Interestingly, General Electric recently withdrew from the field of large-scale development, claiming
that a greater public commitment—with the use of eminent domain—would be required in order to make:
such ventures economically feasible.

4s ACIR: Urban and Rural America, op. cit., at 79-82.

16 Title TV, 1968 Housing Act.

16 See testimony of Robert B. Weaver, Secretary of HUD, before the House Committee on Banking and
Currency, March 1968.

Fi om conversation with William Finley, executive director for the new community of Columbia, Md.,,

61

funded by Congyess.18 The major faults are traceable to the pre-
requisites for issuance of the guarantee, which include such things as
a socially and economically mixed developments with a wider
range of housing choice and community facilities.1? Although these
items are clearly desirable from a public interest standpoint, it is
questionable whether they can be provided without substantially
more subsidy than that created by the guarantee.*°

Pusuic INVOLVEMENT IN NEw Community DEVELOPMENT: LEGAL
CONSTITUTIONAL, AND Po.mitrcaL IssuES

A. THE PUBLIC PURPOSE DILEMMA

The chronic refusal to see the land problem in anything but a
restricted and archaic perspective may well be one of the contributing
factors to our modern economic incoherencies. Surely it is an indication
of myopia to cast about for social patterns and to plan political struc-
tures without so much as a glance at the very obvious basis of economic
life. There are programs and programs, all of them seemingly founded
on the proposition that industry and capital and finances are ethereal
essences floating about balloonlike and designing no commerce with
the ground. There are books and books on economics, every week a
new batch. In how many of them will you find the word “land”
mentioned in the indexes? Perhaps Chesterton complamed correctly
when he found that the man in Bedford is not conscious of Bed-
fordshire. Our urban population have completely forgotten that we
all live on the land.”

1. Present wse: The nature of the problem

In much of the literature concerning the potential role of American
governments in new community development there seems to be an
implicit assumption that not only is it a good idea for government to
be involved in controlling, acquiring, or developing land for new com-
munities, but that all of these actions are permissible as well. Such an
assumption, without reference to specific laws, intuitively seems accept-
able, particularly in a country like the United States, where, in less
than two centuries, government has managed to dispose of over 1
billion acres of public land either by gifts or by sales at reduced prices.”
Thus, it does seem implausible to assume that a government, capable
of disposing of so much land, should not also be capable of reacquiring
land for new community development. The plausibility of this con-
clusion notwithstanding a cursory survey of the relevant law should
suggest to even the most casual reader the existence of so many
constraints that it would be dangerous to assume such power without
further investigation.

Perhaps this point can be made more lucid by examining closely
some statements from the new community literature. In probably the
“8 See statement of Charles M. Haar, professor of law, Harvard University, before the House Committee
on Banking and Currency, Oct. 22, 1969.

19 See new regulations promulgated by HUD for title 1V, February 1970.

20 For an idea of what title IV was conceived of as being (before it was run through the legislative wringer) ,
see Mortimer Zuckerman, “The Zurban Report’, confidential memorandum prepared for the President’s
Task Force on the development of New Town’s legislation, fall 1967.

21 GQ. R. Geiger, ‘“The Theory of the Land Question,” Macmillan Co., New York (1936), p. 5.
22 Extrapolated from data in Sakolski, op. cit., p. 173.

62

most critically acclaimed work on American new communities to date,
the following conclusions about public land acquisition were made:

By purchasing strategically located land, States and large local jurisdictions
can give direction and form to future urban growth. They can encourage large-
scale urban development by assembling parcels of land which might not otherwise
be available and without which costly bypassing would be required. [I]t seems
clear that for State land development agencies #4 to accomplish their objective of
carefully planned acquisition of land for future urban use, they must be able to
aequire land considerably in advance of development.

In support of the quoted conclusions, ACIR offers a number of
very compelling reasons why advance public acquisition of land is
needed, but as to whether such actions are legally permissible, virtu-
ally nothing is said. There are at least two possible explanations for
the lack of the report’s emphasis on the legal issues. It is possible
that its authors felt that the law, as an institution, is completely
rational and, since presumably their report is rational, the two must
coincide. A more realistic interpretation is that the authors recognized
the wide divergence in the laws of the various States, and yet felt
their case could only be effectively made by presenting the most
favorable interpretations of State law. If the latter explanation is
true, then a serious problem will conceivably arise m those cases when
their conclusions are applied to a State which subscribes to a very
narrow view of permissible government involvement. .

Other authors, when considering the subject of public land acquisi-
tion, treat it more as a political or ideological problem rather than a
legal problem. Charles Abrams, the noted attorney and planner,
exemplified this position when he wrote:

Not the least of the obstacles is that new town programs have been too often
associated with the romanticized conceptions of the ‘‘city ideal’”’ instead of resting
on the realistic need for assembling fragmented land and providing well-balanced
schools, streets, and utilities in advance of homebuilding rather than after the
fact. The notion that it is ‘‘socialism” (derived from foreign programs where the
state continues owning the land) is absurd—it is anything but that when implicit
in the plan is the withdrawal of the public from land ownership and the reservation
in public ownership only of the schools, streets, and other traditional public serv-
ices. If anything, its main premise is “‘desocialization.”

The point is, in short, that when scholars consider both land control
and acquisition aspects of new community development, they devote
very little time to the underlying legal problems. To make this point is
not to denigrate the quality and scope of their work; on the contrary,
it only serves to indicate the vast complexity of the land-acquisition
issue.

The principal legal problem normally overlooked in these studies is
the extent to which government involvement in these types of activi-
ties satisfies the requirements of the legal ‘‘public purpose doctrine.”’

The public purpose doctrine

The public purpose doctrine originated in early English law with
the Magna Carta, which imposed a due process limitation on the
King’s inherent power of eminent domain. The due process restric-

2 ACIR, “Urban and Rural America,” p. 152.

*% For an elaboration on what ACIR means by “State land development agency” see “ACIR State
Legislative Program: New Proposals for 1969,’’ sec. 507 et seq. (1968). ,

2 Charles Abrams, ‘‘A Land Development Program for California’? in Eldredge’s edition of “Taming
Megolopolis,’’ Doubleday, Garden City (1967), pp. 850-851.

63

tion and the further restrictions that takings must be compensated,
found their way into preconstitutional American law.”

The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes both the
due process and compensation requirements with the ‘public use”
limitation:

No person shall be. . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due

process of law; not shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.

Nearly all State constitutions have similar provisions. Article X of
the declaration of rights of the Massachusetts constitution provides:

aasit No part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken
from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the
representative body of the people . .. And whenever the public exigencies
require that the property of any individual should be appropriated tu public uses,
he shall receive a reasonable compensation therefore.

The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the States
to comply with due process and this has been interpreted to require
compensation when private property is taken for public use.”

Karly interpretations of the public-use limitations were few and
broad, presumably because of limited governmental activity and an
abundant supply of land. Historically schools, parks, highways,
public buildings, and other uses were construed as public, as they in-
volved actual use by the public,?* but early redevelopment schemes
where land was to be resold to private developers after taking were
invalidated.”®

Thus, during the 19th and early 20th centuries the public-use

. ? . . . ° ”?
doctrine was interpreted to require, literally, a ‘use by the public.
This interpretation began to evolve, however, with increased govern-
mental activity in urban development and public use came to mean
public purpose. Government had traditionally relied primarily on its
police and taxing powers to respond to the pressures of urbanization.*

The question for new communities, then, is whether their develop-
ment represents a public purpose that would justify government acqui-
sition of land for them. Land acquisition by the government, whether
through eminent domain or purchase, of course necessitates the outlay
of public money. In order for any legislation mvolving the public
acquisition of land to be sustained, therfore, the money spent must be
for public purposes or public use. Allydon Realty Corp. v. Holyoke
Housing Authority, the leading Massachusetts case sustaining a public

28To make this point is not to denigrate the quality and scope of their work; on the
contrary, it only serves to indicate the vast complexity of the land-acquisition issue.

2 O.B. & Q. Ry v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).

28 See Nichols, ‘“‘The Meaning of Public Use in the Law of Eminent Domain,” 20 B.U.L. Rev. 615 (1940) .

29 See Salisbury Land & Improvement Co. v. Commonwealth, 215 Mass. 371 102 N.E. 619 (1913).

*It is important to ask at this time whether the limitations are more rigid for eminent domain than for
voluntary sale, or vice versa. On this point, most commentators agree that the requirements for each should
be the same. (McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, S 44.35 (3d ed. rev. 1963); 2 Nichols, Eminent Domain S 712
(1) (8d ed. Sachman & Van Brunt 1950). Interestingly, there has been only one court in the Nation that has
faced the issue directly, and that was the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, when in 1873, it confirmed
the position of the commentators with the statement:

“The power of government, thus constituted, to affect the individual in his rights of property, whether
by exacting contributions to the general means; or by sequestration of specific property, is confined, by
obvious implication as well as by express terms, to purposes and objects alone which the government was
established to promote, to wit, public uses and public services. This power, when exercised in one form is
taxation; in the other is designated as the right of eminent domain.” (Lowell vy. Boston, 1111 Mass. 454, 462
(1872). [Emphasis added.]

Thus, the implication for the permissability of government sponsorship of new community development is
that it won’t make any difference whether the government buys the land from a willing seller or takes it from
areluctant one. Admittedly, to base such a conclusion ona single case, (and one nearly 100 years old, at that)

is tenuous, but there do not seem to have been any other cases or changes in circumstances that would indi-
cate any different result.

64

use and eminent domain powers in an urban redevelopment project,
makes clear that ‘“‘an expenditure (of public funds) is not necessarily
barred because an individual as such may profit, nor is it necessarily
valid because of incidental benefit to the public.’ °° The proper role for
the courts is to determine with due deferrence to legislative findings,
the real,®! primary,” dominating, or fundamental ** purpose of the
statute; and if that purpose is public, to sustain the expenditure.

The Allydon case suggests a nonexhaustive list of factors appropriate
for court consideration in making the determination of public use.*°
Not all the factors must be present in each case. As the court lists them,
the factors relevant to new communities legislation are: (1) Whether
the benefit of the legislation is available on equal terms to the entire
public in the locality affected; (2) whether the service or commodity
supplied is one needed by all or a large number of the public; (3)
whether the enterprise bears directly and immediately, or only re-
motely, on the public welfare; (4) whether the nature of the need to be
met requires united effort under united control, cr can be served as
well by individuai competition; (5) whether private enterprise in the
past has failed in supplying the want or eradicating the evil; and (6)
whether, insofar as benefits accrue to individuals, the whole of society
has an interest in seeing those individuals benefited.

Each of these factors would be met affirmatively with new com-
munities legislation. The statewide need for alleviation of urban
congestion already is clearly stated in the legislative finds of the
proposed statute later in this paper.* The number of individuals
residing in the State’s urban centers is certainly sufficiently large to
satisfy the requirement of need by a substantial segment of the public.
The new communities will be open and available to individuals of all
income levels within the affected locality. New industry and com-
merce attracted to the community will add to the general public
welfare. The need for a united effort and the failure of private enter-
prise in eradicating current urban evils are self-evident after one
glance at existing urban centers. And insofar as private developers
might benefit as individuals from the legislation, the entire public is
benefited, for without some financial aid and incentive no developer
would be able to raise funds sufficient to develop new communities
and survive the timelag between time of investment and return on
investment.

Thus, it appears that the expenditure of money for the acquisition
of land to build new communities satisfies the criteria of public use.
At the very least this would seem to be true for a new community to
be developed as a part of an urban renewal project, because according
to the Allyndon case: “‘the elimination of slums can be found to be a
direct benefit and advantage to all of the people... .” °® Such a
conclusion, unfortunately, is of little help since the logical places to
build new communities are not usually in the urban areas where much
blight exists and little growth is occuring; on the contrary, the more

40 Allydonn Realty Corp., v. Holyoke Housing Au; i 4 c

BADIA, BEDS LOM oh Ba a fey g Authority, 304 Mass. 288, 293, 28 N.E. 2d 665, 667 (1939)

%2 In re Opinion of the Justices, 332 Mass. 769, 782, 126 N.B. 2d 795, 802 (1955).

: Ree of ue LE esol rs Mass, 760, 764, 135 N.E. 2d 665, 667 (1956).

assachusetts Housing Finance Agency v. New England i -

Aav. Bheots 987, 006, 240 We oa 509° 606% 1969), gland Merchants National Bank of Boston, 1969 Mass

36 304 Mass. at 293, 23 N.E. 2d at 667-68.

*See proposed legislation, pt. ITI, infra, sec. 3(4).

% Allyndon Realty Corp. y. Holyoke Housing Authority, 304 Mass. 288, 294, 23 NW 2d 665, 668 (1939).

65

desirable place to build them is in the urbanizing areas of the Com-
monwealth, where there currently exists such enormous growth.
Moreover, the appropriate sites within these urbanizing areas are
primarily vacant and unblighted. Thus, for the government to acquire
the fee, or parts of the fee, for the desirable land, its actions must be
predicated on something other than elimination of blight.

There has been no case in Massachusetts where vacant, unblighted
land has been acquired by government to be used for an urban de-
velopment project like a new community. There have been, however,
Massachusetts cases where vacant unblighted land has been acquired
for actual public uses like parks,” schools,** hospitals, and roads.

The land in these “actual public use’ cases is reserved for certain
components which, although certainly necessary for any new com-
munity, are not by themselves sufficient for a new community. That
is to say, there are other land uses which (although perhaps not as
vital to a new community as certain ‘actual public uses”) are none-
theless necessary for successful development. This “less vital list’
includes such things as housing, offices, stores, and factories: In short,
all of those things traditionally provided by the private sector.

Thus, the prospects for new community development on unblighted
vacant land do not, at this point in the analysis, loom too large.
However, before submitting to the dicta of the cases cited above, it
might be helpful to look briefly at the laws from the early 1930’s, the
period which witnessed the genesis of judicial doctrines relating
“Dublic purpose” to blighted land.

The question of blight

The first use of eminent domain to effect an end which was not
literally a use by the public came with the early public ho sng pro-
erams. In 1936, the New York Court of Appeals upheld a taking of
land by the State for construction of low-income public housing. The
court stated that the basic purpose of government is to protect the
health, safety, and general welfare of the public; and that when a
condition arises which threatens this, it is largely immaterial which of
the powers government uses to effect a remedy, as long as the power is
reasonably employed and fairly calculated to correct the evil.*®

Ironically, imitial Federal efforts to take land for Federal low
income housing encountered less success in the courts. In an early
case, it was held that the Federal Government could not take land for
slum clearance and construction of low imcome housing under the
housing program of the National Industrial Recovery Act.*® This
resulted in State condemnation of land for development of federally
aided low income housing under the housing acts, which was upheld.

While the purpose of the early renewal programs was to replace
slums with low income housing, slum clearance itself was upheld as a
sufficient public purpose even though the ultimate use was not low
income housing or housing at all, but commercial facilities.”

31 Wright v. Walcott, 238 Mass. 432, 131 NE 291 (1921).

38 Byfield v. City of Newton, 247 Mass. 46, 141 NE 658 (1923).

38 New York City Housing Authority v. Muller, 270 N.Y. 333, 1 N.E. 2d 153 (1936). For a discussion of the
evolution of public purpose doctrine in light of urban renewal efforts, see Morris, ““The Quiet Legal Revolu-
tion: Eminent Domain and Urban Redevelopment,” 52 A.B.A.J. 355 (1966).

40 United States vy. Certain Lands in the City of Louisville, 78 F. 2d. 684 (6th Cir. 1935).

41 Oklahoma City vy. Sander, 94 F. 2d. 323 (10th Cir. 1938).
42 Bowker v. City of Worcester, 334 Mass. 422, 186 N.E, 2d. 208 (1956).

66

In the landmark case of Berman v. Parker,* the United States
Supreme Court upheld a taking under the 1945 District of Columbia
Redevelopment Act which authorized the clearance of substandard
housing in blighted areas. The plaintiff owned porperty which itself
was not blighted, but the Court upheld the taking of his property
because it was part of an area which could be redeveloped as a whole
in order to promote a better balanced and more attractive community.

The Court grounded its decision on the police power which Congress
possessed in its jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and stated:

We deal, in other words, with what traditionally has been known as the police
power. An attempt to define its reach or trace its outer limits is fruitless, for each
case must turn on its own facts. The definition is essentially the product of legisla-
tive determinations neither abstractly nor historically capable of complete defini-
tion. Subject to specific constitutional limitations, when the legislature has spoken,
the public interest has been declared in terms well-nigh conclusive. In such cases
the legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be
served by social legislation * * * This principle admits of no exception merely be-
cause the power of eminent domain is involved. The role of the judiciary in deter-
mining whether that power of eminent domain is involved. The role of the judiciary
in determining whether that power is being exercised for a public purpose is an
extremely narrow one * * * We do not sit to determine whether a particular hous-
ing project is or is not desirable * * * It is within the power of the legislature to
determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as
well as clean, well balanced as well as carefully patrolled. If those who govern the
District of Columbia decide that the Nation’s Capital should be beautiful as well as
sanitary, there is nothing in the fifth amendment that stands in the way * * * Once
the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the
exercise of eminent domain is clear. For the power of eminent domain is merely the
means to the end.*4

Berman and Parker, despite its permissive language, has one im-
portant implication for new community development: it is a case that
many legal scholars identify with questions of urban renewal and
eminent domain; it is concerned, in short, with issues of “blight.”
And, since new communities as discussed in this paper are envisioned
for development on vacant, unblighted land, it hardly seems appro-
priate to justify such an action by calling the new community site
blighted, irrespective of its condition.

The dubious nature of the “‘blighted”’ strategy was recently indicated
in the State of Washington when an industrial commission sought to
acquire a one thousand acre tract of land to be used as a major indus-
trial park and port facility.“ Ironically, although the tract consisted
of open, vacant, and choice farm land, the commission described it as
“marginal” (i.e., blighted). The Supreme Court of the State of Wash-
ington refused to accept such a tortured description and thus dis-
allowed the acquisition. However, a lone, dissenting judge in that case
recognized the unfortunate consequences produced by the marriage
of the concepts of private use and blighted land, performed under the
auspices of the “public purpose’ doctrine. Instead of directing his.
attention to the condition of the land, he focused on the planned use,
and then asked rhetorically whether that use was really private. He
provided his own answer to this question when he suggested:

_The notion of what is public use changes from time to time. Public use expands.
with new need created by the advance of civilization and by the modern tendency
of people to crowd into large cities. Such a taking as here proposed could not

4 348 U.S. 26 (1954).

4 Ibid.

4 Hogue v. Port of Seattle, 54 Wash 2d 799, 341 p. 2d 171 (1959).

67

possibly have been thought a taking for public use at the time our constitution
was drafted when the State was practically a wilderness without a city worthy of
a name.‘6

In arriving at his conclusion, dissenting Justice Finley alluded to
changing circumstances. He documented these changes with statistics
on demographic movement, municipal fiscal imbalance, and ‘“‘expert”’
opinions from economists and others “trained and experienced in
the fields.” Perhaps these observations offer some guide as to how the
public use concept might be reoriented.

Can the doctrine be changed?

In what has been described as the ‘‘quiet legal revolution’’,*’ the
public purpose doctrine has undergone continuous evolution to per-
mit increased positive governmental involvement in urban develop-
ment, which contemporary urbanization requires. Despite the fact
that its requiem was written over 20 years ago,*® the doctrine remains
alive and well.

The Massachusetts court has not gone as far as other courts, which
have upheld slum prevention as a public purpose, but like most other
courts, has used slum clearance as a legal crutch to uphold various
redevelopment activities.

The court has indicated that it will consider each case upon its
own merits and will give weight to legislative findings of fact.*®

In a recent decision, the court upheld a statute which empowered
the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency to make low-interest
mortgage financing available to housing projects in which one fourth
of the tenants would be of low-income category with the remainder
being in the moderate income would be at most incidental and no
greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of the act.*?

The court overruled a previous advisory opinion on essentially the
same issue,*! but because the revised act provided that each new project
would be accompanied by elimination of an equivalent number of
slum dwellings, the court apparently continued to rest its finding of
public purpose, at least partially, on this basis:

This provision we interpret as designed to ensure, among other things, that
low income families will obtain substantial benefit from each project and that .. .
each project will be matched within a reasonable time by public agency elimination
of an equal number of substandard units. To this extent slum clearance and elimi-
nation is thus added to the other objectives of the act.®?

In determining public purpose, the court has continued to hold that
public benefit must be “primary’’ with only ‘‘incidental’’ benefits to
private individuals.* This implies that the court can determine where
the line is. Moreover, it has continued to base its decision upon slum
clearance as a valid purpose. Whether the Massachusetts court would
uphold expenditure of public funds and the use of eminent domain for
new community development on open, unblighted lands is open to

46 Tbid., at p. 195 quoting Twin City Building and Investment Co. v. Houghton, 144 Minn 1, 174 N.W. 885.
47 Morris, supra note 74.
ahs qe “The Public Use Limitation on Eminent Domain: An Advance Requiem,’ 58 “Yale L. J.’”’
- 1949).
49 McLean v. City of Boston, 327 Mass. 118, 97 N.E. 2d 542 (1951).
50 Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency v. New England Merchants National Bank, 249 N.E. 2d 599 (1969).
51 “Opinion of the Justices,’ 351 Mass. 716, 219 N.E. 2d. 18 (1966).
52 Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency v. New England Merchants National Bank, 249 N.E. 599 (1969).
8 “Opinion of the Justices,’”’ 334 Mass. 760, 135 N.E. 2d. 665 (1956).

68

question. It would require the judiciary to take an additional step
beyond the limits of its past decisions.°**

New communities might be closely related to slum clearance projects
or to elimination of substandard dwellings with replacement in the
new community, but this would impose severe limitations on new
community development. .

The court has, apparently, continued to find that the function of
the public purpose doctrine is to protect against undue governmental
redistribution of property among individuals This would seem to im-
ply that free market forces are the only determinate of distribution.
The function of the doctrine could, however, be conceived of as allow-
ing government to effect a more efficient allocation of resources than
can be done by free market forces. This is the effect of welfare pro-
grams, taxation, and of other government regulatory activities. In
part, the justification is that the existence of slums, poverty, and other
urban ills causes harm to the public welfare and the public is entitled
not only to eliminate existing harm, but to prevent harm from occur-
ring. Then, government ought to be able to employ the means neces-
sary to accomplish these public purposes.

The use of eminent domain to acquire land for new community
development could greatly facilitate and encourage private developers.
It could do this at relatively little cost to the public. The very existence
of the possibility of ultimate condemnation can mitigate the proba-
bility of its actual employment. Those who know that they will not be
able to hold out forever are more likely to arrive at a reasonable price
through negotiation. This alone could substantially reduce the
extensive lead time period which is such a costly factor in the present
financial equation.

It could also provide an element of certainty to the developer when
new community development is otherwise feasible. Under present
conditions there is really no assurance at all that a developer will be
able to acquire the sizable tract of land required. There is a very
real risk that after he has acquired initial parcels of land his ‘‘secret
will be out’’ (that he must acquire a given number of acres) and
prices will rise.» Even if he decides to proceed with development at a
reduced scale, adjoining landowners would reap the appreciated
values largely due to the developers own investment of resources.

However, if there are holdouts or if prices have risen exorbitantly
high and if the land is not very close to urban fringes, so as to be
susceptible to more traditional subdivision development, the developer
stands to take a substantial loss, because even if the resale price is
the same, the cost of carrying charges will be lost. This may provide
a deterrent to one of the more romantic forms of new community—the
independent new town.

The State could, however, condemn land which could not be
acquired through purchase and resell or lease it to developers. As a
matter of public policy, the State should attach conditions to its use:
for example, conditions which insure that a fair amount of low income
housing be provided in all stages of development.

54 See Morgan, “Certain Legal Problems Suggested by the Creation of New Towns in Massachusetts,’”
Monograph published by Mass. Dept. of Community Affairs (1969). ;

55 Typically, new community land use regulations require a minimum number of contigu-

ous acres under unified ownership or control before development will be permitted. See
Howard County, Md. zoning regulations. sec. 17. » aah

69

The use of eminent domain to assist in assembling land could
provide an effective means of facilitating new community development
at minimal cost to the State. Indeed, it will, in reality, be necessary in
order to allow maximum potential employment of private resources
and of new community development.

The case for justification of Government land acquisition for new
communities

Only in the sense of preventing the growth of slums, however, is
the government sponsorship of new communities the kind of action
which legitimately deals with the issue of blighted land. Moreover, the
very intent of the proposed statute is to establish communities in
urbanizing areas of substantial open space, space which is probably
not blighted under even the most liberal definition of the term.

Despite the apparent unavailability of the blighted land concept on
which to sustain the public purpose behind acquisition of land for new
communities, the case law does indicate an expanding notion of emi-
nent domain in Massachusetts sufficient to sustain a carefully drawn
and controlled statute.

In the first place, where the asserted public purpose has not been
pinned on the particular kind of land to be taken, the Massachusetts
courts have stressed only the purpose of the bill and have not rejected
the taking of open land as per se an invalid public purpose.” For
example, in the Worcester Housing Authority case,” the Court sus-
tained the inclusion within a project area of subareas that contained
neither residential property nor buildings that were ‘“‘substandard”’ or
“decadent”? within the statutory meaning.

The declared purposes of the statute would in many cases be thwarted if the
authority must exclude from the redevelopment every adjacent parcel to which
considered by itself, the statutory definition may not apply.®8

The court here did go on to stress the contiguity of the nonconform-
ing subareas and their proximity to residential buildings; but never-
theless did verify the taking of clearly unblighted land.

A second, and related, factor suggesting the validity of eminent
domain for a public new community development is the emphasis in
the cases on planning and prevention. On the Federal level, the
Supreme Court, in sustaining a broad program aimed at eliminating
existing slums and blighted areas that tend to produce slums, offers
this functional justification for the taking of unoffending tracts of land:

If owner after owner were permitted to resist these redevelopment programs on
the ground that his particular property was not being used: against the public
interest, integrated plans for redevelpoment would suffer greatly.*°

In Massachusetts, too, the courts have deferred to some preventive
legislation. The 1943 high court broadly suggested that even if the evil
to be avoided is one feared rather than one presently existing, that is
no reason for denying legislative authority to guard against it.®°
More recently the court brought together the ideas of planned growth
and prevention of blight to find a public purpose in the elimination of

56 Morgan, op. cit., at 23.
57 335 Mass. 19, 138 N.E. 2d 356 (1956).
8 bid. at 22, 138 N.B. 2d at 358.

59 Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 35 (1954).
60 Commonwealth v. Town of Hudson, 315 Mass. 335, 340, 52 N.E. 2d 566, 570 (1943).

70

blighted open area that lay in the path of, and interfered with, the
sound growth of the city.” i

In making that finding, the court said ‘consideration may properly
be given to the prevention of the development of slums adjacent to the
blight.” ® And in 1969, the court deferred to a legislative program
of preventive action whose purpose was the ‘‘permanent elimination of
slums in the project areas by preventing their initial growth.”

Taken together these last two cases suggest an approach to drafting
new communities legislation to assure that the corporation’s activities
are interpreted as public purposes justifying eminent domain powers.
Because of the Dodge opinion, the legislation should stress the urbaniz-
ing nature of the land to be used for the new community and should
define urbanizing in terms of the land’s lying in the path of the growth
of the nearest metropolitan center. Then, because of the Massachusetts
Housing Finance Agency opinion, the findings should stress that the
new communities, by providing a mix of living and occupational op-
portunities, will prevent the growth of slum conditions within the new
entity itself and, by relieving the population pressure in the adjacent
on will complement the slum clearance programs already in operation
there.®

A third factor supporting the public purpose of new communities
legislation is the emphasis the case places on a continuing regulation of
projects by a public body.® Although the cases do not make clear the
extent to which control by a public body must be maintained to pro-
tect the public purpose status of the project, the regulation of a new
community site, at least during its development, seems sufficiently
thoroughgoing in the proposed statute to make use of this factor.

Finally, an analysis of the ‘‘Opinion of the Justices’ invalidating
the statute to construct a stadium complex and associated roadways
suggests a finding of public purpose in the new communities legislation.
The court reasoned in that case that even a large multipurpose stadium
for public events could be for a public purpose, if the expenditure of
public funds and the extension of public privileges, powers and
exemptions were adequately governed by appropriate standards and
principles set out in the legislation itself. But, the court continues,
provision of such facilities is not as ‘‘clearly and directly” a public
purpose as supplying housing, slum clearance, mass transportation,
highways and vehicular tunnels, educational facilities, and other neces-
sities. As to such essential enterprises the public objectives are well
understood.”

Moving from that analysis to a new communities statute, one finds
that the very facilities whose provision the court. has found most
“clearly and directly” to be public purposes are the very facilities that
new communities are designed to provide. Furthermore, the proposed
statute clearly sets out (sec. 8) the very kinds of principles and stand-
ards necessarily precedent to land acquisition that would quiet both

61 Dodge vy. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 343 Mass. 375, 179 N.E. 2d 234 (1961).

fe Api, at 383, 179 N.E. 2d at 241.

68 Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency v. New England Merchants National Bank of Boston, 1969 Mass.
Ady. Sheets 987, 249 N.E. 2d 599 (1969). , ;

$4 Mass. Const. am. art. 43 already permits the General Court to take, improve, build on, and resell land
“for the purpose of relieving congestion of population and providing homes for citizens.” By only a slight
extension of its reasoning, the condemnation of land by a corporation for development of new communities
ee de eee nou :

65 Opinion of the Justices, 341 Mass. 760, 168 N.E. 2d 858 (1960), Opinion of the Justi 334 Mass. 760
Di NE ae Gist. F (1960), Op e Justices, ass
66 “‘Opinion of the Justices’, 1961 Mass. Adv. Sheets 1171, 1188, 250 N.E. 2d 547, 558 (1969).

87 Tbid., at 1189, 250 N.E. 2d at 558. ‘ aie

71

public and judicial unease at the possibility of uncontrolled eminent
domain takings.

Although no case precisely analogous to that posed by new com-
munities legislation has come before the court as yet, the direction
in which the court has been moving in the area of eminent domain
suggests that the court “could” uphold a delegation of the general
court’s eminent domain power to a public new communities corporation
under an enabling act containing carefully drawn guidelines and a
strong legislative finding of public purpose.

2. Issues regarding future use
The nature of the problem

The primary purpose of this part of the paper is to consider the
implications of government involvement in acquisition of land for
new communities. At this time one final distinction is necessary be-
fore the analysis proceeds.

It is obvious that in almost every case where a large tract of land
could be purchased for a new community, the development process
would be strung out over a number of years. The reasons for this are
Obvious—limited working capital, labor force, management talent,
marketing staff, etc. To confirm the length of time needed for de-
velopment, one only need look at the development strategies for
existing new communities to discover that the staging periods generally
range from 10 to 20 years. The recognition of these extended develop-
ment periods suggest a temporal dimension of land acquisition that
is significant for the present analysis. Perhaps an examination oi the
subject of government land acquisition should be discussed at either
end of the development timespan; that is, acquisition of land that
will be used immediately for a new community and acquisition of land
that will be used for future expansion of a new community.

Although the distinction between present and future use in this
particular context may seem arbitrary and ill-defined, it is crucial
to an adequate legal analysis of the entire issue of land acquisition
and control, because it is conceivable that a given governmental
action may be appropriate for a present use, but invalid for a future
use. It is interesting to note that most of the new community litera-
ture concerned with the legality of government involvement in the
acquisition and control of land has concentrated implicitly on ques-
tions of present use. However, the issue oi future use has not been
completely neglected, as a great deal of the recent ‘‘open space”
literature has dealt with questions concerning it.°%

The issue of new community development in Massachusetts has
not gone unnoticed by legal scholars. In fact only last spring a paper
was prepared on the questions of the use of eminent domain and
police power controls applicable to new community development on
vacant, unblighted land in Massachusetts.®* Although the paper was
throughout a thoughtful and articulate analysis of Massachusetts law,
its emphasis was primarily upon present use. In order to complete,
rather than duplicate these efforts, the focus of this part of the paper
will be primarily on questions of future use.

68 See ‘Techniques for Preserving Open Spaces,’’ Harvard Law Review, vol. 75, p. 1622 (1962).

69 Morgan, ‘‘Certain Legal Problems Suggested by the Creation of New Towns in Massachusetts,’’ Mas-
sachusetts Department of Community Affairs (1969) 59 pages.

(

Why be concerned about the future?

There are a number of reasons why State governments should be
concerned about acquiring and/or controlling land that will not be
immediately affected by the present development of anew community.
Perhaps the most important of these is to capture increments in value
created by public investment. The Birtish Government recognized
this when Parliament enacted the recommendations of the Uthwaitt
Commission report, which called for the acquisition of the develop-
ment rights for all the land in England. This, in effect, entitled the
government to receive any increases in private land that are due to
the efforts of government and not the landowner.

The problem with an idle landowner gaining is not so aggravating
when the nearby industrious landowner is richly rewarded for his
efforts. But when the relative value increases in favor of the “do
nothing” landowner, the pill becomes harder to swallow. This con-
dition has become increasingly prevalent in our country’s history,
particularly with respect to our public expenditures on capital im-
provements. The most notable recent example can be found in the
Federal interstate highway program, where in some cases, public
investments have been exceeded by unearned private increments,
sometimes at a factor of 5. That is, for example, a 10-mile stretch of
highway may cost $20 million of public funds and yet when its con-
struction is completed, the privately owned land on the highway’s
flanks will sometimes have increased in value by as much as $100
million.

There are reasons for allowing this system to continue, but their
validity should not be allowed to pass unchecked. For example,
although it is frequently asserted that there is no substance to the
“do nothing” label, that in fact the landowner is doing something by
risking his capital, there is some empirical evidence to suggest that in
many areas of the United States that risk is in fact minimal.”°

The law of future use

Consider for a moment the distinction between the legality of the
two following hypothetical conditions: (1), acquiring a tract of land
and within 1 or 2 years constructing a densely populated, mixed
income new community on the entire site, and (2), acquiring the same
tract of land and building the same community in the same place,
but at a much slower pace, perhaps staging it over 20-year period.
Needless to say, the second condition is the more realistic one, given
the nature of the development process. Yet, as pointed out earlier,
most of the legal studies in this area have tended to assume (either
consciously or unconsciously on the part of the writers) that develop-
ment is an act in the present tense.

Assuming that the distinction between the two conditions is a
valid one, why is it significant? To begin with, it points up two sep-
arate, but related, legal issues that must both be overcome if new
communities are to be built in this country’s rapidly expanding urban-
izing areas. Both of these issues are dimensions of the concept of
“public purpose,” the doctrine discussed in the previous section.
Thus far, the present use dimension of public purpose has been em-
phasized, as the analysis has tended to address the following question:

7 Dyckman, ‘The Control of Land Development and Urbanization in California,” in the
California Governor’s Commisison on Housing, “Housing in California,” app. p. 29 (1963).

73

Can the acquisition or control of a vacant, unblighted tract of land be
a public purpose if the land is used immediately for a new community?
Now the focus will shift to issues of future use while addressing the
following question: Assuming it is valid to build the community im-
mediately, does it make any difference that the new community will
not be built on the land for a few years?

The previous section’s historical examination of public use as it
relates to present use indicated that the concept has continually been
expanded by the courts for over a century. Interestingly, as far as
future use is concerned, the judiciary’s interpretations have been al-
most as expansive. The issue has actually been faced only once in
Massachusetts when, in 1952, the court ruled positively on the ques-
tion, thereby allowing a future use to be called a public use even though
it was not even certain that the government’s planned use for the
land would ever materialize.”

Earlier cases in other States show a more restrictive view toward
future use. The focus used to be on three things: the ultimate use, the
specificity of how and when it was to be used, and the necessity of the
use. That is to say, if the ultimate use was specific, actually public,
and necessary, then it would be permitted.”

In spite of the liberalization of the future use aspect of the public
use concept, it still appears that the present use doctrine may be more
expansive, because only in the latter case have the courts talked about
permissible activity beyond actual public use.

To date there have been no reported urban renewal cases where
land acquisition was authorized by a court that knew there would be
no replacement of the blighted area with new development until
some distant date. Thus, a showing of future public purpose is probably
not sufficient to substantiate a present acquisition. Ironically, it
seems that such a conclusion may represent a distorted perspective,
drawn, as it were, from an examination of the issue while wearing the
blinders of the case law. Because, if instead of examing judicially
reported cases, an empirical study were conducted for the subjects of
these cases, a different conclusion might be drawn. Indeed, a current
survey of American urban renewal would reveal many instances where
blighted development was razed and no new development has followed.
Moreover, there are a surprising number of these cases where the
projects have remained vacant for nearly 20 years. Certainly in these
types of cases it is difficult to argue that the proposed replacement
use is a present use.

An important issue raised by these empirical findings has to do
with the question of which act provides the public purpose. Is it the
removal of the blight? Is it the development of replacement buildings?
Or, is it the two acts together which make the whole thing a public
purpose? The answer seems to be that it is the two acts taken together.
As has been shown earlier, it is clear that the first act (removal of
blight) by itself provides public benefit.* It is less clear that the
second act (subsequent development) by itself serves a public pur-
pose; in fact, it can be convincingly argued that the second act
does not serve the public purpose, and that the legitimacy of the

71 Sellers v. Town of Concord, 107 N.E. 2d 784, Mass. (1952).
72 People v. Fisher, 190 N.Y. 468 477, 83 N.E, 482 (1908). This was a New York case where the State took

and that it was going to use for a canal that was necessary for a linkage.
73 Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 75 Sup. Ct. 98, 99 L. Ed. 27 (1954).

74,

entire process rests exclusively on the first act. Such an argument
would assert that the second act is only permitted on land acquired
by government, because blight is being removed, but if there were no
blight the acquisition would not have been permitted im the first
place. However, an equally compelling argument can be made against
this position by resorting briefly to the following hyperbole: Would
the entire process be considered a public purpose if the blighted
development were replaced by another blighted development? The
answer clearly is ‘‘No.’”’ According to the logic of this argument,
the second act must also constitute (at least to some degree) a public
purpose even though it is, in most cases, an essentially private use.

In summary, there are two significant points to be made about
the urban renewal cases as they relate to new community develop-
ment: (1) there is a present act which is public (that is, the removal of
blight) and there is a second act which is also public (that is, new
development on the previously blighted land); (2), the proposed
use for the land is a future use in that it does not occur immediately
and often is postponed indefinitely.

How future is future? How necessary is necessary?

As mentioned earlier, there have been no cases in which acquisition
of unblighted land was permitted where the proposed use was essen-
tially private. In those cases where the proposed uses are clearly public,
and not private, the permissibility of the acquisition is determined by
the “specificity” and the ‘necessity’ of the use.” Some courts, for
example, have disallowed acquisition of property that was to be used
for such clear public uses as schools. In one case, a period of 30 years
was held to be too long to show that the proposed school was
necessary.”

However, in nearly all of these cases of this type, their dispositions
seem to rest, in large part, on the question of whether the Government
is conducting itself in a manner that is competitive with private inter-
est. John Dyckman captured the essence of this isssue when he ob-
served:

One is prompted to speculate that urban clearance powers are granted to.
governments largely because their exercise is not profitable for those governments.

And the acquisition of suburban land for possible sale to future developers is
frowned upon because it is too profitable to leave to government.”

The courts in Massachusetts, like those in many other States, have
labelled this kind of proposed involvement as dealing in “‘real estate’,
and they have made it clear that real estate is not a permissible actiy-
ity for the State government. The leading case for this position was.
decided in 1913 when the supreme judicial court rules that a statute
Was unconstitutional because it allowed a public corporation to buy
Jand and then later sell it for a profit.”

Although the Salisbury decision does not sound encouraging, in it
the court made a series of observations that offer some promise to the
current issue of Government land acquisition for new communities.

74 See note 107, supra.
%® The Board of Education of the City of Grand Rapids v. Baczewski, 340 Mich. 265, 65 N.W. 2d. 810 (1954).
76 Dyckman, “Housing in California,” op. cit., p. 322. ;

7 Salisbury Land Improvement Co. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 215 Mass. 371, 102 N.E. 619 (1913).
See also “In re Opinion of the Justices,” 91 N.E. 578 (1910).

75

The court began its opinion with the now-traditional observation that
the Government could only purchase property for a public use.7®
Secondly, it made a more novel and certainly more progressive
observation that the property could be purchased to hold in reserve
for a future public use. Thirdly, it observed that a sale of the acquired
property is permissible so long as it is accompanied by a showing that
circumstances have changed considerably since the property was first
acquired. These three observations do sound promising, but then the
court lowered the boom when it observed that it was not permissible
for Government (or, more specifically in this case, an instrumentality
created by Government) to speculate; that is, to buy property for the
sole purpose of selling it later at a profit. This, of course, is the finding
of “real estate’? involvement which ultimately proved fatal for the
Government land acquisition in that particular case.

On balance, the Salisbury case is not so damaging, even with its
findings on “speculation.’’ The court in that case would probably
have defined “speculation” to mean the present acquisition of property
to create a profit in a future transaction. Courts in other States have
used speculation in a much broader sense. For example, the court in
the Michigan case cited earlier exemplified this broader interpretation
when it observed that to purchase property before it was needed, in
order to save the added expense of buying it at an inflated value, when
it really was needed, is speculation, and therefore not a permissible
Government activity. However, not all States have adopted this
broad view of speculation. For example, a Florida court ruled that it
is permissible to buy land that will be used in the future for an
airport.’® Although there have been no decisions in Massachusetts
like that in the Florida case, the Salisbury decision is certainly a
precedent for a future decision that would allow acquisition for future
use so long as the proposed use is public, and so long as the property
is not being purchased for the exclusive purpose of selling it later
at a profit.

Excess land

Another aspect of the future use question often arises under the
rubric of “excess land acquisition”’. Generally this has been a question
related almost exclusively with highway or street construction. For
example, in 1910, the Massachusetts Legislature proposed buying Jand
in downtown Boston to help improve the transportation flow for the
business community there. The idea was to purchase enough land
to improve accessibility vastly to and from the various businesses,
In an advisory opinion, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
ruled that these proposed purchases would be excessive and not public
uses and therefore should be disallowed.*°

The following year saw the ratification of an amendment to the
Massachusetts Constitution which specifically permitted acquisition
of “more land and property than are actually needed for the actual
construction of such highways or streets.’”’ *' And by 1953 the excess
condemnation doctrine was expanded even further. In that year, in

78 Since there was no mention of “‘blight” in the entire case, it is presumed that the court was authorizing
acquisition of unblighted land.

729 Carlor Co. v. City of Miami, 62 So. 2d 897 (Fla.), cert. denied 346 U.S. 821 (1953).

80 In re Opinion of the Justices, 91 N.E. 405 (1910).

81 Art. 39, 1911.

57—-242—T1 6

76

another advisory opinion, the Massachusetts court, although osten-
sibly reaffirming its earlier position that excess purchase was not
a permissible Government activity, nevertheless, permitted land
acquisition that clearly would not have been allowed at the turn of the
century. The court was able to do this by altering its interpretation of
what acts constitute a public use. In the case before them, the State
legislature had empowered the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to
purchase substantially more land than was needed to build a highway.
This (excess) land was to be used for garages, service stations, and
restaurants on the restricted access turnpike. The Court held that the
land was not “‘excess,”’ that the land was necessary for the operation of
the turnpike, and that the acquisition was therefore permissible as a
public purpose.” Interestingly, the court emphasized that its decision
could have been made without the benefit of the 1911 constitutional
amendment.*

This decision permitted the turnpike authority to buy unblighted
land that was ultimately leased to private businesses such as Howard
Johnson Restaurants and Citgo Service Stations: In doing this, the
court took a big step forward in the law relevant to new community
development. However, the court took pains to limit the magnitude of
this step when it stated:

While land cannot ordinarily be taken by eminent domain for the purpose of
renting and sale * * * this principle is inapplicable where, as here, the property
rented and sold is thereby devoted to a public purpose.*

Public use, as a legal concept, has many dimensions. It serves as a
restrictive force in Government exercise of the powers of eminent
domain and spending, and, apparently in Massachusetts, the extent
of this stricture is equal for the exercise of both powers. Moreover, in
exercising these powers, public use displays another of its dimensions
and that is the treatment of present uses and future uses.

But what significance do these statements have for new community
development? For one thing, acquisition of land, although originally
limited to actual public uses, has historically been expanded to cases
where even though the uses are in fact private, the courts have per-
mitted them by labeling their purposes as public. Furthermore (not-
withstanding the fact that most of these public purpose cases have been
confined to urban renewal projects, where the public nature of their
purpose was determined by the blighted condition of the land) there
have been some cases (e.g., the Turnpike Authority) where the acquisi-
tion of unblighted land was allowed to be used for purposes that the
courts called public even though it can be persuasively argued that they
were more private uses than public uses.

Thus, the permissability of acquiring unblighted land for new com-
munity development will probably depend on whether the purpose
can be demonstrated to be public. Furthermore, the favorable disposi-
tion of the new community concept will also depend on a demonstra-
tion that the proposed development is both specific and necessary. At
least some degree of advance planning for future use must be shown,
but the court in Carlor found that—

It is not necessary that a political subdivision of the State have money on hand,
plans and specifications prepared and all other preparations necessary for im-

82 Opinion of the Justices, 113 N.E. 2d 452, 466-468 (1953).

8 Tbid., 468.

84 Thid., p. 468, citing the Salisbury case.

77

mediate construction before it can determine the necessity for taking private
property for a public purpose.®

The planned ultimate use of the land, of course, must be for a public
purpose, but if the only purpose is to generate revenue, courts would be
unlikely to uphold acquisition. However, where revenue raising is only
incidental to the public purpose, then the taking is more likely to be
upheld.**

Flexibility is also an important part of an advance acquisition pro-
gram, particularly so where new communities may not be able to be
projected with as much certainty as highways, but 1t seems clear that
once the Government agency obtains title in fee in good faith, it may
dispose of land or shift its uses if changed conditions dictate. It may
also receive income from lease or rentals during the interim holding
period.®’

Court decisions concerning review of advance land condemnation
programs are few. Few, if any, courts have prohibited advance con-
demnation per se. Aside from fraud and bad faith, and assuming the
projected use is for a valid public purpose, courts have focused their
attention upon the reasonableness of the time period involved.

A major objection to a land bank is apparently fear of “socialism”
and of large-scale governmental ownership of land, and that individuals
may be placed in a tenurial relationship with Government. The fact
remains, however, that Government is the largest owner of land in the
United States and is increasing its acquisition of land daily for public
parks and other uses. The fact that, in new community development,
land would be returned to private ownership after condemnation
should operate to reduce these apprehensions.

With new community development, there may be a problem in
determining whether or not land is being taken in advance. H, for
example, the projected size of the new community were 100,000 popu-
lation and 10,000 acres, initial development might require only 500
acres. More land would be developed in stages after the land was
improved and sales were made. Eventual completion of the community
might, however, require a substantial period of time—10 to 15 years or
more. Some land would not be developed until years after original
development had begun. If condemnation of this land, which was
programed for later development was invalidated as being a taking too
far in advance of need, then new community development could be
prevented. Owners of land could develop according to their own plans
and reap appreciated values caused by the new community developers
investment of resources. Regulation might be construed as unreason-
able, but the developer would be powerless to exercise eminent
domain. Later condemnation, because of the costs of improvements,
would be prohibitively expensive and new community development
could be effectively prevented.

Cases or restrictions which state that land may be taken in advance
of actual need only when such period is reasonable should be inter-
preted, in the instance of new community development, to mean in
advance of the date when the development of the new community
begins and not the date of ultimate completion. Measuring the period
~ 8 tCarlor Co. v. City of Miami, 62 So. 2d. 897 (Fla.), cert. denied 346 U.S. 821 (1953).

8 See Courtesy Sandwich Shop v. Port of New York Authority, 190 N.E. 2d 402 (N.Y. 1963). Les judicial
objection should be evident where revenues obtained are reinvested in the new community.

87 See cases discussed in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, ‘‘Advance Acquisition
by Local Governments” (1968), at note 9.

78

from the latter date could have the ironic result of preventing that
which had already been declared to be a public purpose.

A summary of the law of public use in Massachusetts

Throughout this part of the paper, a number of observations have
been made about the Massachusetts case law as it relates to the various
aspects of the complex issue of public use. Perhaps it will be helpful
now to summarize briefly these observations and compare them with
the criteria established earlier in the paper.

Public use, as a legal concept, has many dimensions. It serves as a
restrictive force in Government exercise of the powers of eminent
domain and spending, and, apparently in Massachusetts, the extent of
this stricture is equal for the exercise of both powers. Moreover, in
exercising these powers, public use displays another of its dimensions
and that is the treatment of present uses and future uses.

But what significance do these statements have for new community
development? For one thing, acquisition of land, although originally
limited to actual public uses, has historically been expanded to cases
where even though the uses are in fact private, the courts have
permitted them by labeling their purposes as public. Furthermore
(notwithstanding the fact that most of these public purpose cases
have been confined to urban renewal projects, where the public nature
of their purpose was determined by the blighted condition of the land),
there have been some cases (e.g., the Turnpike Authority case) where
the acquisition of unblighted land was allowed to be used for purposes
that the courts called public even though it can be persuasively
argued that they were more private uses than public uses.

Thus, the permissibility of acquiring unblighted land for new com-
munity development will probably depend on whether the purpose
can be demonstrated to be public. Furthermore, the favorable dis-
position of the new community concept will also depend on a demon-
stration that the proposed development is both specific and necessary.
Ii this is done the requirements of future public use will also be
satisfied.

If these various demonstrations are made, does this mean that the
purposes for Government involvement in new community develop-
ment will also be satisfied? The answer to this question will obviously
depend on which strategy the Government will choose to employ in
acquiring the land for the new community. But it will also depend
on how it makes the various showings that its actions are indeed
public purposes. That is to say, if it is stated that the public purpose
of the involvement in new communities is to conserve for the public
the incremental value created by growth in the population and public
expenditures, then it is clear that the purpose will not be achieved,
because the Massachusetts case law is explicit that this type of specula-
tion is not a permissible Government activity.

However, such a conclusion raises yet another question: Will it be
permissible for Government to recoup some of its investments, if it
does so without emphasizing that the recoupment itself is not one of
its specific purposes for becoming involved in new community develop-
ment? Answers to questions of this type will be determined by the
manner in which Government chooses to justify its involvement.
Thus, it should be clear that the feasibility of Government-sponsored
new communities will ultimately depend on how well its increased
involvement can be justified.

79

8. Legislative findings for public purpose
The legal significance of legislative findings

Throughout this part of the paper there have been, on balance,
probably more negative than positive comments made about the legal-
ity and constitutionality of Government involvement in new commu-
nity development. However, in spite of the negative remarks, the
feasibility of the Government sponsored new community concept will
ultimately depend on how well the Government’s position is docu-
mented by the legislature and advocated before the courts. The
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations sensed the
gravity of this requirement when it stated:

Particular care should be taken in drafting state legislation authorizing the
exercise of eminent domain powers by land development agencies to include a clear
and definite finding by the legislature that the acquisition of land for future devel-
opment to assure the best possible use of natural resources is a public purpose.
Courts increasingly defer to legislative findings of public purpose.®8

In this section of the paper an effort will be made first to determine
how much weight the Massachusetts courts will place on these types
of findings, and second, to examine the various claims which might
constitute an appropriate list of findings for state enabling legislation.

The law is well established in Massachusetts that the findings of
the legislature are to be given great weight by the courts (Allyndon
decision). The unwillingness of the courts to pierce the ‘‘legislative
thicket”? was exemplified in 1962 when the supreme judicial court
declared:

The principles applicable whenever the constitutionality of a statute is attacked
are well established. Every presumption is indulged in favor of the validity of
the statute. . . . There is a very wide discretion in the legislature. If the question
is fairly debatable, courts cannot substitute their judgement for that of the
legislature.89

On some questions it appears that the legislative findings are
handled by the courts as conclusive presumptions. One such question
is the issue of ‘‘necessity’? which was discussed earlier under the
heading of future use. Although the case law on future use poses
some problems for new community and acquisition policies, it seems
that most of these problems have been created by a lack of firm and
specific legislative findings of necessity. Consider, for example, the
ease of City of Boston v. Talbot, where the supreme judicial court,
while ruling favorably on the permissability of a condemnation suit,
demonstrated its deference to a clear legislative statement of
necessity:

The question whether the use for which land is taken under the right of eminent
domain is a public use is a judicial question, and the determination of the legis-
lature may be revised by the court. But if the use for which the taking is made is
public, the question whether the taking of a particular piece of real estate 1s necessary
or expedient is a legislative question, upon which the decision of the legislature, as a
tribunal of fact, is conclusive.®°

The content of the legislative findings

It has been stressed throughout this paper that the public mecha-
nism needed for new community development is one that would be

88 ACI R, op. cit., p. 162.
8 Hall-Omar Baking Co. v. Commissioner of Labor and Industry, 344 Mass. 694, 184 N.E. 2d 344, 348 (1962)
% City of Boston v. Talbot, 91 N.E. 1015, 1016 (1910), emphasis added.

80

capable of acquiring and/or controlling large tracts of land in_ur-
banizing areas for the development of new communities. Since there
already exist several of these mechanisms established in other States,

erhaps their enabling legislation would offer a guide as to how the
egislative findings should be phrased for Massachusetts. The enabling
legislation for the recently established New York Urban Development
Corp. offers what is probably the most copious set of findings. The
statute begins by emphasizing a long list of problems, including persis-
tent unemployment for the State, the problem that unemployment in
turn creates, and the inefficient and obsolete facilities G.e., industrial,
commercial, and community facilities, the existence of blight and the
trend toward blight in many areas). The various problems just listed
are then linked with causes, such as lack of adequate planning and the
inability of the private sector to solve the so-called ‘urban crisis.’
Finally, the legislation states, as a matter of public policy, that New
York can begin addressing these problems by creating a—

State urban development corporation which, through the issuance of bonds and
notes to the private, investing public, by encouraging maximum participation by
the private sector of the economy, including the sale or lease of the corporation’s
interest in projects at the earliest time deemed feasible and through participation
in programs undertaken by the State . . . and by municipalities and the Federal
Government, may provide or obtain the capital resources necessary to acquire or
construct . . . industrial, manufacturing, commercial, educational, recreational,
and cultural facilities, and housing accommodations for persons and families of
low income... (and that all of the above) are public uses and public purposes for
which public money may be loaned and private property may be acguired and tax

exemptions granted and that the powers and duties .. . are necessary and proper for the
purpose of achieving ends here recited.*1

Certainly the conclusions drawn from the New York Legislature’s
findings (that pact italicized in the above quote) emphasize the very
key words that have been stressed throughout this part of the paper.
However, there remains some question whether enough was said in the
findings to support the assertion that some of the currently proposed
activities by the UDC are in fact “‘public necessities” that are required
for the ‘‘public use and purpose.” It was mentioned earlier that the
UDC is now planning for three new communities, at least two of
which will be located in urbanizing areas away from the urban core.
Yet, nearly all of the legislative findings for the UDC were focused
upon the urban core areas, and nothmg was made explicit about
problems with development in urbanizing areas.

Other legislation has been more specific about these geographic areas.
In fact, the findings for the proposed legislation by ACIR are explic-
itly and exclusively devoted to urbanizing areas. In their report, the

commission persuasively and concisely stated their findings in the five
following statements:

1. Local planning and development controls are inadequate to cope with the
pressures on land and its development in rapiciy growing urban areas.

2. Efficiency and economy in the provision of public services, both in capital
outlay and operating costs, depends upon a sound method of acquiring land and
for the planning of its use for future public and urban development uses.

3. Public acquisition of land, the planning of its use, and the establishment of

sound development standards would help preserve one of the State’s primary
resources.

» McKinney, “Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated,” Book 65, pt. 1, Unconsolidated laws, sec.
6252, p. 188, pocket supplement 1969-70, emphasis added.

81

4. Private industry has encountered difficulty in providing new industrial,
commercial, and residential facilities in new large-scale urban development
because of problems in assembling land suitable for building sites, the difficulty
of attracting private capital at reasonable cost to finance development, and the
difficulty of private enterprise alone to plan, finance, and coordinate industrial
and commercial development with residential developments for persons and
families of low income and with adequate public services to serve new development.

5. State acquisition of land, site improvement, and disposition of land around
the fringe of urban growth areas and at other points in anticipation of future
growth, provide a major method for implementing state and local urban growth
policies for assisting private developers.”

The proposed legislation by Krasnowiecki and Paul complements
the ACIR findings by providing elaboration, particularly for the
claims of efficiency and economy. Selected passages from their proposed
legislation spell out the following purposes:

* * * To secure open spaces, within metropolitan areas which will promote
the economic use of land and the economic development of facilities, services,
and improvements necessary for urban community living in metropolitan areas by:

* * * Restricting or preventing new urban development in areas where it will
impose unreasonable costs for required public facilities or services;

* * * Retarding development * * * in areas where it is not yet timely because
of lack of adequate public facilities * * * and because the costs which the exten-
sion, construction, operation, or improvement of such facilities * * * would
impose on the area are unreasonable by comparison with its present resources;

* * % Preserving less congested land areas in the metropolitan areas which

could be used, in part, to achieve economies in planning and locating transpor-
tation facilities.

The legislative findings could continue, but it seems more important
now to ask whether the dozen or more already listed have any basis in

fact. Krasnowiecki perhaps best recognized the need for such scrutiny
when he observed:

If data cannot be marshaled to show that the preservation of an open space
area will reduce costs and promote long term economies in the public sector, then
the desirability of many projects and perhaps, too, the philosophy of the underlying
enabling legislation may be open to serious question.%

It will be recalled how Justice Finley, in his dissenting opinion,
in Hogue v. Port of Seattle judicially recognized some ‘statistical
facts” ® which demonstrated to him that it was in the public interest
of the people of Seattle to buy open land for an industrial park. One
is left to ponder how convincing these ‘facts’? were and why the
majority of the court did not find them sufficiently compelling to com-
mit the city to buy the land in question. One possible explanation is
that the statistics were not examined as a part of the legislative his
tory which authorized the taking in the first place. Whatever the case,
it is clear that the data supporting legislative findings for Government
involvement in large-scale development should be made public and
formally recorded as a part of the legislative process.

Toward a critical examination of public benefits and costs

In examining the facts which support or detract from the various
legislative findings listed thus far, it is helpful to divide them into
benefits and costs. On the benefit side of the ledger, there are at least
four significant but somewhat interrelated assertions.*°

2 ACIR, “State Legislative Program: New Proposals for 1969,’’ pp. 507—-2-3 (1968).

8 Krasnowiecki and Paul, op. cit., pp. 218-219.

% Tbid, p. 82 (emphasis added).

% See note 81, supra.

96 Most of these four assertions have been developed from material in Shoup and Mack, ‘Advanced Land
Acquisition by Local Government,” op. cseit.; e note 37, supra.

82

a. Benefits

(i) Active Government support for new communities will achieve lower
land and development costs per unit of government service.—There are
several different premises that serve as the foundation for this asser-
tion. For one thing, the claimed reduction may arise as a result of
either a lower price of land, while quantity and quality of the developed
output remain constant, or of a higher quantity or quality of the
developed output while the cost of the land remains constant.” Also
the reduction may be created over time, because the acquisition may
predate large increases in land value that are attributable in great
part to a government’s decision to build a new community in a given
area. (It will be recalled that the Massachusetts’ courts look unfavor-
ably upon legislation enacted for the purpose of allowing Govern-
ment to speculate in real estate; so, to avoid judicial opposition, this
particular premise should probably focus on land that will be publically
retained for uses such as parks, streets, and public buildings, rather
than transferred to private interests at a profit.) A third premise is
predicated on the possibility that Government in many cases will be
able to achieve a return on the temporary use of the land. Although
not really a positive premise, this last statement is intended more as
a rebuttal, demonstrating mitigating circumstances to the charge
that advanced land acquisition will be too costly for the public sector.

The first assertion has not gone unchallenged. The noted urban
economist, William Alonso, recently ravaged many of the conceptual
under-pinnings of new community advocates in his critical article
entitled: ‘“The Mirage of New Towns.” °8 In his analysis, he offered —
two arguments against the first assertion. First, he argues that the
Henry George idea of public ownership of land to recapture mere-
ments in value is a problem because (a) it forgoes the cybernetic
market mechanism ° and (6) it may inhibit the entrepreneurial
search for new uses.!° He considers the last reason most important
because ‘increases in land value are one of the primary incentives
for private participation.” He argues secondly that, although land
may be cheaper (its price being established primarily by its locational
value as determined by its accessibility) it does not mean, therefore,
that it will be less expensive overall. In fact he believes otherwise:
“Cheap land will probably be inconvenient land and might prove
to be very expensive in the end” (p. 28). This argument has less force
than his first (at least for the purposes of this paper), because Alonso
appears to be speaking more about the land economies of new towns
in rural, rather than urbanizing areas.

(11) Government sponsorship of new communities will mean an improve-
ment in the procedures and capabilities for getting the best sites —This
assertion, like the first, has several dimensions, two of which are most
important. Both are concerned with the process today, and both
demonstrate how the private sector has worked against Government
cost optimization. The first has to do with the selection of sites for the
development of ‘‘actual public uses.’”’ Today, governments delay ac-

98 Minn ive Mirage of New Towns,” Public Interest, spring 1970; footnotes all based on a longer

unpublished paper (40 pages) delivered at the Research Conference of the Committee on Urban Economics,
Sept. 11-12, 1969, Cambridge, Mass.
ia For an. opposing viewpoint, see Mandelker, ‘‘Controlling Land Values in Areas of Rapid Urban Expan-
sion,” UCLA Law Review, vol. 12, pp. 734-761 (1965).
100 Alonso: op. cit.. p. 20.

83

quisitions of land for the development of public facilities until the
private demand is sufficient. By that time, the most suitable sites for
these facilities are preempted by the very private development that
generated the demand in the first place)”

The second part of the above assertion has to do with the manner by
which private developers currently acquire sites for new community
development, a manner that might be characterized as the ‘‘and first
approach,” because, as it usually happens, the first action the private
developer takes is the acquisition of the land. His criteria for purchase
normally are based on such things as the anticipated marketability of
the site and the ability of the surrounding area to service his project
with the level of facilities it requires. Although these considerations are
important, particularly for the security of his investment, they fail
to encompass several other items which, from a regional public policy
standpoint, are crucial. These include such considerations as:

1. The impact his development will have on the entire region’s
growth.

2. The strain it will have on the surrounding communities to meet
the increased demands of new residents in the area.

3. The employment and valuable cultural activities it will attract
away from areas of greater need within the region.

4. The changes in priorities in regional and State appropriations of
funds that will be required to provide the community with the desired
level of facilities.1°

Jt is just these four kinds of regional considerations that the British
new town developers have recently recognized as crucial to the public
interest of the new development and the surrounding area.'

While some private uew community developers prepare analyses of
regional growth patterns and demographic and economic trends, their
studies are frequently only for public relations purposes (i.e., for their
industrial and commercial sales and leasing brochures) or for deter-
mining what share of a particular local market they can expect to
capture. If governmental agencies could be involved in the site selec-
tion process, hopefully they would have the necessary motivation and
expertise to encourage regional community strategies that satisfy the
regional needs and plans and to discourage those that do not.

(122) Government sponsorship of new communities will mean an improve-
ment in both the patterns of land use and the quality of planning —This
particular assertion serves as a pot pourri of secondary benefits asso-
ciated, in one sense, with advanced public acquisition of land. The
value of itis easy to understand—plans can be better and more realistic
with the tool of advance acquisition because there will be less impedi-
ments and obstacles to deal with. In this sense, the thrust of this
assertion is economic; that is, how to maximize the quality and utility
of a new urban environment while seeking to minimize its cost.

However, in quite another sense the assertion is social; that is,
seeking to create urban communities that can ‘‘intermesh the lives of
people who live in them, by concentrating on integrating their work,

101 Shoup, op. cit., p. 4 (see note 37, supra).
102 Hobbs, ‘“New Communities; a Public or a Private Venture?” unpublished manuscript, p. 12, Harvard’
University (Dec. 2, 1969).

03 Notes from speech given by Professor Rose of the University of Birmingham, England, at Harvard
University, (Oct. 24, 1969).

84

play, education (and access to each), intellectual and artistic develop-
ments, social contacts, personal as well as community facilities and
services.” 1 To a large extent these phases constitute the platitudes
of planners, words that have little operational value. Alonso finds fault
with them also, primarily because the empirical evidence to support the
successful operation of these types of specially integrated and socio-
economically mixed, intentional communities has not yet been forth-
coming.!”

Some sociological studies have been done, however, on precisely this
issue for English new towns; unfortunately, the findings there are not
yet conclusive.’ One thing is clear; it is difficult to generalize from
the data available. It seems that many of the scholars who have studied
the subject proceeded with a predisposition about the value of such
community developments. However, these are the types of opinions
and studies which must be reconciled if the legislative findings are to
have sufficient substance to withstand judicial scrutiny.

(iv) Government sponsorship of new communities will promote and
permit a more efficient production of public facilities and services.—
The last assertion is associated closely with the first, except that most
of the emphasis here is on the output of the development. This includes
such things as lower development costs, both because of economies of
scale and because of more intensive use of services (e.g., higher density
means smaller sewer length allotments per capita).

The development is efficient not only because costs can be reduced
but also because some of the benefits can be increased. The fact that
large tracts of open space can be preserved for recreational and con-
servational use under planned unit development is but one example
of these benefits.

Also lower development costs would ultimately help reduce the
significant costs attendant to the provision of housing and facilities
for low income families and persons.

On many of these claims, however, most of the critical attention is
generally placed on the costs (or marginal costs). This is a conceptual
weakness which Alonso has sought to correct by stressing productivity
along with costs. His position is that even though new towns may have
a lower per unit cost, the marginal per capita productivity will be much
lower than that of larger cities.1% Like his arguments on land costs,
although they may seem sound and compelling, they are probably
more applicable to development in rural areas rather than urbanizing
areas.

b. Costs

The cost side of the ledger includes such items as cost of capital,
tax revenue foregone, and the costs of managing an advanced land
acquisition program.'’S All of these items are crucial, and it is clear
that they must certainly go into any legislature’s cost-benefit equation
before it decides to establish its own new community development
program. They are, nonetheless, much less important to the legislative
findings than the benefits. In fact, if any costs are to be emphasized,
they should be those associated with current development patterns,
so that the legislature can show how these costs would be eliminated

10$ Shoup, op. cit., p. 101.

105 Alonso, op. cit., pp. 20-25.

1 Wilmotte, “Social Research in New Communities” JAIP, p. 387, November 1967.
107 Alonso, op. cit., pp. 7-8.

108 Shoup, op. cit., pp. 47-52.

85

or reduced with a new community policy. One example might be to
attempt to demonstrate that the current costs for purchasing un-
blighted open areas and for developing these areas in a carefully
planned fashion will be less expensive (in present value dollars) as a
preventive expense, than would be the task of redeveloping the same
area once it became blighted (assuming that the blight arose as a
result of inadequate planning and control). Although, at first blush,
this argument may not seem realistic, the fact that redevelopment
involves many more costs than just the expenses for demolition and
reconstruction (e.g., consider the social costs to the people being
removed) may be sufficient to tip the scales in favor of a ‘“‘preventive
development” policy.

Summary

The purpose of this section was to emphasize the significance of
legislative findings, to indicate the types of legislative findings that
have been included in enabling legis!ation for public land corporations
in other States, and, finally, to examine briefly the substance, scope,
and limitations of some of these various findings.

In retrospect, it seems fair to conclude that the significance of
legislative findings, provided they are accurately and comprehensibly
formulated and documented, is sufficiently powerful to permit Govern-
ment action, that, in many aspects, would not have been permissable
under past law. Thus, the direction is if this type of legislation is to be
successfully proposed and implemented. What is now required is a
rigorous and critical examination of the types of findings necessary.
In short, if public sponsorship of new communities is necessary, and
if public involvement in the planning and development of new com-
munities is something that, in fact, benefits the public, both economi-
cally and socially, and if these benefits cannot be matched by other
types of public or private problem-solving mechanisms, then these
facts should be demonstrable. If it cannot be so demonstrated, then
the utopian notions of new community development must be cast
aside and more practicable solutions should be sought. In any event,
this is clearly the direction for futurere search.

B. HOME RULE DILEMMAS

One of the most striking features of the political geography of
Massachusetts is that it contains no territory that is not incorporated
into one of the Commonwealth’s 312 towns and 39 cities. '°? The
process of incorporating towns in Massachusetts hit its peak between
the years 1775 and 1799, declined generally through the 19th century,
and ceased entirely after 1920.1° Similarly, incorporation of cities,
first permitted by Constitutional amendment in 1821, ceased by 1923
with the establishment of the Commonwealth’s 39th city. Since the
1920’s not only has there been little tendency to diminish the number of
municipalities in Massachusetts,!” but the general court, when pe-
titioned for the consolidation of two or more cities or towns in recent
years has refused even to consider the possibility.’

109 Bureau of Governmental Research, University of Massachusetts, Intermunicipal Relations in Mas-
saghusetis 31 (1956) (hereinafter cited as Intermunicipal Relations).

111 Legislative Research Council, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Report Relative to Municipal Home
Rule (Proposed Constitutional Amendment) 88 (1956) (hereinafter cited as Municipal Home Rule).

112 Intermunicipal Relations, supra note 145, at 2.

113 National League of Cities, Department of Urban Studies, Adjusting Municipal Boundaries: I-
Practice 177 (1966) (hereinafter cited as Adjusting Municipal Boundaries).

86

Despite the deference of the general court toward maintenance of
the existing and historical number of municipalities within the Com-
monwealth, no strong tradition of municipal autonomy existed at any
time up to the passage of the home rule amendment in 1966. On the
contrary, legislative control of even the most trifling detail of local
government was the rule.’

The sources of that control may be found, first, in an early and
repeated assertion by the courts of Massachusetts of the doctrine now
known as Dillon’s Rule ™ and, second, in the right of free petition
written into the Commonwealth’s constitution.“ The genera] attitude
of the supreme judicial court toward towns and cities has remained
constant into the 20th century. For example, in 1941 the court stated
its attitude like this:

Cities and towns are political subdivisions created for the convenient adminis-
tration of government, and they possess only such powers as are conferred upon
them in terms or by necessary implication of enabling acts. [Citations omitted.

They are separate units, possessing only the authority thus entrusted, and acting
as instrumentalities of local self-government.1!”

Such a judicial interpretation of municipal dependency was rein-
forced prior to 1966 by the actual practice of the general court in deal-
ing with petitions made to it under article XIX of the constitution.
Because the practice had been to receive and consider every petition,
irrespective of its worth, the result was to encourage “‘the filing of
requests for legislation on local affairs which are already within the
competence of local legislative or administrative bodies, and which
might better be resolved locally.’ 48

Although the initiative of petitioning the legislature was that of
the municipality, each time it exercised that right it demonstrated its
debility, not its strength. The paralysis of effective local self-govern-
ment and the delays inherent in legislative petition might have been
tolerable 100 years ago, or perhaps even 50. But with the growth of
large urban centers, with their many and urgent needs, the situation
had grown too burdensome both for the urban municipalities and for
the legislature itself. The former increasingly required the ability to
assess and attack their own problems as they arose, without first
having to go to a legislature, where a petition might be emasculated by
log-rolling and dilatory tactics, or defeated outright because of hos-
tility from rural legislators or a bar on special legislation.* The legis-
lature itself, on the other hand, increasingly burdened with its own
growing functions, no longer had the time necessary to consider prop-
erly all the pertitions made to it.

In a State, such as Massachusetts, where Dillon’s Rule was accepted
doctrine, two problems had to be overcome both by municipalities and

14 Municipal Home Rule, supra note 147, at 87, describes the gradually subcrdination of communities to
the general court and concludes: “‘By the end of the 19th century there could be no violation of municipal
home oe Dy gy legislature because there was no home rule left to ‘‘violate.’’ This is still the case (in 1965).””

116 Massachusetts Constitution, pt. 1, art. 19. The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner,
to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instruction to their representatives, and to request of the
legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and
of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.

17 Burnham v. mayor and alderman of Beverly, 309 Mass. 308, 390, 35 N.E. 2d 242, 243 (1941). In 1964, only 2
years before passage of the home rule amendment, the court cited the then art. 2 of the amendments to the
State constitution as the basis for the “settled doctrine that the towns of the Commonwealth possess no ~
inherent right to self-government and for the proposition that ‘the power to create, change and destroy
municipal corporations is in the “legislature” ’.”” Paddock v. Town of Brookline, 347 Mass. 230, 238, 197 N.E.
2d 321, 326 (1964).

118 Municipal Home Rule, supra note 147, at 94.

1° 18 Ibid. 46; Sandalow, ‘The Limits of Municipal Power Under Home Rule: A Role for the Courts.’’
48 Minn. L. Rev. 648, 653-653 (1964).

87

by the legislature. Not only did both require some affirmative assurance
that municipalities could enact measures for thelr own governance
without seeking prior legislation or even prior legislative approval,
but they also required the establishment of some relatively clear limits
on the ability of the legislature to interfere with and annul local govern-
mental action. The solution to these two problems required some form
of home rule enactment. Because of the existence of Dillon’s Rule in
its courts, the only effective form of home rule enactment in Massa-
chusetts could be an amendment to the State constitution.

The constitution was so amended in 1966.”° The actual effect of
that amendment on the status of cities and towns in the Common-
wealth, however, is not yet exactly clear. In large part this uncertainty
results from the dual functions of a home rule amendment: as a grant
of local power and as a limitation on State legislative power.

In both its aspects the home rule amendment bears upon the efficacy
and legitimacy of a new communities statute drawn to operate through
a public corporation on a statewide basis. Insofar as the fact of the
home rule grant, or any ordinance or bylaw passed under that grant,
might nullify statewide new communities legislation in a particular
municipality, the efficacy of such an approach to new community
creation has found most “clearly and directly” to be public purposes—
the very facilities the new communities corporation was designed to
provide. Furthermore, the proposed statute in part III clearly sets
out in section 8 the very kinds of principles and standards necessarily
precedent to land acquisitiont hat would quiet public and judicial
unease at the possibility of uncontrolled eminent domain takings.

Although no case precisely analogous to that posed by new com-
munities legislation has come before the court as yet, the direction in
which the court has been moving in the area of eminent domain sug-
gests that the court could uphold a delegation of the general court’s
eminent domain power to a public new communities corporation under
an enabling act containing carefully drawn guidelines and a strong
legislative finding of public purpose.

1. Boundary adjustment

The second home rule limitation on the power of the legislature
to act through a statewide new communities corporation concerns the
matter of boundary adjustment. Unlike the limitation on land as-
sembly, which required a determination of those general law powers

‘in relation to cities and towns” the legislature could delegate and
those which it could not, the home rule amendment is explicit about
the special law power to affect municipal corporation boundaries: it
is the general court that may enact a special law— -

(S)olely for the incorporation, or dissolution of cities and towns as corporate
entities, alteration of city or town boundaries and merger or consolidation of cities
and towns, or any of these matters.!!!

Although this language does not exclude a delegate from exercising
these compulsory functions for the legislature, the reasons rebutting
such a delegation are persuasive. As a matter of logic it would be
absurd to allow one incorporated entity of the State—a public new
community development corporation—to alter the status of another
such incorporated entity—a municipal corporation of the State. As a

“120 19 Massachusetts Constitution, am. art. 89.
121 Massachusetts Constitution, am. art. 89, section 8(4).

88

matter of history, it has been the general court, by special enactment,
which has exercised full and solitary control over the boundaries of the
commonwealth’s governmental entities.” And finally, as a statutory
matter, the existing scheme of petition for municipal incorporation,
annexation, or consolidation? and of boundary changes between
adjoining towns ‘ requires action by the general court.

Section 8 (4) of the home rule amendment, of course, does not pro-.
hibit the legislative enactment of a general law establishing a boundary
adjustment procedure in which delegated entities are authorized to.
determine when and under what conditions such adjustment shall take.
place.® The general court, however, has chosen not to enact such
legislation. To the extent it has placed any initiative for boundary
alteration or municipal incorporation on any individuals or group.
outside itself, the general court has given that group only the right to:
petition for, not to compel, change.’* Effectively, boundary changes
i Massachusetts currently can occur only by special act of the
legislature.!?”

The implications for a new community development corporation
are clear. Insofar as any planned new community would require (for
reasons to be suggested later) the adjustment of existing municipal
boundaries or the alteration of existing units of municipal government,
the development corporation would have to secure such adjustment or
alteration by special act from the general court. The most apparent
obstacles to this aspect of new community development, therefore, are
political and practical: how to get the necessary special legislation
through the general court; and, even if the special legislation can be
obtained, how to phase its enactment with the work of the development
corporation so that potential private and other developers at best will
be attracted to, and at worst not be discouraged from, participation
in the new community development project.

Under the envisioned operation of the new communities statute in
part III, there are several situations in which the development corpora-
tion would desire the general court to exercise one or more of the
powers reserved to it by section 8(4). As has been described, the pur-
pose of the statute is to establish a program of new community
development that will complement and serve as a true alternative to
existing programs of urban renewal and redevelopment. The communi-
ties to be developed, therefore, are to be large, relatively self-sufficient,
responsive to areal needs, diversified in economic base, and located in
urbanizing regions containing substantial areas of open space.!28

To achieve this type of community, and to place the new community
at the location most advantageous from the viewpoint of rational
statewide planning, may necessitate the development of a new com-
munity site overlapping the contiguous boundaries of two incorporated
Zia (1873), Opinion of he Justice Oh Mace (6 Olan) MS Caet ne

123 Mass. gen. laws annotated c. 3 sec. 5.

124 Thid,. C. 42 sec. 7.

125 The legitimacy of such an enactment in the fact of the home rule status of municipal corporations is
considered, infra, at note 188. Despite one reading of the amendment that would invalidate such general
legislation, at least as to a procedure permitting the non-consensual annexation of consolidation of a home
rule municipality, the possibility of a stricter reading in Massachusetts courts is not great. See generally
Littlefield, ‘Metropolitan Area Problems and Municipal Home Rule’’ (1962) pp. 25-32.

126 Massachusetts general laws annotated C. 3 sec. 5; C. 42 see. 7.

127 Even were a general procedural law to exist, the special act would still be the more important tool in
new community development. Although ideally municipalities would cooperate to accommodate their

boundaries to a new community, the greater likelihood is that compulsion from the general court in the form
of a special law would be required. :

128 See proposed statute, pt. III, infra, sec. 3(11).

89

municipalities. Assuming that the decision has been made not to
confine new communities dogmatically within the borders of a single
municipality, one is faced with a choice among a set of alternatives
whose value must be assessed by balancing political feasibility against
developmental needs.

(For purposes of the following discussion, the contiguous municipal
corporations will be designated A and B respectively, and the over-
lapping new community site will be designated C.)

2. Alternative approach to dealing with local government in the develop-
ment of new communities
Inaction

The least politically controversial alternative available is to do
nothing, to allow, under section 35 of the proposed statute, the return
to the control of municipalities A and B those portions of C falling
within their respective boundaries.”° Because Massachusetts contains
no unincorporated territory, at no time will this laissez faire approach
leave part of a completed new community outside the protection of
some local governmental unit.

This very fact creates problems, however, from a planning point
of view. Among the reasons for emphasizing in the legislation develop-
ment of large communities was the desire to attract inhabitants from
all income levels, to accommodate commercial, industrial, and recrea-
tional, as well as residential, development, and to take advantage of the
economies of scale inherent in their construction. To plan such a com-
munity with the foreknowledge that part of it would return to one
municipality, the remainder to another, would require the wisdom—
and good fortune—of a Solomon. Municipality A would not sit idly
by while the plan called for all the more valuable industrial or other
development to fall within municipality B. Nor, for example, would A
wish to include the greater part of the low income housing within its
borders, while luxury dwellings happened to fall in B. On the other
hand, the need to duplicate construction within A and B likely would
destroy the optimum community plan, undermine the anticipated
economies of scale, and serve as a disincentive to investment from
private developers.’*°

Irrespective of the problems of planning and development, the ul-
timate problem of governing C is itself adequate cause for rejection of
this laissez faire alternative. A Berne might bisect C along
physically understandable but politically incomprehensible lines, creat-
ing arbitarily separate units of government, a functional entity that
will be developing, as it grows in size, needs and interests increasingly
peculiar to itself and apart from those of A and B.

Even if one were to draw the dubious conclusion from these facts
that the utter simplicity of seeking no boundary adjustment outweighs
the developmental needs of the new community, municipalities A and
B, as a practical matter, still would have to effectuate some rather

122 The discussion will not consider the situation in which the development corporation finds it unneces=
sary to supersede any of the powers of municipalities A and B at any time during the development process.
No private developer could possibly be attracted in such a situation not only because of the absence of
control but also because the external control over his unified plan is under the control of two separate units.

130 The inability to present a unified plan that would avoid uneconomic duplication would probably be
sufficient to deter private investment. A further disincentive, however, is the likelihood that such an ineffi-
cient plan would not qualify for various governmental programs intended to attract private new com-

ay investment—specifically the New Communities Act of 1968, Public Law No. 90-448, title IV, 82
tat. 514.

90

extensive programs of cooperation to govern the new community prop-
erly. Elements of a cooperative program might include simple informal
acreements or more formal intermunicipal contracts." The possibility
of adopting either or both of these elements constitutes the second
alternative for dealing with the boundary problems created by an
overlapping new community.

Intermunicipal cooperation

Presumably the healthy growth of the new community, by contrib-
uting to the prosperity of both municipalities A and B, will provide an
incentive for them to enter into voluntary agreements. Despite any
incentive, however, the agreements probably should be formalized,
not only to provide greater assurance that the service or function will
be continued, but also, as a matter of sound planning, to clarify just
what the service or function is and how it will be provided.

For the purpose of providing basic services to the new community,
interlocal contracts are potentially effective.!’ As an alternative form
of metropolitan government, a regime of intergovernmental agree-
ments also has the advantage of lowering the unit costs of providing a
setvice, of not interfering with citizen control and participation, and
of consequent political feasibility.¥*

Yet the very voluntarism of these agreements creates offsetting
disadvantages, especially where, as seems likely in Massachusetts,
municipality A is a relatively large city and municipality B is a more
rural town or small city. In that situation, the bargaining power of
the two municipalities would be unequal and the ability to provide
needed services would lie almost exclusively with A. A consequently
could choose either to exact high rates for the services, or to ignore B’s
requests for cooperation. Furthermore, because the new community
probably was located as it was in order to relieve urban center A from
the excessive demands already being made on its services by its core
city population, A might not be in a position to provide the needed
services in the first place.

Another weakness created by the voluntarism of intermunicipal
agreements to provide services is that—

(T)hey are practical only when the immediate local interest of each participating
unit is not likely to be in conflict with the broader areawide interest. Since the
agreements are voluntary, when such conflicts appear likely, governmental units
probably would not choose to participate in an agreement, or if already partici-
pating, would withdraw.}34

Even if the dichotomy between area-wide and local interests set up
in this quotation were not a serious obstacle to the mechanical provi-
sion of basic services to the new community, it would be a serious
obstacle to the daily governmental operation of the unitary new
community. In fact, the dichotomy really is a trichotomy, with the
interests of the largely self-sufficient new community deserving
independent considerations along with the interests of the individual
municipalities and the area as a whole. A set of intermunicipal agree-

181 The exercise of extraterritorial power on a reciprocal basis is eliminated as a possible element because
of the contiguity of all incorporated municipalities throughout the commonwealth. Advisory Commission
on Intergovernmental Relations, “Alternative Approaches to Governmental Reorganization in Metro-
politan Areas,”’ at 23-23 (1962) (herein cited as ACI R: Alternative Approaches). See generally F. Sengstock,
“Extraterritorial Powers in the Metropolitan Area’’ (1962).

182 Intermunicipal Relations, supra note 145 at 4-6.

133 ACIR: Alternative approaches, supra note 169, at 30-31.

134 Thid., at 30.

91

ments can satisfy only specific, identified needs of the new community,
and those needs will be met most adequately only where their provision
is in the perceived area-wide interests of A and B. Although C will be
represented on the governing councils of both A and B, those bodies
meet separately with the result that an exclusive reliance on inter-
governmental contracts to meet C’s ongoing needs will leave C without
any means to express them as a separate entity to a governing body
capable of responding to them. The paralysis latent in such a situation
is entirely unacceptable for a new community of any substantial size.

Metropolitan government

The third alternative solution to new community boundary problems
then is some form of metropolitan government in which the interests
of the new community as a functional, independent whole would be
given consideration along with those of the municipalities within
whose boundaries the new community lies. This kind of metropolitan
government could not deal with the new community only by discrete,
voluntary agreements reached from time to time on narrow issues.

Consequently, metropolitan administration by council-of-govern-
ments, for example, would be inadequate because it is strictly advisory.
Although the council might provide for representation from the new
community as a separate entity, the effect of council action still
would be just to recommend, not to require, that the duly constituted
municipalities within the council region act on issues pertinent to the
new community.

On the other hand, a true, compulsory metropolitan government, in
which the interests of A, B, and C are represented and balanced
according to the needs of the entire area, runs into severe practical and
legal problems in Massachusetts. Perhaps the most convincing prac-
tical problem is that the creation of such a metropolitan government
at the very least would require special legislation by the general
court; *° while equipping it with the compulsory powers necessary to
override the will of individual municipalities on some issues might
require an amendment to the home rule provisions of the constitu-
tion.*® Because the likelihood of achieving even the first piece of
legislation is remote, the creation of any kind of metropolitan govern-
ment to assist new community development in Massachusetts is
equally remote.”

Annexation

The fourth possible alternative to meeting the boundary require-
ments of an overlapping new community is annexation. Strictly in
terms of its physical effect on boundary lines, annexation would mean
the inclusion of the entire new community site within the boundaries
of one municipality and the concurrent excision from the contiguous
municipality of that part of the site originally fallmg within it. For
equally strong legal and political reasons, achieving annexation of a
new community is virtually impossible in Massachusetts today.

“18 Massachusetts Constitution am. art. 89, sec. 8(3).

136 Tbid. The nature of the ‘‘metropolitan or regional entities’”’ envisioned by the home rule amendment is
not clear, although the wording ofsec. 8(3) makes it evident that the cities and towns encompassed by it are
not meant to be superseded by the entity with respect to those charter adopting powers granted to them by
sec. 2. Of course, a “regional entity’’ could be created without an amendment by dissolving municipalities
A and B under sec. 8(4) and reincorporating the entire area, but the new entity thus created is not a metro-
politan government in the generally understood sense of the term.

137 Even the utilization of existing county units as partial metropolitan governments is unlikely, given the

~weakness and narrow functions of county units and the nonconformity of county lines with existing metro-
Politan areas in the commonwealth. Intermunicipal Relations, supra note 8, at 25-27.

57-242—71 x6

92

A simple definition of annexation points up the crux of the legal
impediment in Massachusetts:

Annexation is the addition of territory to a municipal corporation as an integral
part. Generally, it involves joining ail or part of the territory of an unincorporated,
less populous, or subordinate local unit to that of a larger unit, usually incor-
porated, offering a more complete array of municipal services.1%8 (Xf 2

In Massachusetts all local units are incorporated, and the question
thus becomes whether one incorporated municipality may annex part
of an adjoining incorporated municipality. The answer is to be found
in the home rule amendment and in chapter 3.5 f and chapter 42, S 7
of the general laws of the Commonwealth.

In Massachusetts, as in the majority of States, no statute explicitly
excepts incorporated areas from annexation proceedings, nor does any
statute state that only unincorporated territory may be annexed. In
fact, the only provisions of the general laws dealing at all with annexa-
tion are chapter 3, S 5, and chapter 42, S 7.

The first merely provides for uniformity of petitions to the general court for
special legislation. The second provides that the department of publie works, with
the concurrence of town meetings, may propose to the general court changes in
town boundaries.!°

Neither qualifies as any sort of enabling act providing procedures
for annexation, and no case law seems to exist dealing with the impli-
cations of the statutory silence with respect to annexation procedures
in Massachusetts.

Three other jurisdictions, however, have considered the legality of
annexing incorporated territory in the face of statutory silence, and
all three have denied the legality.1*°

Tf the appellate courts of other States were called upon to answer the question
of whether or not annexation laws are applicable to incorporated territory in the
absence of an express prohibition thereof, there is more than a possibility based

on experience in the above three States (of North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Texas)
that they would void an annexation of incorporated territory.

That conclusion is especially likely in Massachusetts because of the
additional factor of the home rule amendment, under which each city
and town, whether or not it has adopted a home rule charter, receives
all the protections of the amendment.”

Viewing the amendment from the perspective of the home rule
powers granted, and not the protections afforded, one reaches the
same conclusion. Even with respect to unincorporated territory.

In most States having home rule provision . . . the courts have held that

home rule powers do not add anything to a cities (sic) power to annex territory.
General laws must still be looked to for such power.

Massachusetts courts too are likely to reach that conclusion. Al
though one State does permit a home rule city to annex even unin
corporated territory on the basis of its home rule grant alone,™ the
reservation of the boundary alteration power to the legislature in the
home rule amendment itself,’“° the presence of only incorporated land

188 Adjusting Municipal Boundaries, supra note 149, at 1.

189 Tntermunicipal Relations, supra note 8, at 31.

140 F. Sengstock, “Annexation: A Solution to the Metropolitan Area Problem” 42-43 (1960) (hereafter cited
as Annexation),

141 Thid.

142114 Massachusetts Constitution am. art. 89, sec. 8.

43 115 Littlefield, supra note 161, at 22.

144 Thid. at 23.

145 Massachusetts Constitution am. art. 89, sec. 8(4).

98

in the Commonwealth, and the total absence of any kind of annexa-
tion enabling legislation in the general laws all suggest that Massa-
chusetts will follow the majority rule.

If it does, a new community could be absorbed by an existing
municipality only by special law,™“* for no general annexation law now
exists. As a political matter, passage of that special law would not be
simple. In the 10 years prior to 1960 no significant annexation oc-
curred in Massachusetts '” nor would the pattern change the new
community scheme. Matters of local pride, the desire for political and
social independence, and the lack of enthusiasm for assuming finaucial
obligations of neighboring communities “* would continue, as ever, to
be sources of potential opposition to annexation from at least one of
the municipalities involved. Or, for example, if the annexing munici-
pality did not object that the new town would put a strain on its
ability to provide services, then the municipality from which territory
is to be excised certainly would resent the loss of formerly open land
whose appreciated value will not accrue to that annexing municipality.
No matter which municipality is to be the annexor, potential opposi-
tion exists within both of them, as well as within the area to be annexed

itself.
Although a petition for annexation could reach the general court

under chapter 3, section 5, despite this local opposition, its road into
enactment. would have been made no smoother. The opposition raised
at the local level is simply shifted to another forum. The consequences
of the shift have been described in this manner:

(T)he legislature may be controlled by rural groups who view urban problems
in a negative manner. Frequently there is an entrenched custom in the legislature
described as “legislative courtesy’? whereby the legislators honor the wishes of
the delegate or delegates of the affected areas and their opposition may thwart
any action. It is clear those States that utilize legislative determination as the
sole means of affecting annexation are those having the least annexation.1!9

Perhaps a real need does exist in Massachusetts for a general annex-
ation enabling statute.“° By providing a possible alternative to
annexation by special act it might function at least to induce the legis-
lature to give more serious consideration to annexation petititons,
perhaps from a new community developer, when they do come before

146 Tbid.

147 Annexation, supra note 178, at 11.

48 Tntermunicipal Relations, supra note 145, at 31.

149 Adjusting Municipal Boundaries, supra note 149, at 7.

150 Such a statute, of course, would be useless if the home rule status of the cities and towns in the common-
wealth were held to render ineffective a general law setting up a procedure by which those cities and towns
might be annexed. A Texas court has held invalid an annexation procedure that would have permitted one
home rule city the right to annex by charter amendment, another city which had the right to adopt, but
had not yet adopted, its own home rule charter. City of Houston y. City of Magnolia Park, 115 Tex. 101, 276
S.W. 685 (1925). Under the Texas reading, the non-consensual annexation both of home rule cities and of
cities eligible for home rule would be impermissible.

In Michigan on the other hand, the courts have ignored potential home rule obstacles and have upheld
annexation legislation simply by citing authority for the dominance of the State over municipal corpora-
tions in matters of boundary adjustment. See, e.g., Village of Kingsford v. Cudlip 258 Mich. 144, 241. N.W.
893 ue implication of the Michigan cases is that the legislature could provide even for nonconsensual
consolidation.

Massachusetts has an equally strong history of legislative dominance over municipal corporations. See
cases cited supra note 158. But it also has a strong tradition of deference to municipalities in legislation
affecting boundary charges. See, e.g., Stone v. City of Charlestown, 114 Mass. 214, 221-223 (1873). This fact,
together with the home rule amendment’s application to all cities and towns, whether or not they have
adopted a home rule charter as yet, suggests that any annexation legislation should provide only for con-
sensual annexation of some sort. Even if the courts might approve nonconsensual procedures under a
Michigan rationale, it is unlikely that such legislation would pass in the general court.

Neil Littlefield concludes that even the courts could not approve of the broader legislation.

(1)n most home rule States if some approach to area government is taken which anticipates implemen-
tation on the State level without local approval, constitutional provisions will have to be adopted.

Littlefield, supra note 161, at 32.

94

it. The legislation could be drafted either separately or as an integral
part of the new communities proposal. In any case the new com-
munities proposal should be drafted if not to include, at least to
anticipate, and perhaps to suggest an annexation statute. Parts of the
proposed statute for example, should be redrafted to make clear the
procedure to be followed if annexation were to be part of the develop-
ment of the new community.

At the present time, however, no annexation procedure does exist
in the general laws of the Commonwealth. Desirable as its passage may
be for purposes of facilitating rational urban growth, obtaining that
passage would be no easier than obtaining passage of the special law
currently necessary to achieve any kind of annexation. Because
annexation thus unavoidably involves a major legislative battle, its
usefulness an as alternative solution to new community boundary
problems is not great.

Consolidation

The fifth alternative, consolidation, is closely related to annexation
and, consequently, presents similar legal problems. Its political prob-
lems are not only similar but more severe.

Simply defined, consolidation ‘occurs when two or more municipal
corporations or units of local government are abolished and, in the
same process, a new municipal corporation is created.” ? As a planning
matter, consolidation is more advantageous than annexation for new
community development: it creates an effective compulsory metropoli-
tan governmental unit, it reduces the coordination problems inherent
in a multigovernmental unit set-up, and it provides certain economics
of scale in administration.”

Unfortunately, all these advantages are offset by the political
infeasibility of consolidation. Generally, consolidation procedures
begin with some form of petition in each municipality to be affected
and require approval by majority vote in each such municipality. That
difficulty, and the threat to local officials posed by the dissolution of
the original governmental units, are usually sufficient to render
consolidation impossible.1%

The practical result in Massachusetts has been the refusal of the
legislature even to consider petitions for consolidation. A case in
point is the 1963 attempt of two municipalities in western Massa-
chusetts to study a possible consolidation. Not only did the legislature
give little attention to the bill, but:

[T]he main opposition to the measure came from cities and towns in the Greater

Boston Metropolitan Area who believed that the success of a measure of this
kind might provide a precedent for the merging of communities in their area.!54

Detachment and separate incorporation

Given the practical ineffectiveness of the consolidation approach,
the final alternative for adjusting boundaries to accommodate a
new community is the detachment of the new community site and
its incorporation as an independent municipality. Like annexation
or consolidation, this procedure is possible, unless otherwise consti-
tutionally impermissible, by special law under section 8(4) of the

151 Adjusting Municipal Boundaries, supra note 149, at 57.

182 ACIR: Alternative Approaches, supra note 169, at 65.
153 Tbid

154 ‘Adjusting Municipal Boundaries, supra note 149 at 177.

95

home rule amendment. Consequently, its relative worth as a boundary
adjustment technique may be determined by comparing its planning
advantages and political feasibility with those of annexation and
consolidation.

As a planning matter, and apart from constitutional restriction,
detachment would assure a developer greater control over the develop-
ment of his project, and thus make the investment more attractive
to him. For example, independence of the new community would
allow the developer to experiment more freely with new designs and
technology and to create a more unified plan. Moreover inde-
pendence would allow paralled experimentation in governmental
administration, and it would permit more representational citizen
participation in defining the needs of the entire community.’ All
these factors are extremely important in motivating the actual under-
taking of a new community development.

The negative planning factors, on the other hand, are broadly
economic and, although vital, would not necessarily discourage a
developer from undertaking the new community project. These
factors include losses of economies of scale in the smaller area; diffi-
culties in providing basic services de novo without the assistance of
existing municipal facilities; the complexities of instituting an entirely
new functional government bureaucracy; and the questionable
wisdom of introducing another independent governmental unit in
an a that is likely to require some form of metropolitan governance
one day.

The political feasibility of separate incorporation is not much more
certain than that of consolidation or annexation, although the novelty
of the idea and the variations it presents from the usual causes for
opposition suggest a greater feasibility. For one thing, assuming some
sort of equal overlap, neither existing municipality will stand to lose
territory to the advantage of its contiguous neighbor; neither will be
compelled to accept the financial obligations of its neighbor; neither
will profit from an increased tax base at the expense of its neighbor;
and neither will be compelled to be the sole provider of basic and
costly municipal services. Although both municipalities will lose
territory and potential economic growth, because the loss will be
equal and shared it may not arouse the same antagonisms created if
one were to lose to the advantage or the other. Furthermore, the
creation of a wholly separate unit of government, rather than threaten
the job security of some elected officials and municipal employees,
most likely would increase the number of available positions and
avoid the dilution of power in those already existing.

CONCLUSION

In drafting the proposed statute, all of these alternative approaches
to deal with “home rule” problems were considered at length. After
evaluating these various costs and benefits, the development district

155 This advantage assumes, of course, that the real constituency of the new community consists of those
who reside within its corporate limits. Because the new community legislation has been passed to alleviate
statewide urban problems, the real constituency of the new community may be the people living in the
nearby central city. Mullarkey, ‘‘The Evolution of a New Community: Problems of Government,” 6 Harv.
J. Legis. 462, 475 (1969) (hereinafter cited as Mullarkey). Although this argument is persuasive, it does not
deny the desirability of insuring for those already living in the new community some real role in its
governance.

96

concept began to emerge as the one strategy which best accommodated
the political and legal problems posed by home rule considerations.
To get a clearer picture of how the development district will accomplish
these tasks we now turn to the statute which spells out the inter-
relationships anticipated between public development and _ local
government.

(Eprror’s Notn.—Mr. Browning thoroughly develops and presents
the statute in his paper.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abend, Norman A. “Transportation Inputs in New Town Planning.” Traffic
Quarterly. April 1969. ». 243-261.

Transportation planning for new communities must incorporate flexibility
to accommodate future growth. Much of current U.S. new community planning
is neglecting this consideration.

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Urban and Rural America:
Policies for Future Growth. A Commission report. Washington, D.C. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1968. 186 p.

Chapter IV includes a history of U.S. and European new town development
from the 19th century to the present, and surveys recent public and private
efforts in the United States. Chapter VI treats some of the governmental
problems of public-private joint ventures in community development.

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Intergovernmental Policies
for Urbanization and New Communities Development. Washington, D.C., Septem-
ber 1968.

An examination of the historic and recent development of new communities
in the United States; a survey of planning and development, controls for large-
scale development, and the shaping of urban growth.

American Institute of Planners. New Communities: Challeuge for Today. Wdited by
Muriel I. Allen. The AIP Task Force on New Communities. Washington,
D.C., 1968. (Background Paper No. 2) 39 p.

Suggestions for a national settlement policy, and creation of a Federal
agency to build satellite communities. Recommendations for a Federal system
of block grants for new communities and an urban development bank to make
loans to State and local agencies for the development of new communities.

Bain, Henry. The Development District; a governmental institution for the better
organization of the urban development process in the bi-county region. Pre-
pared for the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
Washington, D.C., Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies, 1968. 204 p.

A proposal for the creation of a new government unit to carry out urban
development within a county. The study was prepared in anticipation of
further new community development.

Baltimore Regional Planning Council. Metrotowns for the Baltimore Region: A
Pattern Emerges. Supporting Data for Planning Report No. 2. Maryland State
Planning Department, Baltimore, 1962. 37 p.

A hierarchical concept for new community building. The metrotowns would
be regional employment centers separated by open space and dependent upon
the central city for some services.

Bogart, George T. ‘The Role of Large-Scale Enterprise in the Creation of Better
Enviroment.” In Ewald, William R., Jr., editor, Environment for Man: The
Next Fifty Years. Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1967. p. 269-274.

A report on the General Electric Company’s study of the feasibility of large-
seale city building incorporating advanced mechanical and social concepts.

Bosselman, Fred P. Alternatives to Urban Sprawl: Legal Guidelines for Government
Action. Prepared for the consideration of the National Commission on Urban
Problems (Research Report No. 15). Washington, D.C., 1968, 69 p.

A discussion of the legal issues involved in three land-use control measures:
planned development zones (intensive development on a small scale), com-
pensative regulations (payments to owners of restricted-use properties), public
land assembly (use of eminent domain).

Building the American City. Report of the National Commission on Urban Prob-
lems to the Congress and to the President of the United States. House Document
91-34. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. ($4.50).

97

Chapter IV, “Cooperative Housing,’”’ describes Federal program experience
and the advantages of the cooperative approach. Pages 178-179 describe briefly
the HUD-administered ‘‘New Communities Act of 1968.”

Burns, L. 8. and Klaasen, L. H. ‘Econometrics of Building a New Town,” Review
of Economics and Statistics, November 1963.

Presents a mathematical model for financing.

Canty, Donald, editor. The New City. The National Committee on Urban Growth

Policy. eamuenes for Urban America, Inc., by Frederick A. Praeger, New York,
1969. 180 p.
' A series of papers for the National Committee on Urban Growth Policy
covering the process of urbanization, future patterns of urban growth, historic
new towns in America, new towns in Britain, and proposals for new cities in
the U.S., with recommendations for a system of Federal subsidies.

Cartsonis, Emanuel M. ‘‘New Towns, A Challenge to Partnership of Private and
Public Enterprise.”’ In Planning 1967. Chicago, American Society of Planning
Officials. p. 174-177.

A call for stronger regional planning and a range of Federal financial assist-
ance for the private development of new communities.

Christensen, Boake. ‘‘Land Use Control for the New Community.” Harvard
Journal of Legislation. May 1969. p. 496-547.

Part I: Analysis of zoning and planning practice; Part II: Review of recent
Federal and private sector new community assumptions; Part III: Types of
zoning in use, recent court decisions, and precedents for new community zoning.
The appendix includes a model ordinance for a new community district.

Conkin, Paul. Tomorrow a New World: The New Deal Community Program. Pub-
lished for the American Historical Association. Ithaca, N. Y., Cornell University
Press, 1959. 350 p.

The story of the construction of about 100 small communities during the
1930’s, a program that culminated in the Greenbelt towns.

Crane, David A. Technologies Study: The Application of Technological Innovation
in the Development of a New Community, Fort Lincoln New Town. Prepared for:
Edward J. Logue, Principal Development Consultant, District of Columbia
Redevelopment Land Agency, National Capital Planning Commission, and
District of Columbia Govt. Washington, D.C., 1968. 246 p.

Exploration of the applicability of technological innovations for a 300-acre
in-city community project in the National Capital.

“Creating New Communities: A Symposium on Process and Product.” Journal
of the American Institute of Planners. November 1967. p. 370-409.

Articles by—

Godschalk, David R. “Comparative New Community Design.”

Willmott, Peter. ‘Social Research and New Communities.”

Hoppenfeld, Morton. “A Sketch of the Pianning-Building Process for
Columbia, Maryland.

“A Critical Evaluation of New Towns Legislation.’ In Planning 1967. Chicago,
American Society of Planning Officials. p. 171-177.

Articles by: William L. Slayton, ““New Cities: Policies and Legislation.”
Emanuel M. Cartsonis, ‘“New Towns: A Challenge to Partnership of Private
and Public Enterprise.”

Dames, T. A., and William L. Grecco. “A Survey of New Town Planning Ccn-
siderations.” Traffic Quarterly. October 1968. p. 555-570.

The results of a questionnaire to new town developers. The survey includes
tabulation of selected amenities and a discussion of planning objectives.

“Democracy in the New Towns: The Limits of Private Government,” University
of Chicago Law Review, Winter, 1969. p. 379-412.

A study of the home owners’ associations of Reston and Columbia, suggested
as models for other new communities. Examination of pertinent court decisions
involving public function and equal protection. The author suggests that the
H.O.A., using real property as the only basis for political participation, may
conflict with constitutional equal protection clauses.

Dienstfrey, Ted. ‘‘A Note on the Economics of Community Building.” Journal of
the American Institute of Planners. March 1967. p. 120-123. (Also in Eichler
Edward P. and Marshall Kaplan, The Community Builders, Appendix).

An attempt to compute a rate of return for community building.

Edwards, Gordon. New Town Planning in Rapid Growth Areas. Address by
Chief of Planning Branch, Office of Metropolitan Development, Housing and
Home Finance Agency before the I'airfax County Federation of Citizens

98

Associations. January 16, 1964. Washington, Housing and Home Finance
Agency, 1964. 9 p.

Hichler, Edward P. “Why New Communities.”” In Frieden, Bernard J. and
William W. Nash, Jr., editors, Shaping An Urban Future; essays in memory of
Catherine Bauer Wurster. Cambridge, M.I.T. Press, 1969. p. 95-113.

This essay concentrates on certain California postwar new towns as promo-
tional phenomena not superior to sprawl development, dismissing the new
towns movement as rather irrelevant for complex social and economic patterns.

Eichler, Edward P. and Marshall Kaplan. The Community Builders. Berkeley,
University of California Press, 1967. 182 p.

A comprehensive and often critical analysis of large-scale and new community
development, with emphasis on the California experience in the mid 1960’s,
Columbia, Maryland, and Reston, Virginia.

Eldredge, H. Wentworth, editor. Taming Megalopolis. New York, Anchor Books,
1967. 2 v.

Volume 2, titled: How to Manage An Urbanized World, contains a chapter on
“The New Towns Concept,” with articles by—

Osborn, Frederic J. “Britain’s Place in Town Planning,” p. 819-822.

Eldredge, H. Wentworth. ‘‘Lessons To Be Learned From The British
New Town Program.” p. 823-837.

Gutheim, Frederick. “Continental Europe Offers New Town Builders
Experience.”’ p. 823-837.

Rouse, James W. ‘‘The City of Columbia, Maryland. p. 838-848.

Abrams, Charles. A Land Development Program for California. p. 848-854.

Rubel, John H. ‘‘The Aerospace Project Approach Applied to Building
New Cities.”’ p. 854-874.

Evans, Henry K. “Transportation Planning Criteria for New Towns.” In Highway
Research Board, Planned Communities. Washington, D.C., National Academy
of Sciences-National Research Council. 1965. p. 30-50.

Steps taken in highway traffic planning with special reference to Mountain
Park and Irvine Ranch in California.

Fitch, Lyle C. ‘“‘National Development and National Policy.’ In Ewald, William
R., Jr., editor, Environment and Policy: The Nest Fifty Years. Bloomington,
Indiana University Press, 1968. p. 283-318.

A portion of this chapter, p. 304-309, examines the major urban concentra-
tions of the U.S. The conclusion is that, considering the high projected costs of
new cities, they are unlikely to be built on a scale that would significantly alter
the projected pattern of urban settlement.

Foer, Albert A. “Democracy In The New Towns: The Limits Of Private Govern-
ment.” University of Chicago Law Review. Winter 1969. p. 379-412.

A study of the home owners’ associations of Reston and Columbia as
models for other communities. Examination of pertinent court decisions,
suggesting that home owners’ associations, using real property as a basis for
political participation, may violate constitutional equal protection clauses.

Freeman, Orville L. ‘Towards A National Policy On Balanced Communities.”
Minnesota Law Review. June 1969. p. 1163-1178.

Suggestions for the establishment of a development bank for financing
nonprofit new community development corporations with issuances of
obligations guaranteed by the Federal government; building of twelve new
towns in Appalachia is advocated.

Gelaniey, yanan: “Black New Towns.” Progressive Architecture. August 1968.
p- —Lol.

A proposal for new towns for Negroes to shape an environment that they
would control.

Gans, Herbert J. The Levittowners: Way of Life and Politics in a New York Sub-
urban Community. New York, Pantheon Press, 1967. 474 p.

A survey of the residents of Willingboro, New Jersey, disclosing their
satisfaction with their living environment.

CD Hoyt. New Towns. Editoria? Research Reports. November 1968. p. 805-

_A survey of the new towns movement in Europe and the U.S.A., with brief
discussion of several U.S. projects. Some of the most recent new town ideas,
such as the Minnesota Experimental City Project, are cited.

Gladstone, Robert M. ‘Does Building A City Make Economic Sense?” Appraisal
ee a 1966. p. 407-412. (Also in Savings Bank Journal. October 1966
p. 33-37).

99

The argument that new communities can make economic sense and meet
many urgent problems. Critical to economic feasibility is the cost of land and
cost of developing public facilities.

Gladstone, Robert M. ‘‘New Town’s Role in Urban Growth Explored.” Journal
of Housing. January 1966. p. 23-36.

Examination of some of the public policy issues of new communities, including
State and Federal roles. Comments on the article are given by Carl F. Stover
and Melvin F. Levine.

Gladstone, Robert M. and Harold F. Wise. ‘New Towns Solve Problems of
Urban Growth,’ Public Management. May 1966. p. 128-139. (Reprinted in
Mahood, H. R. and Edward L. Angus, editors. Urban Politics and Problems;
a reader. New York, Scribners, 1969. p. 487-499).

A brief survey of recent new town development, with a critique on the
master plan of Columbia, Maryland, and discussion of desirable new towns
objectives.

Goodman, Percival and Paul. Communitas: Means of Livelihood and Ways of Life.
Rev. ed., New York, Vintage Books, 1960. 248 p.

A discussion of current planning, and a description of some new towns and
ideal communities.

Gruen (Victor) Associates. New Cities U.S.A. A statement of purpose and program
prepared for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1966. 42 p.

The case for a national program to build 20 new cities of about one half
million population each to accommodate one third of the expected urban
growth over the next two decades.

Harvard University Graduate School of Design. New Communities: One Alterna-
tive; A Harvard Study of a New City. New Communities Project (Preliminary
Summary Report, and 2 vol. Technical Report). Cambridge, Mass., 1968. 76 p.

Site selection of a prototype new community development in the Greater
Boston metropolitan area with discussions of applicable design and building
techniques.

Hoppenfeld, Morton. ‘“‘A Sketch of the Planning-Building Process for Columbia,
Maryland.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners. November 1967. p.
398-409.

A report on Columbia’s decision-making process and the coordinating of the
social, financial, engineering and architectural development with other variables
to produce a viable, balanced community.

Hupp, John E., Jr. ‘‘Planning New Towns for Industry.” In Proceedings of the
39th Annual Road School. Lafayette, Indiana, Purdue University, 1953, pp.
221-229.

International City Managers Association. New Towns: A New Dimension of
Urbanism. Chicago, 1968. 54 p.

Articles by

Kirk, C. W. G. T. ‘““New Towns in Great Britain.”

Gutheim, Frederick. ‘‘Europe Offers New Town Builders Experience.”

Gladstone, Robert M. and Harold F. Wise. ‘‘New Towns Solve Problem
of Urban Growth.”

Weaver, Robert C. ‘‘Federal Proposals May Solve City Problems.”’

Thompson, Wayne E. ‘‘Prototype City-Design for Tomorrow.”

Scott, Stanley. “‘Urban Growth Challenges New Towns.”’

Arnold, David 8. ‘“‘What New Towns Ought To Be.”

Jacobs, Jane. Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York Random House,
1961, 458 p.

The jae onitioe particularly pp. 17-25, contains comments on the influence
of Ebenezer Howard and Le Corbusier on the new towns movement and city
planning.

Kaplan, Marshall. Implementation of the Baltimore Regional Plan Alternatives.
San Francisco, Institute for Planning and Development, 1965. 94 p.

The report, prepared for the Regional Planning Council of Baltimore, includes
a discussion of Columbia, Maryland, pp. 52-57. It refers to “‘metrotowns,”
and calls for a State development corporation to assist private new community
development, pp. 61-67.

Kaplan, Marshall. ‘‘The Role of Planner and Developer in the New Community.”
Washington University Law Quarterly. February 1965. p. 88-104.

Discussion of the nature of the new communities movement in the 1960’s,
the motives of developers, and the popularity of the new community idea in
the planning profession.

100

Katz, Albert M. ‘Lower Rent Costs: A Net Social Gain through Creation of
New Towns.” Land Economics. May 1968. p. 233-275.

A model is presented to contrast rent costs between a new community and
a conventional major urban area.

Keegan, John E. and William Rutzick. ‘Private Developers and The New Com-
munities Act of 1968.’’ Georgetown Law Journal. June 1969. p. 1019-1058.

An analysis of the Federal financial guarantee program for private developers.
Some discussion of the role of State and local government and the balance
¢ low and moderate income housing requirement of the New Communities

ct.

Krooth, David L. “A Program for New Towns in America.’ In Housing Year-
book 1966. Washington, D.C., National Housing Conference, 1966. p. 27-30.

Suggestions on the Federal role and requirements for a new towns program.

Lalli, Frank. ““New Towns: Are they just Oversized Subdivisions—with Oversized
Problems?” House & Home. June 1966. p. 93-103.

A pessimistic view of four projects in the United States: Clear Lake City, El
Dorado Hills, Reston and Columbia. Diagrams of master plans are included.

“Land-Financing Idea Stirs Doubts.” Engineering News-Record. February 4,
1964. p. 45-46.

A discussion of land loans for State development agencies, proposed in the
Administration’s housing bill for 1964.

Lillibridge, Robert M. “Urban Size: An Assessment.’ Land Economics. November
1952. p. 341-352.

The issue of optimum city size is traced from the garden city movement
through the greenbelt towns, Levittown, Park Forest, Oak Ridge, and others.
Lynch, Kevin. “The Possible City.’? In Ewald, William R., Jr., editor, Environ-
ment and Policy: The Next Fifty Years. Bloomington, Indiana, Indiana Univer-

sity Press, 1968. p. 1387-166.

In this chapter on the changing metropolis, some innovations are listed as
possible for experimental communities. Whole new cities, however, are thought
to be more feasible outside the U.S.

McDade, Thomas. ‘‘New Communities in America.’”? Urban Land. News and
Trends. January 1965. p. 6-8.

Three major elements are cited to facilitate new communities as proposed by
the President in his message to the Congress: Urban Planning Assistance Grants,
Public Facilities Loans, and FHA insured private mortgage loans for land
acquisition and development.

Mandelker, David R. “Some Policy Considerations in the Drafting of New Towns
Legislation,” Washington University Law Quarterly, February 1965.

Discusses the relation between new town development and land-use problem,
emphasizing the need for strong controls on site selection by government. The
author wants to see new towns constructed only as a facet in a comprehensive
land policy.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Development
Corporations. November 1968. 62 p.

The necessity of some kind of land development corporation as a vehicle
for planning and building new towns is asserted. The experience with such
corporations in Hurope, Canada, and America is detailed and possible alterna-
tives for use in the region around Washington, D.C., are pointed out.

Mayer, Albert. “The Role of Regional Policy.” Architectural Record. September
1964. p. 197-205.

Examples of regional planning with new towns in several countries. Elements
for an American policy.

Mayer, Albert. ‘“‘The Urgent Need for New Towns.” In Housing Yearbook 1967.
Washington, D.C., National Housing Conference, 1967. p. 35-36.

An outline of the key elements considered needed to achieve economically
and socially balanced new communities in America.

Meyers, Carol S. Taxation and Development: The Use of Tax Policies for Preserving
Open Space and Improving Development Patterns in the Bi-County Region. Pre-
pared for the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission,
November 1968. 82 p.

Present and alternative tax policies in Maryland studied as a means to
determine the role of tax policy in development.

Mullarkey, Mary J. “The Evolution of a New Community: Problems of Govern-
ment.” Harvard Journal of Legislation. May 1969. p. 462-495.

An evaluation of the Federal atomic energy and greenbelt town projects,
leading to a discussion of problems of implementing home rule in Federally

101

assisted projects. Joint State-Federal control is advocated. A model incorpora-
tion and local government act is offered.

National Commission on Urban Problems. Building The American City. Report
of the National Commission on Urban Problems to the Congress and to the
President of the United States. Washington, Govt. Print. Off., 1968. 504 p.
(House Document no. 91-34, 91st Congress, Ist session).

The final report of the Douglas Commission contains a brief summary of the
New Communities Act of 1968, its purposes and objectives on p. 178-179.

National Governor’s Conference. ‘‘New Towns for America?” In The States and
Urban Problems. A staff study for the Committee on State-Urban Relations.
1967. p. 738-80.

A survey of several proposals, public and private, calling for new town de-
velopment. The New Jersey Municipal Planned Unit Development Act is
seen as a potential stimulant for new towns.

‘‘New Towns vs. Trends: Comparative Costs.’’ American Institute of Planners
Newsletter, August 1968. p. 11.

Report on three models developed by the Howard County Planning Depart-
ment for projecting savings on new communities.

Norcross, Carl. Open Space Communities In The Market Place. . . A Survey
of Public Acceptance. Washington, Urban Land Institute, 1966. 97 p. (Tech-
nical Bulletin No. 57.)

A study of 28 outstanding open space projects featuring cluster development
principles, ranging from a few to several thousand acres.

Noren, Craig. New Towns of the United States. National Association of Home
Builders, unpublished study. 25 p.

A very good history and description of American new towns, exploring the
role of the developer, planning problems, housing, open space, and many other
aspects of new towns. Also includes the arguments for and against and prospects
for the future.

Pennsylvania, University of. Institute for Urban Studies. Accelerated Urban
Growth in a Metropolitan Area; A study of Urbanization, Suburbanization and
the Impact of the Fairless Steel Plant in Lower Bucks County, Pennsylvania
(Critical Defense Housing Area). With the cooperation of the Bureau of Urban
Research, Princeton University. Philadelphia, 1954. 2 vols.

Studies of Fairless Hills and Levittown, Pennsylvania.

O’Harrow, Dennis. ‘‘New Towns or New Sprawl?” American Society of Planning
Officials. Newsletter. October 1964. p. 105-106.

An editorial on the failure of current large-scale developments to become
new towns, and the need for balance of uses and size limitation.

pie Harvey 8. ‘‘Modernizing Urban Development.’’ Daedalus. Summer 1967.
p. 789-800.

The creation of non-profit community development corporations could enlist
private enterprise to build new towns, with superior features and low-cost
housing making them desirable for both black and white.

Perloff, Harvey S. “New Towns Intown.” American Institute of Planners. Journal.
May 1966. p. 155-161. (Reprinted by Resources for the Future, Inc. Wash-
ington, D.C., June 1966).

A proposal for the new town-in town as a means to transform the physical
environment of the city in order to meet social objectives and human resources
needs within the existing urban area.

Peterson, David Lee. The Planned Community and the New Investors: Economic
and Political Factors in Corporate Real Estate Investment. Berkeley, Center for
Real Estate and Urban Economies, Institute of Urban and Regional Develop-
ment, University of California, 1967. 73 p.

An analysis of the trend toward large-scale planning with respect to the
financial position of the developer, the effect of corporate adventures into
community development, and the regulatory response from government.

Pickard, Jerome P. Dimensions of Metropolitanism (Research Monographs 14
and 14A). Washington, D.C., Urban Land Institute, 1967. p. 91, 95.

The growth of urbanized areas in the United States both in terms of popula-
tion and land area from 1920 to 1960 is described in individual statistical
detail and projections are made for 1980 and 2000.

Pratter, Jerome. ‘‘Legal Implementation of a Satellite City: The Planned Dis-
position of Public Land.” Urban Law Annual. The School of Law, Washington
University, 1969. p. 1-23.

An examination of public land planning policy with respect to a surplus
penal farm in Shelby County, Tennessee, proposed for private development

102

as a new community. Relevant local and State legal authority are reviewed,
and several urban renewal court decisions cited to support precedent for a
dual price system for public land sales to developers.

Rapkin, Chester. ‘New Towns for America: From Picture to Process.” Journal
of Finance, (May 1967). p. 208-219.

Discussion of new community building since 1925, with some analysis of the
failure of recent Federal legislative efforts and a list of major problems.

Redfield, Charles EH. and others. ‘‘The Impact of Levittown on Local Govern-
ment.” American Institute of Planners. Journal. Summer 1951. p. 130-141.

Jurisdictional conflicts, inadequacy of governmental services, and other ef-

fects of the sudden increased demands on nearby communities.
Reiner, Thomas A. The Place of the Ideal Community in Urban Planning. Phila-
delphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1963. 194 p.
Various plans for utopian communities proposed in the past century.
Reissman, Leonard. The Urban Process; Cities in Industrial Societies. New York,
Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. 255 p.

Chapter III, “The Visionary Planner for Urban Utopia,” deals with plans
for ideal cities, citing Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Lewis
Mumford.

Schuchter, Arnold. White Power/Black Freedom. Boston, Beacon Press, 1968.
650 p.

Chapter 7, p. 346-414, discusses the successes and failures of postwar new
town development. A quasi-public “land development corporation” is proposed
to improve the management of Federal lands, the creation of cities upon them,
and a system of national “urban-grant universities.”

Scott, Stanley. ‘Local Government and the Large New Communities.” June 1965.

p.

“The Large New Communities and Urban Growth: A Broader Perspective

and its Implications.’”?’ December 1966. 6 p. Public Affairs Report. Berkeley,
University of California. Institute of Government Studies.

A series on new communities, with emphasis on the recent California ex-
perience, including a discussion of land policies, and new governmental arrange-
ments, a new public investment, new fiscal policies, and more councils of gov-
ernment, are advocated.

Scott, Stanley. “Urban Growth Challenges New Towns.’’ Public Management.
September 1966. p. 253-260.

The absence of goals for urban growth is viewed as the primary cause of weak-
ness in present new communities development. Direction is sought from State
and Federal governments.

Self, Peter. “New Towns, Greenbelts, and the Urban Region.” In University of
California. The Metropolitan Future. Conference No. 5 in a series on “California
and the Challenge of Growth.” Berkeley, 1963. p. 32-39.

A British planner distinguishes between suburb and new town, summarizes
post-war new towns aims, and suggests that California adopt a statewide plan.

Slayton, William L. “New Cities: Policies and Legislation.” In Planning 1967.
Chicago, American Society of Planning Officials. p. 171-174.

The concept of land as a national resource and the advocacy of large new
cities developed through State-chartered public corporations.

Stein, Clarence 8. Toward New Towns for America. 3d ed., with an introduction by
Lewis Mumford, Cambridge, M.1.T. Press, 1966. 263 p.

First published in 1950, revised in 1955, this study has descriptions of Rad-
burn, Sunneside Apts., Baldwin Hills Village, Chatham Village, and the Federal
“greenbelt”? communities.

“Symposium: New Towns.” Washington University Law Quarterly. February

Articles by—

Mandelker, David R. ‘(Some Policy Considerations in the Drafting of New
Towns Legislation.’’

Kaplan, Marshall. ‘“‘The Role of the Planner and Developer in the New
Community.”’

“Administration of the English New Towns Program.”’

Atkinson, J. R. ‘Washington New Town, England.”

Thomas, Wyndham. “(New Towns Development.”

Woods, Shadrach. ‘‘Le Mirail, A New Quarter for the City of Toulouse.”

Tannenbaum, Robert. ‘Planning Determinants for Columbia, A New Town in
Maryland.” Urban Land, News and Trends. April 1965. p. 3-8.

103

U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Banking and Currency.
Basic Laws and Authorities on Housing and Urban Development. Revised through
January 31, 1969. 91st Congress, lst session., Washington, D.C., Govt. Print.
Off., 1969. 952 p.

Title X: Mortgage Insurance for Land Development, p. 169-175. Title IV:
Guarantees for Financing New Community Land Development, p. 400-405.
U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Banking and Currency-
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966. Public Law
89-754, together with a brief summary, section-by-section analysis, legislative:
history and conference report. Washington, D.C., Govt. Print. Off., 1966. 84 p..

Summary of the Title X, Experimental Mortgage Insurance Program for new
communities on p. 20-22; Text of the Act on p. 59-61.

U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Banking and Currency.
Demonstration Cities, Housing and Urban Development and Urban Mass Transit.
Subcommittee on Housing, 89th Congress, 2nd session, on H.R. 12341, H.R.
12946, H.R. 13064, H.R. 9256, and related bills. Washington, D.C., U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1966. 2 vols.

Includes testimony of several groups and individuals on the proposal to
extend Title X mortgage insurance.

U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Banking and Currency.
Housing and Community Development Legislation. Hearings before the Commit-
tee on Housing. 88th Congress, 2nd session, on H.R. 9751. Washington, D.C...
Govt. Print. Off., 1964. 929 p.

Testimony from Government and other witnesses on the Federal proposal
for mortgage insurance for large subdivisions and new communities.

U.S. Congress. Joint Economic Committee. Urban America: Goals and Problems.
Hearings before the Subcommittee on Urban Affairs, 90th Congress, 1st.
session. Washington, D.C., Govt. Print. Off., 1967. 239 p.

Includes testimony on new towns.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking and Currency. Housing and Urban
Development Legislation of 1968. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Housing:
and Urban Affairs, 90th Congress, 2nd session, on the proposed housing legisla-
tion for 1968. Washington, D.C., Govt. Print. Off., 1968. 2 vols.

Testimony from Government and other witnesses on the various housing
bills; includes testimony and discussion on Title IV, the New Communities.
Act of 1968.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking and Currency. Housing Legisla-
tion of 1964. Hearings before a subcommittee, 88th Congress, 2nd session,.
on §. 2468 and other pending bills to amend the Federal Housing Laws. Wash-
ington, D.C., Govt. Print. Off., 1964. 1189 p.

Testimony from Government and other witnesses, including testimony om
the Federal proposal for mortgage insurance for large subdivisions and new
communities.

Urban Land Institute. Innovations vs. Traditions in Community Development; A
Comparative Study in Residential Land Use. Washington, D.C., Urban Land
Institute, 1963. 111 p. (Technical Bulletin No. 47).

An examination of subdivision design lessons for the planning of efficient new
communities.

Urban Land Institute. Legal Aspects of Planned Unit Residential Development, with
Suggested Legislation. (Part I: The Legal Aspects, by Jan Krasnowiecki; Part
II: Suggested Legislation with Commentary, by Richard F. Babcock, et al.)
Washington, D.C., May 1965. (Technical Bulletin 52.) 96 p. ($6.00 per copy to-
nonmembers of the Institute.)

Urban Land Institute. New Approaches to Residential Land Development; A Study
of Concepts and Innovations. Washington, D.C., Urban Land Institute, 1961.
151 p. (Technical Bulletin No. 40).

Discussion of planned unit development, cluster development, zoning and
improved subdivision regulations, applicable to new communities.

Urban Land Institute. Open Space Communities in the Market Place... A Sur-
vey of Public Acceptance. By Carl Norcross. Washington, D.C., December 1966.
(Technical Bulletin 57). 97 p. ($6.00 per copy to nonmembers.)

A study of 28 residential communities, including several ‘new towns,’”
scattered around the country, to determine how successful open space planning
and related amenities have been.

Von Eckardt, Wolf. ‘“The Case for Building 350 New Towns.”’ Harper’s Magazine.
December 1965. p. 85-94.

104

Application of Europe’s new town policies to the building of enough towns in
the U.S. to accommodate much of the expected population increase over the
next twenty years.

Warner, Sam Bass Jr., editor. Planning for a Nation of Cities. Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts: The M.I.T. Press, 1966. 310 p. )

A collection of essays on urban planning dealing with the Federal responsi-
bility, work and quality of urban life, responsive physical planning, and urban
services. Of particular interest in regard to new communities are John R. James’
essay on “Regional Planning in Britain’? and Daniel R. Mandelher’s on “A Legal
Strategy for Urban Development.”’

Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies. Fort Lincoln New Town. Fort
Lincoln Advisory Panel Report and recommendations on program objectives,
presented to Edward Logue, principal development consultant. Washington,
D.C., 1968. 26 p.

Outline of objectives focused on citizen participation, racial and economic
integration, and community facilities and services.

Weaver, Robert C. Dilemnas of Urban America. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1965. 138 p.

The need for a Federal urban land policy that is nondoctrinaire, flexible,
many faceted, and responsive to the problems and life style or residents is the
main point of this book based on the 1965 Godkin Lectures at Harvard.
Urbanization, new communities, urban renewal, and the dilemnas of race in
relation to housing and urban renewal are discussed.

Weiss, Shirley F. ‘(New Town Development in the United States.” Journal for
Public Administration (Union of South Africa). June 1969. p. 185-193.

Summary of research undertaken at the University of North Carolina. Survey
of recent development, performance of the private sector, and proposals for a
national new community building program. The Federal New Communities
Act of 1968 is also discussed.

Weissbound, Herbert and Herbert Chinnick. An Urban Strategy. Santa Barbara,
California, Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 1968. 13 p.

A bold 10-year program proposed for mass relocation of Negroes residing in
the center city ghettos to integrated new towns tied to metropolitan transit
systems. Recommendation to limit all Federal loans and grants to metropolitan
areas with desegregated new town plans.

Wendt, Paul F. ‘‘Large Scale Community Development.” Journal of Finance.
May 1967. p. 220-239.

An analysis of the difficulties of financing new towns.

Wendt, Paul F. and Alan R. Cerf. “Investment in Community Development
and Urban Development.” In their Real Estate Investment, Analysis and Taza-
tion New York, McGraw-Hill, 1969. p. 230-239.

Determinants of cash flow and rate of return in a new community, and
description of a large-scale new community computer model. Analysis of the
types of corporations now engaged in community development.

Werthman, Carl, Jerry $8. Mandel and Tex Diesntfrey. Planning of the Purchase
Decisions: Why People Buy in Planned Communities. University of California.
Institute of Urban and Regional Development. Center for Planning and
Development Research. Berkeley, 1965. 229 p. (Monograph No. 2)

White, John Robert. ‘““Economic Assessment of Large Projects.” The Appraisal
Journal. July 1969. p. 360-371.

An analysis of market research problems in large-scale residential develop-
ment; a definition and illustration of the cash flow technique. Federal financing
role in new communities.

Whyte, William H. Cluster Development. New York, N.Y. American Conservation
Association, 1964. 130 p.

Chapter VIII, ‘Super Developments,” describes several new communities
planned around the cluster design.

Whyte, William H. The Last Landscape. New York, Doubleday, 1968. 376 p.

_ A commentary on the shortcomings of British and U.S. new town experience

' in the postwar era in the chapter on ‘‘New Towns.”’

Winthrop, Henry. ‘‘Modern Proposals for the Physical Decentralization of Com-
munity.’’ Land Economics. February 1967. p. 10-24.

An essay on factors of urban decentralization, with emphasis on the new
community concepts of E.A. Gutkind, Ludwig Hilberseimer, and others.

Wurster, Catherine Bauer. ‘““The Form and Structure of the Future Urban Com-
plex.” In Wingo, Lowden, Jr. editor, Cities and Space; the future use of urban
land, Baltimore, Md. Johns Hopkins Press, 19638. p. 73-101. |

105

An analysis of trends in the urban form, with suggested alternatives, including
super-cities and smaller independent communities.

Zisman, 8.B. and Dilbert B. Ward. Where Not to Build; A Guide for Open Space
Planning. Washington, D.C., Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department
of the Interior, 1968, 160 p.

This study, primarily directed at assisting in the determination of the future
use of public lands, includes a discussion of the concepts of new towns and their
opportunities to provide open space.

Additional listings can be found in the following annotated bibliographies
from which many of the preceding entries were selected:

U.S. Library of Housing and Home Financing Agency, New Communities:
A Selected, Annotated Reading List. January 1965.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Division of Land
Development. Annotated Bibliography: New Communities in the United
States. September 15, 1968.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, New Community
Approaches for North America: 45 Selected References (draft by David
Brodeur of HUD). August 5, 1969.

Management Aspects of New Community Development: Selected and Annotated
Bibliography (McKinsey & Co., Inc.), September 10, 1969.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, New Communities:
A Bibiolography (compiled by the HUD Division of New Communities)
December 1969.

Le ESE St al
Ry: Mesh 7 15) fobs “ek Bi selea oy
waren elt § ‘ Pg eD oa 6 De if

OSES ators ye es ‘rah

bere “one
ae ahd Beat a a)

PART II.—RECREATION LAND USE ISSUES

A growing population and growing personal disposable income
have created and will continue to create increased pressure on our
land resources for recreation.

In many cases demand for various forms of residential, industrial,
and commercial development is converging on the same lands needed
for recreation. There is a strong rationale for insuring that lands for
public recreation uses will remain available. The need for an effective
recreational land-use policy has long been apparent.

The papers within deal with two aspects of these problems.

The first deals with the shortage of shoreline recreational lands
and the second deals with various user pricing policies.

A. THE Crisis IN SHORELINE RECREATION LANDS
(by Dennis W. Ducsik, MIT)
ABSTRACT

Our Nation today faces a crisis in shoreline recreation. It has come
about because a mushrooming demand for the unique and relatively
scarce resources of the coastal zone has far outstripped the available
supply. We have allowed a pattern of economic growth and devel-
opment in the coastal zone to continue unchecked for the past 300
years, so that now we find that only a small percentage of the entire
shoreline is in public hands for recreation. The problems of pollution
and erosion have combined with the increasing tendency of private
owners to restrict public access so that the supply of available shore-
line, limited to begin with, is shrinking steadily. Yet the demands are
increasing at a breakneck pace. The multiplicative effects of increasing
population, income, leisure time, and mobility are expected to bring
about a tripling in the demand for outdoor recreation by the turn
of the century. Yet the facilities are saturated today with hordes of
users, while there is little or no room for expansion within the existing
economic and political environment.

This serious problem has materialized because of the serious
deficiencies in our present allocative mechanisms of the private
market and local political decisionmaking. Analysis has shown how
these mechanisms fail to provide an efficient allocation of certain
valuable resources in particular circumstances. These circumstances
include (1) the inability of the price system to determine and articu-
late the true costs and benefits to society associated with a particular
good and (2) the tendency of local political bodies to make decisions
based on effects that are net benefits to the local community but not
to the regional society.

A new framework for coastal zone management is proposed that
places the prime responsibility for shoreline regulation in the hands

(107)
57-242—71—_8

108

of the States. At the same time, it must be recognized that a strong
Federal involvement is necessary to (1) coordinate the efforts of
individual States and resolve conflicts that arise due to interstate
secondary benefits and (2) establish uniform objectives and guidelines
to assist the States in the problem of how decisions are to be made
in the absence of the private market discipline.

I. INTRODUCTION

Over the last 300 years, the American shoreline has been considered
a limitless resource, much the same as our air and water masses, to be
used freely by man for the growth and progress of his society. Since
the times of the early colonists, the coastal areas have been the gate-
ways to this Nation. The first settlements that grew up around the
natural harbors of the coastal zone have since developed into thriving
centers of population and industry and as seaports that are focal
points for the transportation and commerce of our growing Nation.
Throughout this historical period of population growth and industrial
expansion, the coastal zone has been recognized as an attractive place
to live and work, a convenient transportation corridor linking the
coastal cities, and as an ideal source of recreational opportunity. Since
the capacity of coastal resources to support these multiple endeavors
has always been viewed as relatively limitless, “the laws regulating
man’s activities in this zone were historically intended to protect and
serve individual and group interests in dealing with each other” !
within the context of the economic system of free enterprise in the
private marketplace. Under this system, the shoreline “has largely
been left for acquisition and exploitation by whatever public or private
agencies desired to undertake its ownership, control, and manage-
ment.” ? Since there always seemed to be plenty of shoreline open for
a wide variety of recreational pursuits and no indications of serious
damage to the ecological systems in the estuarine zones, there was no
perceived need for public interference in the allocative workings of the
private market. The result is that today, approximately 91 percent of
this limited, unique natural resource is under private control, another
3 percent is restricted for military uses, leaving only 6 percent of the
shoreline in public ownership. Thus, the coastline, as a public com-
modity, has become one of the most scarce of all our valuable natural
assets and the shortest in supply relative to the heavy demand from
competing uses.

Under normal market conditions, the prices associated with coastal
real estate would adjust in such a situation so that the use deriving the
greatest benefit (as measured in ability and willingness to pay) from
coastal ownership would be able to secure control. This is indeed
happening to a certain extent as the cost of acquiring shoreline property
has become astronomical in recent years. It has become increasingly
clear, however, that the price mechanism of the private market has
failed to represent certain important societal values in its allocation of
coastal resources and is unable to provide for the proper expression of

1 U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, ““The National
Estuarine Pollution Study,” vol. I, pt. Il, p. 27, Nov. 3, 1969.

2The George Washington University, ‘Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United States,” Study
Report No. 4 to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) of the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation, Department of the Interior, p. 10. (1962)

109

those values in a competitive marketplace. The two most often mis-
represented values, the first of which is the topic of discussion in this
article, are those associated with (1) the provision of adequate facilities
for outdoor recreation in the coastal zone, and (2) the protection and
preservation of the unique ecological systems that abound in the
marine environment. Although both of these are immeasurably im-
portant and intricately related to the life and livelihood of every
person in modern society, the coastal areas of this Nation have been
sorely neglected as a public resource, while the need for careful alloca-
tion of this irreplaceable asset has gone unattended.

For generations there was little or no awareness of the dangers to
future society ‘‘as long as the ability of the natural environment to
absorb the effects of the socioeconomic environment seemed unlimited,
and the problems of pollution and environmental damage were iso-
lated.’ * Only recently has it become apparent that ‘‘the laws pro-
tecting man from himself must be extended to protect the natural
environment from man.’ * We have begun to recognize the need of
human society for the resources of the coastal zone and its value to
civilization both as an essential part of its ecosystem and as an ex-
ploitable asset to be carefully allocated among competing uses. Of all
these competing uses, the two that are most often misrepresented,
recreation and ecology, may ultimately turn out to be the most
important to the long-term health and well-being of man in our modern
society! Although man is now the dominant species on earth, his very
survival depends on the intricately complex ecological balance among
all plants and animals within thetr respective environments; and the
well-being of each individual depends upon the maintenance (with
the help. of recreation) of his internal psychological balance and the
external balance that exists in his interactions with the outside world.

All this points to the inherent nature of the allocation of our scarce,
valuable shoreline resources as an important issue in land-use manage-
ment. It is the purpose of this article,> to set forth the important
economic, political, and sociological aspects of coastal land use for
outdoor recreation, with a focus on the New England shoreline. The
goal is to derive some insight into the nature of effective land-use
policies. that might be used to govern the allocation of shoreline re-
sources in a Manner most consistent with the goals and values of
American society.

II. THE STATUS OF SHORELINE RESOURCES

Our Nation faces a crisis in shoreline recreation, right now, today.
In straightforward terms, it has come about because a mushrooming
demand for this unique and relatively scarce resource has far out-
stripped the effective supply. The problems are particularly acute in
the crowded Northeast, of which the New England region is a part.
Anyone who has been delayed for hours on a hot day in bumper-to-
bumper traffic to Cape Cod beaches, or who has experienced the
mobs of people at the Revere and Lynn shores, or who has not been

3 Thbid., reference 1; vol. I, pt. I, p. 4.

4 Thbid., reference 1.

5D. W. Ducsik, editor, Project NECAP, reporting the results of an interdisciplinary graduate course
at MIT investigating selected issues of long-term significance to the well-being of the New England region,
including electric power production, shoreline recreation, air and water pollution, and political reorganiza-
tion (to be published by the MIT Press).

110

able to get to the coast at all because the beach is closed due to pollu-
tion or filled-to-capacity parking facilities, will attest to the immediacy
of this critical shortage of available, accessible shoreline recreation:

areas.
All indications are that, unless immediate action is taken, these

problems will get much, much worse. The demand for outdoor recrea-
tion, especially at the shore, has increased significantly in the last
10 years. The trends toward more leisure time, more real income,
and greater mobility enable larger proportions of our growing popu-
lation to seek and enjoy recreation activity of all types each year.
The effects of these trends on outdoor recreation are evidenced in
part by the rapid growth of companies making equipment for use
in outdoor activities, and in the large increases in service facilities
(such as campgrounds) that support the recreationalist in his varied
pursuits. This gives us an indication of what to expect in the future:
“more people taking more vacations, learning more about vacations
and recreation, developing a wider range of skills and making more
demands on every kind of recreation area, and rearing a generation
of outdoor-minded children who will have even more skills and make

even more demands.”’ °
The critical nature of this situation is aptly described by Bayard
Webster, of the New York Times: 7

The shoreline of the United States has been so built up, industrialized and
polluted during the last decade that there are relatively few beaches left for the
family in search of a free, solitary hour by the sea.

From Maine to Florida and on around to Texas, from southern California up to
Washington State, the Nation’s seashores have become cluttered with hotels,
motels, sprawling developments, military complexes, and industries of every kind.

Miles of tranquil beaches where hundreds of seaside retreats were once open to
everyone for swimming or fishing have been fouled by oil spills, industrial effluents,
farm pesticides, and city sewage.

What remains—shoreland that is not dirty, crowded, or closed to the public—
amounts to a tiny fraction of the country’s total coastal zone, about 1,200 miles or
© percent of the shore areas considered suitable for recreation or human habitation.

The prospect of continuing encroachment, together with the intensified natural
erosion often caused by heedless development (even in normal weather, winds, and
waves can eat away or shift up to 20 feet of beach a year), has alarmed many
marine biologists and conservationists.

Although . . . conservationsists have been encouraged by indications that
some States and bureaus of the Federal Government are becoming interested in.
protecting the Nation’s coastline as a separate national resource, they fear that it
may already be too late to reverse the trend.

Close to the heart of the problem are two factors largely beyond the control of
Governmental authorities. One is the sharp increase in recent years in the Nation’s
population. The other is the rush to the large coastal cities by millions of people
from inland rural areas.

The result is that popular demand for open recreational space near the water is
rising just as private and industrial developers are fencing off the best of it—if not
the last of it in any given area—and land prices are spiraling far beyond the means
of most urban dwellers.

In this article, Mr. Webster has struck at the heart of the issue
from all its crucial aspects. First, the dwindling supply of shoreline
recreational areas has been caused in part by the acquisition of coastal
acreage for use by large industrial and commercial complexes. Our

§ Margaret Mead et al., ‘Trends in American Living and Outdoor Recreation,” ORRRC Study Report
No. 22, p. 22 (1962).

1 Bayard Webster, ‘“Few Seaside Beaches Left Open to Public in Developers’ Rush,’? New York Times,
p. 54, Mar. 29, 1970.

111

historical emphasis on economic growth and industrial expansion has
allowed this to happen without the full realization of the extent to
which such uses exclude all others. As a result, 40 percent of all the
manufacturing plants in the United States today are located within
the borders of the coastal counties. This is clear evidence of the con-
sequences of nonexistent land use planning. The use of coastal acreage
for industrial or commercial purposes should be restricted to those
enterprises with a demonstrated need for ocean accessibility. For
example, some industries (tanker-oriented oil companies and chemical
plants) require multifathom harbors, while others (paper, primary
metals, power generation) require substantial water supplies in the
course of normal operations. Yet use of coastal land for these uses
alone has resulted in the loss of many miles of scenic shoreline. In
‘California, for example, power companies have occupied large stretches
of the coast for the siting of power generating facilities. Even for
industries such as this, ways should be sought out to satisfy the opera-
tional requirements for water while minimizing the usurpation of
coastal land for this purpose (see accompanying article, ref. 57).

Second, the expanding and coastward-shifting population has
placed fantastic pressures on the shoreline for private development.
This trend is accelerated by continuing increases in disposable income,
leisure, and mobility. The demand for vacation homes and resort
communities by the sea have sent land values skyrocketing. In South
Carolina, the price of a front foot of shoreline is $1,600, while in
Massachusetts the price of an acre of shoreland has increased by a fac-
tor of five since 1965 to $50,000. Even the relatively wild areas of
North Carolina and Maine, far removed from population centers and
lacking in good transportation facilities, are now in the hands of spec-
ulators who are assured a fantastic profit in the not too distant
future. They are well aware of how the craving for vacation space by
the ocean “has led to the development in such places as Virginia
Beach, Va., and Ocean City, Md., of coastal sections in which houses,
motels, and hotels are built as close as 6 feet apart for many miles
along the beach.” §

A third major factor contributing to the decrease in available
shoreline areas for recreation is pollution, which has destroyed
countless fish and shellfish areas and fouled beaches in and around
every major coastal city. In Boston Harbor, many islands would offer
excellent opportunities for a variety of water-related activities were
it not for the poor water quality, due in part to high bacteria counts
resulting from municipal sewage dumping and storm sewer overflow.
Oil spills, pesticides, and industrial effluents have also taken their
toll of valuable shoreline resources. The case of the death of Lake
Erie is probably the most celebrated example of this serious problem.

A final element contributing the the decreasing supply of coastal
land is shore erosion, which is often accelerated by improper land use
that stems from a lack of knowledge of the dynamics of beach areas.
A recent article entitled “America’s Shoreline is Shrinking’’® points,
out the seriousness of this problem:

From Cape Cod to California, America’s ocean shoreline is being cut and fur-
rowed by erosion. Much of this is the result of the ceaseless action of waves and

8 Tbid.
§ John Bunker, ‘‘America’s Shoreline is Shrinking,” Boston Herald Traveler, p. 23, Oct. 18, 1970.

112

wind, a combination of forces as old as the sea itself * * * (an example is) the
dramatic case of Cape May, N.J., a famous resort area which has lost a fourth of
its land area to the combined action of wind and wave during the last 30 years or

So.

The State of Maryland loses about 300 acres of valuable land every year along
the shores of Chesapeake Bay * * * Sections of shoreline at Point Hueneme,
Calif., * * * have receded as much as 700 feet in 10 years.

The article goes on to point out how the natural forces of erosion are
greatly abetted by the actions of man. Joseph B. Browder, a southern
field representative for the Audubon Society, has cited erosion in
Miami Beach ‘‘caused by hotels built almost right in the surf, housing
projects built on thousands of once-wild acres of tidal marshes.’’?°
fan McHarg, in his book, ‘Design with Nature,’ has pointed out
the dangers that trampling dunegrasses, lowering the level of ground-
water, and interrupting littoral sand drift pose to the stability of dune
formations. He has this to say about such formations in New Jersey:

TABLE |
Detailed Recreation Public Restricted
4 ; shoreline shoreline recreation stretches
Shoreline location (statute miles) (statute miles) (statute miles) (statute miles)
Atlantic\Oceanee-no sets anes ce eee eee aera 28, 377 9, 961 336 263
Gulf of Mexico___ 17, 437 4,319 121 134
Pacific Ocean____ , 86 , 175 296 127
GreatiLakesii Saba LEM Ate ae ai 5, 480 4, 269 456 57
otal jes SNE leas ea 59, 157 21, 724 1, 209 581

Note: Mileage of detailed shoreline, recreation shoreline, public recreation shoreline, and restricted shoreline by major
coastlines as measured using Coast and Geodetic Survey methods and meeting criteria defined in text.

Source: ORRRC Study Report No. 4, “Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United States’’ p. 11 1962 (reference 12).

The knowledge that the New Jersey Shore is not a certain land mass as is the
Piedmont or Coastal Plain is of some importance. It is continually involved in a
contest with the sea; its shape is dynamic. Its relative stability is dependent upon
the anchoring vegetation. * * * If you would have the dunes protect you, and
the dunes are stabilized by grasses, and these cannot tolerate man, then survival
and the public interest is well served by protecting the grasses. But in New Jersey
they are totally unprotected. Indeed, nowhere along our entire eastern seaboard
are they even recognized as valuable. * * * Sadly, in New Jersey no * * *
planning principles have been developed. While all the principles are familiar to
botanists and ecologists, this has no effect whatsoever upon the form of develop-
ment. Houses are built upon dunes, grasses destroyed, dunes breached for beach
access and housing; ground water is withdrawn with little control, areas are
paved, bayshore is filled and urbanized. Ignorance is compounded with anarchy
and greed to make the raddled face of the Jersey shore.

A summary of the tidal shoreline of the United States as reported
by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (excluding Alaska and Hawaii)
is given in Table I. The shoreline is one of our most popular resources
for outdoor recreation and in heavy demand; yet, as the table shows,
1t 18 most scarce in terms of public ownership for recreation. The 48
contiguous States have nearly 60,000 miles of shoreline, of which about
one-third is considered suitable for recreational activities. This possible
recreation shoreline includes beach, bluff, and marsh areas that must
meet the following criteria: ” (1) the existence of a marine climate and
environment; (2) the existence of an expanse of view of at least 5
miles over water to the horizon from somewhere on the shore; (8)
location on some water boundary of the United States.

10 Tbid., reference 7.

1 Tan McHarg, “Design with Nature,” The Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y. (1969).
2 Thid., reference 2; p. 11.

113

The figures presented in the table indicate that less than two percent
of the total shoreline is in public ownership for recreation, while only
about 5.5 percent of the recreational shoreline is in public hands. On
the entire Atlantic coast, only 336 miles of shoreline are publicly
owned for recreation, a mere 3 percent of the total recreational shore-
line. Yet, this coast contains the population concentration of the
sprawling Northeast megalopolis and Florida. It is here, near the
metropolitan areas, that the demands are the greatest, yet the avail-
able absolute supply is small. Nationally, the coastal areas contain
about 15 percent of the total land area, ‘‘but within this area is con-
centrated 33 percent of the Nation’s population, with about four-
fifths of it living in primarily urban areas which form about 10 percent
of the total estuarine zone. The estuarine zone then is nearly twice as
densely populated as the rest of the country.” Understandably, the
disappearance of natural beaches and other shoreline recreational
resources is most evident near these most populous areas. “From
Massachusetts to North Carolina, in Florida, in California near Los
Angeles and San Francisco, and along the gulf coast, a sprawling con-
fusion of buildings crowd the shore.’ * When the added effects of
pollution (most severe in metropolitan areas) and erosion on existing
supply are taken into account, the situation becomes even more
critical. In the densely settled north Atlantic and middle Atlantic
regions, there are 5,912 miles of recreational shoreline, of which 5,654
miles are under private or restricted public control; hence, 97 percent
of the shore is inaccessible to the general public! Yet, the pressures on
shoreline facilities near metropolitan areas are so great that frequently
the waters, even in polluted harbors, are used for recreational purposes
by those who cannot afford to go elsewhere, regardless of whetherthe
waters are safe for body contact or not. This points to still another
problem, the inability of low income, less mobile groups to find suitable
coastal recreational facilities anywhere but in the immediate vicinity
of urban centers, where the pollution problems are most severe, and
where fewer beaches are available and oftentimes inaccessible due to
eross overcrowding.

The critical magnitude of the supply situation with regard to
shoreline resources can best be demonstrated by considering what
has been happening in the State of Maime in recent years. Maine’s
varied and beautiful shoreline is its greatest asset. The coastal zone
includes 10 percent of the total geographical area, 36 percent of the
population, and 127 local governmental units. Forty percent of the
wages in Maine are generated in this zone, while 60 percent of all
recreational property and seasonal residences are located there. Almost
the entire coast is steep, rocky bluff with occasional small beaches of
gravel or mud. In many areas, deep water occurs close up to the shore.
The coast is very irregular with numerous coves, inlets, small bays,
and similar areas serving as harbors or sheltered areas. The shore
area is only slightly developed with only 34 miles (or 1.4 percent of
the coastline) in public ownership for recreation; the primary uses
over the remaining 2,578 miles are private with some commercial
resort activity. The shoreline is least suitable for swimming and
water sports since there are only 23 miles of beach along the entire
coast. The most suitable activities are camping, hiking, boating,

18 Tbid., reference 1; p. 28.
14 Thid., reference 7.

114

sailing, and sightseeing, for which the 2,520 miles of ragged, rocky
bluff shore provide an ideal setting. However, these activities are
severely restricted in many places due to extensive private ownership
of prime coastal property.

Pollution has caused serious problems with the taking of shellfish.
By 1962, 67,000 acres of tidal flats had been closed to shellfishing,
which is both a source of income and enjoyment to residents and
visitors alike. In the decade preceeding 1962, the total areas closed
due to pollution increased by 12 percent.

By far, the most serious question facing Maine with regard to its
shoreline resources is the large percentage of private ownership. In
1967, a land use symposium organized at Bowdoin College by land
consultant John McKee pinpointed the issues relating to this question
and outlined the successes and failures of Maine’s governmental bodies
in dealing with it. McKee and his colleagues emphasized the public’s
right of access to unique shoreline, not only to a “mudflat or a run-
down beach, but to a cliff and forest and cove—precisely the pleces
that are selling fastest today .... Unless Maine decides right now
‘to control the promise of development, Maine’s greatest asset will
have been squandered, irresponsibly, and definitely.” “* Such warn-
ings have been given repeatedly over the last decade by professional
planners, newspaper writers, conservationists, and others concerned
with the rapid disappearance of Maine’s precious, coastal resources
into private control. The most recent of these was a series of articles
by Robert C. Cummings in the Portland Sunday Telegram,” which
outlined the results of a survey of real estate agents, developers
town and city officials, and county courthouse records:

Maine has probably lost its chance for significant public control over its 3,000
miles of coastline. Indeed, before the end of this decade, it appears certain that
people will have to begin lining up before dawn on most good summer weekends if
they want a spot at a public beach.

This conclusion seems inescapable. Some waterfront State parks are already
turning away visitors by noon or earlier, overall park usage is increasing at the
rate of 20 percent a year and State Parks and Recreation Director Lawrence
Stuart say flatly that desirable coastal property has practically disappeared.

Campers frequently have to wait in line all night for a campsite to become
available at Acadia National Park. Persons who just want to go to the beach for an
afternoon will soon face ‘‘Sorry, we are filled up’’ problems.

Dalton Kirk, supervisor of the park district that ranges from Hagle Island off
Harpswell to Pemaquid, notes that admissions to Reid State Park at Georgetown
are up 20 percent, despite the opening of a new park across the Kennebec River at
Popham Beach.

Kirk says that already in his region the State parks provide the only opportunity
for most people to get to the beach. But Reid State Park twice this season has been
roused turn away beachgoers when the nearly 900 parking spaces were filled to
capacity.

And at Popham, cars are turned away almost every good Sunday afternoon by 1
o'clock * * *

The State has purchased another 25 acres of mostly beach front this summer at
Popham, and Kirk believes the facilities there can be doubled eventually. But this
adds only 25 percent to the region’s park capacity and the number of visitors is
srowing at twice this rate. Kirk sees no possibilities of further expanding Reid
State Park without destroying the naturalness of the area.

“We need to get any beach frontage that is left in Maine,” Kirk says. But if and
when the State decides to buy, it may find little property for sale.

“4A Robert C. Cummings, ‘‘The Late Great State of Maine,” Portland Sunday Telegram, Aug. 30, 1970.
6 [bid., reference 14A; also, ‘“‘Where Went the Maine Coast,’’ Aug. 16, 1970, and ‘Maine for Sale:
Everyhody’s Buying,” Aug. 23, 1970, Portland Sunday Telegram.

115

While pessimistic about the future status of the coast for public use,
the series stresses the importance of recognizing the critical nature of
the problem in order to avoid the same mistakes with inland lake
and mountain areas, already under heavy pressures of speculation
and development.

While Maine debates the pros and cons of oil refineries, sulfur reduction plants
and aluminum processing, a quiet revolution in landownership continues which
promises to bar all but the most affluent from our 3,000 miles of ocean frontage.

* * * development has already progressed to the point where, regardless of
what the State does, there is unlikely to be enough suitable ocean frontage to
serve Maine and its ever-increasing hordes of summer visitors.

Our survey reveals that Maine’s coast has been sold, and that the buyers are
largely from out-of-State. Big blocks remain in the hands of speculators and devel-
opers, and while plans are being made, Maine citizens are wandering at will as
before, fishing the rocks, harvesting the crops of wild berries and enjoying secret
picnic spots.

But the pattern has been set. Wildland that in some cases was seid for unpaid
taxes as recently as a decade and a half ago is about to become sites for luxury
vacation and retirement homes with shore frontage selling for up to $100 a foot—
or $20,000 for a 200-foot lot.

Much of the coastal zone is in out-of-State ownership, which
averages 45 percent in the area but reaches 75 percent in many com-
munities. Many real estate brokers reported that 80 percent or more of
their business had been with out of staters. This boom is related to all
the factors previously mentioned: increasing populations, growing
prosperity, and better transportation such as the Maine turnpike and
highway system that makes half the State’s coastline no more than a
3-hour trip from Boston. These factors, combined with the desire to
get away from the hectic metropolitan atmosphere of noise and pollu-
tion, have led to the unprecedented demands currently placed on
Maine’s coastal real estate. As a consequence, ‘Maine residents, the
ereatest number of whom find the stakes too rich for their income,
have found themselves shut off from the sea and the wilderness by
out-of-State buyers who put up a sign before they put up a house.” '

The critical status of shoreline resources as discussed in the preced-
ing sections points to an immediate, urgent need to protect all the
shoreline resources still available, and to look for ways to reverse the
trends of decreasing supply. ‘“The welfare of American society now
demands that manmade laws be extended to regulate the impact of
man on the biophysical environment so that the natural estuarine
zone can be preserved, developed, and used for the continuing benefit
of the citizens of the United States.” 1 We might ask why this has
not been done in the past. The answer lies partly in the attitudes
within our institutional environment taken toward the coastal zone.
Until recently, most States and communities were not cognizant of
the coastal zone as an environment separate from other regions of the
State and in need of special attention. In addition, there has been a
lack of cooperation and coordination among local, State, and Federal
agencies, and private industries, especially where conflicts of interest
(economic or political) existed. Hence, most planning for the use of
the coastal zone has been done by bits and pieces, in small increments,
and by reacting to crises when they materialized (and usually too late
for constructive action to be taken). Prior to World War II, what
planning that was done on a national scale had objectives that “were

16A Pat Sherlock, ‘““The Best of Maine Lost to the Rest of Maine,” Boston Sunday Globe, Sept. 20, 1970..
16 Tbid., reference 1, p. 1.

116

largely resource-protection oriented, and the facility development
which took place during the 1930’s was directed far more at providing
employment than meeting, in a planned fashion, identified outdoor
recreation needs.” ” Such thinking was in evidence when the national.
park and forest systems were established in western areas of light
population, far removed from the recreational needs of urban centers.
It seems ironic that planners would recognize the need to preserve
vast expanses of untouched wilderness in the remote corners of the
Nation while ignoring the necessity of protecting the relatively limited
coastal resources in the heart of the country’s most rapidly expanding
regions. Not until more recent times have investigations by the
National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Outdoor
Recreation Resources Review Commission brought to light the need
for a broader concern for all the issues related to satisfying the needs
and the demands for all forms of outdoor recreation by present and
future generations. These studies for the first time demonstrated the
basic causal factors in outdoor recreation demand. In effect, they
found that ‘adequate planning for outdoor recreation required larger
concerns than the biophysical environment—that the economic en-
vironment—expressing the preference of society for goods and services
—and the institutional environment—decisions about the focus and
characteristics of agencies charged with the protection of resources
and the provision of outdoor recreation facilities—were equally
important.”’ 18

It is in this context that we have identified the area of shoreline
recreation to be in critical need of effective planning and active land-
use management. We have examined the sociology behind society’s
need for outdoor recreation, the economics of shoreline supply and
demand, and the institutional aspect of coastal zone management, all
in recognition of the limited tolerance of this finite and valuable re-
source to the rude invasion of man, and all in the hope that society will
perceive the problems clearly and proceed to do something about
them. The results of this analysis are outlined in the next sections of
this article.

Summary and overview

The purpose of this section has been to provide a general picture of
the national supply of recreational shoreline. While a detailed inven-
tory was not included, it is possible to draw some general conclusions
by looking at the overall situation.

__ the first statement we can make is that the shoreline of New Eng-
Jand in particular and the United States in general has been sold.
Shore property is highly desirable for recreational use and as long as it
is available there will be people to buy it, regardless of the cost. In
every State the patterns of private ownership and development are
similar: 97.2 percent in Massachusetts with high development; 94.4
percent in Connecticut with high development; 90.4 percent in Rhode
Island with high development; 88 percent in New Hampshire with very
high development; and 98.7 percent in Maine with initially low but
more recently a mushrooming development rate. Only in the northern-
most parts of Maine are there relatively large blocks of shoreline that
remain undeveloped, and even these are presently in the hands of

17 Tbid., reference 1, vol. II, pt. IV, p. 321.
18 Thid., reference 1; vol. II, pt. IV, p. 322.

117

speculators and developers. This is compounded by the fact that it is
almost universally the case that. competing uses frequently preclude
use of the shoreline for recreation,

Recreation and commerce, recreation and housing, recreation and industry,
recreation and transportation * * * in most cases cannot be carried on in the
same place. The practical and esthetic requirements of clean water, adequate land
area, safety and pleasant surroundings, and necessary recreation developments
can rarely be assured in conjunction with commerce, industry, housing, and
transportation.!9

For years many shore owners have permitted public access and use
of the beach and bluff areas in their possession. However, as the num-
bers seeking recreational pursuits in these areas increase each year,
many States are finding that their private owners are now limiting
such activity to maintain their own privacy. Hence, as the demands
increase, this one part of the accessible supply is actually decreasing.
The situation is typified in the words of Pat Sherlock of the Associated
Press in an article entitled ‘“‘The Best of Maine Lost to the Rest of
Maine’’.?°

The mountains are still there, the Atlantic Ocean still crashes its surf onto the
rocks as it has done since the ice age and there is still some wilderness. It’s just
a little farther away now—on the other side of the fence.

A second major point to be noted is the present saturation of most
publicly owned facilities. On the Connecticut shore, where the recre-
ation facilities are under strong demand pressures from the dense
New York-Connecticut metropolitan area, local communities find it
necessary to institute user fees, parking charges, and other discrimina-
tory devices to preserve for the local residents what small amounts of
shore are left open to the public. The situation is much the same near
other population centers in New England. Beaches on Narraganset
Bay, Cape Cod, and in the Boston metropolitan region are jammed
almost every weekend in the summer, while the beaches farther north
become more crowded each year as New HKnglanders search for new,
less crowded, accessible recreational areas. This trend is evidenced
by the marked increase in traffic patterns this past summer leading
from Boston to the southern parts of New Hampshire and Maine.

The third and final major issue in shoreline supply is the influence
of pollution and erosion, often caused by heedless development in
ecologically delicate areas. Pollution, usually most severe where people
are concentrated in large numbers, has closed many city beaches and
threatens numerous others. Erosion, too, has closed or destroyed
beaches and presents a continuous threat in places like Connecticut
and New Hampshire, where available beaches are scarce to begin with.

So this is the overall picture of shoreline supply: Most of the land is
privately owned and developed and is becoming more restricted to
public access as the demands grow larger; and what is left in public
lands for recreation is either saturated by hordes of users or unavail-
able for use due to pollution or erosion, especially near large cities. All
this is to say nothing of the future. While the demands grow at_ a
breakneck pace, the supply, limited to begin with, is shrinking steadily.
How can we expect to satisfy the demands of the future when we are
having trouble supplying that which is needed today? And all this
with practically no shoreline left to do anything with! In the next

18 Thid., reference 2, p. 7.
20 Tbid., reference 15A.

118

section we develop the rationale for national concern for the problems
of shoreline recreation while providing a basis for an analysis in section
TV of how the present situation has come about.

Ill. THE NEED AND THE DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

Since the earliest days of planning for outdoor recreation great
emphasis has been laid on the value of outdoor recreation in helping
cure the ills of society. Many advocates of outdoor recreation de-
scribed parks, playgrounds, beaches, and other opportunities for rec-
reational activity as ‘‘veritable cure-alls which would isolate young
people from and immunize them against the delinquency, alcoholism,
prostitution, and crime that abounded in the slums.” *! In later years,
the emphasis shifted to the value of outdoor recreation in counter-.
acting the harmful effects of the stress and tensions of life in an urban-
industrial society. Recreation generally came to be viewed as a major
solution to the problems of mental ilIness that were attributed to.
such tensions.

Herbert Gans, the noted sociologist, has taken issue ” with this
a a towards a causal lnk between recreation and mental

ealth:

. . . [These attitudes were] developed by a culturally narrow reform group:
which was reacting to a deplorable physical and social environment and rejected.
the coming of the urban-industrial society. As a result, it glorified the simple
rural life and hoped to use outdoor recreation as a means of maintaining at least
some vestige of a traditional society and culture. Given these conditions and
motivations, no one saw fit to investigate the relationship between outdoor
recreation and mental health empirically.

How then can we go about determining what relationship, if any,
exists between recreation and mental health, or, in broader terms, the
general health and well-being of man in modern society? Most psy-
chologists and sociologists would concur that the human predicament
can best be described as the task of maintaining a balance, both
internally and externally, between man’s often conflicting existence as.
an organism and as a personality. This predicament has been de-
scribed by Lawrence K. Frank: *

A crucial problem for mental health is how an individual can resolve this conflict
without incurring high costs psychologically and persistent damage to his personality,
and what sources he can rely upon for strength and renewal in facing his life tasks.

In the spirit, Herbert Gans has described mental health as “the
ability of an individual or an occupier of social roles and as a person-
ality to move toward the achievement of his vision of the good life
and the good society . . . mental health is a social rather than an
individual concept, because if society frustrates the movement toward
the good life, the mental health of those involved may be affected.” 7*
There are considerable present-day indications that society does tend
in many ways to frustrate an individual’s movement toward the good
life, and that it is increasingly difficult to maintain the balance neces-
sary for well-being as described above. The characteristics and
intensity of the emotional stresses and strains of modern life have:

41 Herbert Gans, “‘People and Plans”, Basic Books, Inc. New York (1968) p. 109.
22 Tbid.; p. 109.

*% Lawrence K. Frank, et al., “Trends in American Living and Outdoor Recreation,” ORRRC Study,
Report No. 22, p. 218 (1962).

% Tbid., reference 21; p. 112.

119

been stated (and sometimes overstated) by many writers. These
“sensory overloads” have particularly severe effects on the low-income,
less mobile groups that now dominate the central cities. Here the
sensory overload is compounded by extreme crowding and oppressive
living conditions, by widespread nutritional inadequacies, and by
the frustrations of unemployment, drug addiction, and high crime
rates. Today most Americans, when given the opportunity to diminish
this overload through a change of routine, “will spend a summer
afternoon in a suburban backyard around a barbecue, in a city park,
or at the nearest swimming pool or beach. Given the chance and the
means for a weekend or a vacation away from home, they will take
to the country, the mountains, or the seashore.’’ 7°

Having established that health can best be understood as a product
of the interaction between an individual and the total physical and
social environment that he experiences, and recognizing some of the
impediments to the maintenance of a healthy sociological balance in
this interaction with present-day society, we must now ask: what part
can outdoor recreation play in helping the individual maintain this
balance so vital to his mental health and physical well-being? While
there are obvious positive benefits to be derived from outdoor recrea-
tional activity by many persons, it should not be pointed to as a
panacea for the many ills of society. Herbert Gans has presented *
the most incisive approach to the issue:

I am saying that leisure and recreation are a consistuent part of mental health,
but they cannot by themselves bring about mental health, cure mental illness,
or prevent it * * * they are essential and desirable, but they are not so important
as economic opportunity and security, positive family life, education, the avail-
ability of a variety of primary and secondary group support, and the like * * *
{however] the recognition of the limited significance of outdoor recreation in the
treatment of personality disorders should not blind us to the potential significance
of it for developing and sustaining healthy personalities. Indeed, we may find
that recreation, especially outdoor recreation, provides one of the most promising
approaches to the elusive goal of mental health as a form of “primary prevention”
of mental ill health.

We have concluded that the arguments for the psychological and
emotional need for outdoor recreation may have been overstated.
Each individual takes a different view of recreation depending on
his preference and personality, is conditioned by his physical and
economic environment, and is influenced by his age and sex. From
this we can see that the collection of more extensive data on leisure
behavior is immensely important. “If we can discover what needs
‘and aspirations people are trying to fulfill and can recognize what
may be blocking or frustrating their quest, we can understand better
what provisions to make for future recreation. Also, we may find
some clues to the meaning of outdoor recreation for the individual
personality and its significance for mental health.” *’

How then are we to plan for outdoor recreation? It is clear now
outdoor recreation presents a wide variety of sociological questions
of long-term policy and many subtle problems not easy to define
or resolve. Yet it seems undeniable that recreational activity has
‘great social significance and personal value for millions of American

25 Melvin M. Webber, et al., ‘‘Trends in American Living and Outdoor Recreation,”” ORRRC Study
‘Report No. 22, p. 249 (1962).

26 Tbid., reference 21; p. 112.
27 Thid., reference 23; p. 220.

120

citizens. While the empirical evidence is relatively sparse in support
of the case for the psychological and emotional need for outdoor
recreation, it is clear that the demand for this type of activity is very
strong and is rapidly increasing. This suggests that the best way to
plan for recreation is to adopt a user-oriented approach that will
provide the recreational facilities that are presently used and pre-
ferred by those secking satisfying leisure behavior. Having recognized
this, we can now turn to a brief look at the patterns of recreational
demands in this country during the recent past. There is unanimous
consent, on the basis of these trends, that demands for outdoor
recreation in the future will far surpass that which we have witnessed
to date.

The demand is surging, spurred by increases in the causal factors of
population, disposable income, leisure, mobility, education, and over-
all standard of living. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission, in a report to Congress in 1962, entitled “Outdoor Ree-
reation for America,’ noted and documented these causal factors
and their influence on recreational demands. It was the conclusion of
this report that, as the levels of these factors rose, the growth of out-
door recreation demand would accelerate even faster, and in a sus-
tained fashion, than the net increase in population. Dr. Marion
Clawson,”® in an article entitled ‘“The Crisis in Outdoor Recreation,”
concluded that the projections of these principal factors to the year
2000 point to a tenfold increase in the demand for outdoor recreation
from 1950 levels. A report of more recent survey information on rec-
reation trends up until 1965 has indicated ‘‘present and anticipated
increases in major summertime outdoor recreation activities far sur-
pass predictions made by the ORRRC in 1960.’ °° This study pre-
dicted that, by the year 2000, participation in the major forms of
summertime outdoor activities will be four times greater than it was in
1960.

The patterns of demand as expressed in participation rates for the
United States in 1960 (ORRRC Study Report No. 19-1962) reveal
some major trends. The first major trend of note is the generally
higher level of participation rates and user days in the Northeast in
the most popular activities such as picnicking, driving, walking,
swimming, and playing sports. In metropolitan areas of this region,
more people spend more time in these activities, even though in the
inner cities (where there is most need for more outdoor. recreation)
one finds the lowest rates of participation associated with low income
and poorly-educated people living in oppressive surroundings. Out-
door recreation does not play an important role in the leisure time of
these groups due to the lack of nearby facilities and the lack of money
and adequate transportation to get to more distant areas. Both of
these observations indicate that outdoor opportunities are most
urgently needed near metropolitan areas; yet this is where available
land is the scarcest. It is probable that at least 80 percent of the
population will live in these urbanized areas by the turn of the century.
These people will have the greatest need for outdoor recreation, and

28 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, “Outdoor Recreation for America,” a
rene 10" aie President and the Congress by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
anuary ;

20 Marion Clawson, ‘‘The Crisis in Outdoor Recreation,” American Forests, March/April 1959.

80 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, ‘‘Outdoor Recreation Trends,” April 1967.

121

their need will be the most, difficult to satisfy as suburban centers
have the fewest facilities (per capita) and the sharpest competition
for land use.

The second major trend is the pervasive attraction of water-
oriented activities:

Most people seeking outdoor recreation want water to sit by, to swim and fish
in, to ski across, to dive under and to run their boats over. Swimming is now one
of the most popular outdoor activities and is likely to be the most popular of all by
the turn of the century. Boating and fishing are among the top 10 activities.
Camping, picnicking, and hiking, also high on the list, are more attractive near
water sites.*!

Swimming, fishing, boating, canoeing, sailing and water skiing ac-
counted for 26 percent of the total U.S. user days per person during
the summer of 1960. Swimming seems to have special importance to
urban dwellers since 49 percent of the metropolitan population (versus
38 percent of non-urban dwellers) participated in the activity. In the
Northeast, 53 percent of the population swims. For the U.S. as a whole,
17 percent of those not participating expressed a preference for swim-
ming. This points to an extensive need for swimming facilities to be
provided close to demand centers, especially in urban areas, where
coastal beaches are generally already used to capacity. The 1965 survey
reported that swimming, ranked second at that time im user participa-
tion, was becoming so popular that it will be our number one outdoor
recreation activity by the year 1980.

A final trend of importance to be noted here is the great demand for
activity close to home. People seeking outdoor recreation do so within
definite. time patterns that can be classified as day outings, weekend
or overnight trips, and vacations. The most frequent of these is the
day outing, which can presently be considered as the fundamental
unit of outdoor recreation. Most indications are that, at the present
time, people will drive one way about two hours, a distance that may
vary from 30 miles to as much as 90 miles, for such outstanding recrea-
tion sites as ocean beaches or scenic campgrounds. For the weekend
or overnight outing, the median travel distance is about 90 to 125
miles. While many vacationers will travel many miles on week- or two-
week-long vacations, by far the greatest demands are placed on the
facilities serving daily and weekend outings. Hence, pressures are
ereatest within about 125 miles of metropolitan centers, with maximum
demands at those facilities in close proximity to the central cities.
“This points to the great importance of providing outdoor recreation
facilities close to where people live so that individuals of all ages can
go frequently, as contrasted with the occasional longer trips and annual
vacation pursuits.” * Hence, today’s problems ‘do not center on the
acquisition of the unique and dramatic resources for the public, but
on the broad availability of outdoor recreation for everyone and often;
nearby open areas for weekend visits by moderate-income urbanites
are more characteristic of our recreation needs than the annual trip to
a far-away area of unforgettable beauty by the fortunate persons who
can get there.” *

From, this outline of the proportions and the problems of future
demands for outdoor recreation, we can draw some clear implications
as to the future of shoreline recreation. With continuing increases in

31 Tbid., reference 28; p. 4.

32 Thid., reference 23, p. 224

83 Harvey S. Perloff and Lowdon Wingo, Jr., et al., “Trends in American Living and Outdoor Recrea-
tion,” ORRRC Study Report No. 22, p. 82 (1962).

122

population, leisure, income, and mobility, the demands for shoreline
recreation should triple before the turn of the century. Such an increase
is staggering when we consider that our public coastal facilities are
already filled to capacity, while there is no room left for expansion
through acquisition and development since the remainder of the
shoreline has already been sold! Each summer we feel the pinch of
this disproportionate situation of shoreline supply and demand as
hordes of recreationists crowd the beaches, especially near the cities,
along the entire perimeter of the nation.

The preceding discussions on the great social significance of outdoor
recreation and the fantastic demands that we now see for shoreline
activities point to the unique and intrinsic value of our coastal zone

as a recreational resource. This value has been pomted out by the
ORRRC:

Of the many outdoor recreation ‘‘environments,’’ mountains, seacoasts, deserts,
and woodlands, the shoreline appears to have an unusually strong appeal for
Americans.*4

This is true because of the wide variety of easy, active forms of
recreational activity that the shoreline affords. This wide variety
includes swimming, skindiving, beachcombing, motor boating, sailing,
canoeing, waterskiing, and fishing. Many activities, such as picnicking,
camping, sunbathing, and walking are greatly enhanced by proximity
to the ocean. Beach shoreline, in most cases, offers the cheapest and
most enjoyable recreation uses for large numbers of people.

Going into the surf is fun whether one swims or not. It is not necessary to be a
mountain climber to take walks along the beach, and beachcombing is an activity
that appeals to everyone from toddler to octogenerian . . . here, land, and water
are easily accessible; the violence of breaking surfs and the warm safety of relaxing
sands are but a step apart; the stimulation of the foreign environment of the

water and the relaxation of sunbathing are nowhere else so easy of choice. Physical
sport and mental relaxation are equally available.*

An additional use of coastal areas, and probably the most wide-
spread, is for esthetic enjoyment, especially along bluff shoreline.

Tourists from the interior states are always eager to view such sights as ships
coming under the Golden Gate Bridge into San Francisco Bay, the lovely solitude
of Fort Sumter as it rests seemingly impregnable in Charleston Harbor, and the
parade of ships in and out of New York Harbor. Attractive scenic vistas are not
for the tourists alone, but hold a certain magnetism for residents of the coastal

cities as well. One has only to scan the real estate advertisements to realize the
premium value on waterfront or waterview lots.%

All these values of the shoreline are magnified by its accessibility
to large populations. “This unique combination of available resources
in close proximity to large population centers offers an unparalleled
recreational opportunity for many people who could not afford to
travel far from their homes,” *’ and as such is an invaluable asset of
this nation.

The coastline has great value in another important sense. Although
man is a social being, performing social activities such as recreation,
he is also a biological organism, ‘‘one species among many who depend
upon each other and upon the natural environment for their organic
needs . . . his very survival depends upon the intricately complex,

34 Thid., reference 2; p. 3.

36 Tbid., reference 2; p. 4.

36 Tbid., reference 1; vol. II, pt. IV, p. 116.
37 Tpid., reference 1; vol. I, pt. II, p. 32.

123

ecological balance among all plants and animals within their respective
geologic and climatic environments.” *’ This points to the unique
value of the coastal zone, as an ecological system and asa basic ele-
ment in the environmental life cycle of all living things. The many
forms of fish and wildlife found solely in the coastal and estuarine
zones are an integral part of this ecosystem, together with all other
life-forms that exist in the beach, bluff, and wetland areas of the shore-
line. There is a clear and pressing need to preserve the vitality of all
such ecological systems, at the very least until man can determine
their ultimate importance as a component part of his own life cycle
and those of other forms of life on this planet. “‘An awareness of man’s
place within the total natural environment is clearly essential to an
understanding of the very nature of man and to his best adaption to
this environment.” °°

We have now developed a strong rationale for regarding the coastal
areas of America as intrinsically high in value to society on two counts:
(1) As an irreplaceable recreational resource; and (2) as a unique
component in our ecological and environmental systems. The task at
hand is to determine why this high value has not been recognized
through the careful preservation of coastal lands for present and future
use.

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ALLOCATION OF SHORELINE RESOURCES

The allocation of coastal resources in this country has always been
determmed within the economic environment of the private market-
place and the institutional environment of local political decision-
making. In the analysis of these mechanisms, we can determine what
factors have led to the present shortage of shoreline supply for out-
door recreation uses.

The economic environment

The term “good” refers to anything society desires, be it physical,
psychological, esthetic, or otherwise. Since a limited amount of
resources is available to our society, goods can only be produced up to
a certain maximum level. This level depends on how efficiently we
apply our labor force, productivity, and technology to the supply of
scarce resources. Given this constraint, there are numerous combina-
tions of goods that can be produced—but to have more of some goods
implies that we must have less of others.

The private marketplace is the mechanism through which society
exercises the choice among these production possibilities. Taking the
distribution of income as given, the private market translates aggre-
gated personal values ‘nto desired amounts of production through the
workings of the price-profit system. The price mechanism brings
about effective proportional representation of individual values
through the ‘‘vote” of the dollar. The profit mechanism brings about
maximum efficiency through the flexibility of decentralized decision-
making. In a properly functioning market,*°* competition among
buyers assumes that goods and services will be allocated in conform-

38 Tbid., reference 25, p. 248.
39 Tbid., reference 25; p. 248. : ‘ i ;
39a See O. A. Davis and M. I. Kamien, “Externalities, Information, and Alternative Collective Action,”
‘a he Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures: The PPB System, Vol. 1, Joint Economie Commit-
ee (1969).

57—242—71——_9

124

ity with the relative desires and abilities of the participants to pay. If
certain basic conditions are met, there will exist a set of market prices
such that profit-maximizing firms and benefit-maximizing consumers
who respond to those prices will automatically direct the economic
system into the most efficient (consistent with the values of society)
allocative position.

Even the most loyal defenders of the competitive market system
must admit that there are cetam circumstances in which markets fail
to provide certain worthwhile outputs and overproduce or under-
produce others, in addition to producing outputs in no way considered
beneficial. Such situations come about because the conditions and as-
sumptions upon which conclusions about the efficiency of a market
system are based are not satisfied in reality! It is important now to
investigate when and why private markets might not work well in
order to determine the correct steps that might be taken within the
institutional environment to correct misallocations of certain scarce
resources.

What then are the conditions necessary for markets to function
smoothly? 3°? The ones most germane to this analysis are as follows:
(1) the availability of information; (2) the presence of identifiable
transaction costs; and (3) the characteristics of goods and services
must meet certain criteria.

(1) Information is an important factor in any efficient operation.
Producers need knowledge of available technologies, demand, and
potential markets, and the costs of factor inputs. Consumers need
to know what goods are available and what their characteristics are.
Both need to know the relevant set of prices. In some instances,
information may be scarce, costly, unreliable, or hard to understand,
interpret, and evaluate without special training.

(2) Identifiable transaction costs mirror the ability of the market
to translate (and measure) potential willingness to pay into actual
revenues. This means that the price of a good must reflect the true
cost of lost opportunity to society, that is, the value that is given up
when the good is consumed for a particular use. For the most efficient
allocation of resources, the social benefits of consuming a particular
good must exceed the social cost of lost opportunity. It is this total
cost to society that must be reflected in the price of the goods.

(3) The characteristics of certain goods and services must be such
that they do not render them unsuitable for allocation by a private
market system. One such characteristic is that there is no violation of
the exclusion principle: pricing demands the possibility of excluding
nonbuyers from the use of the product. This may be technically im-
possible or undesirable, as in the case of national defense, where use
by one person neither diminishes nor excludes availability to others.

We can generally classify goods that violate these conditions as
public or collective goods since they are in need of some institutional
involvement to correct allocative deficiencies of the private market.
Public goods are most often characterized in the following ways:

(1) It is impossible to price the good correctly due to difficulties in measuring
the amount of benefit derived and in translating this into revenues—true social
cost not reflected in price.

(2) The basic values of society make it desirable to keep the good out of the
private market system. Police and fire protection and public education are ex-

39B Thid., reference 39A; also P. O. Steiner, ‘The Public Sector and the Public Interest,’’ op. cit.

125

amples of public goods that could be produced in the private market but are not,
since society places large value on the idea that everyone should derive equal
benefit from such institutions regardless of income distribution—no exclusion
should exist.

(3) There are externalities or side effects associated with the production and/or
consumption of the good. These effects come about when the production of certain
goods affects other decisionmaking units who are not doing the producing or the
consuming. Side effects are not included in the price of the good since there is no
mechanism by which the external costs to society can be returned to the producer
as the cost of a factor input to production—pollution is the classic example.

These characteristics point to the breakdown of the price mechanism
in the allocation of public goods since they all involve violations of the
conditions of a properly functioning market. The crucial point that
must be reemphasized is that frequently the total costs of opportuni-
ties lost to society are not reflected in the price of certain goods. Al-
though the social benefits of having an individual consume/produce
(or not consume/produce) a particular commodity may exceed his pri-
vate benefits, he will base decisions only on his private benefits. Hence,
the private market, left alone, tends to produce too many private goods
and too few public goods. This happens because the public goods are
undervalued within the private market and are unable to compete
on an equal footing with other goods in the allocation of scarce
resources. For this reason, Government must step in and initiate
some form of collective action in order to maintain social balance and
achieve an efficient resource allocation consistent with the overall
goals and values of society!

We are now in the position to make the connection between shore-
line recreational resources and their allocation in a private market
economy. It seems clear that the shoreline should be considered as a
public good in every sense of the word. We have established that it
has an intrinsic value to society as a recreational resource in that
everyone in a democracy has an inalienable right to derive equal benefit
from the value of shoreline recreation to the physical, mental, emo-
tional, and general well-being of all its members.

A new slogan, declaring that recreation is the fifth freedom that we now ur-
gently need to gain and enjoy the other four freedoms, might elicit a nationwide
response and a reaffirmation of our traditional goals and historie aspirations.

Seen as an indispensable, vitally imperative need in the great movement for
human conservation, we can say that opportunity for outdoor recreation today
is also an undeniable human right in a democracy * * * no one should be de-
prived of outdoor recreation through which individuals can make human living
more significant and fulfilling, more conducive to the realization of their human
potentialities and attainment of our enduring goal values.‘0
This tremendous importance demands that such a good be allocated
with extreme care to msure that all members of present_and future
generations can derive maximum benefit from its use. Yet we see
that the private market has brought about a serious misallocation
of these resources. Why has this happened?

Historically, those uses that could pay the highest prices for the
land have preempted most of the shoreline. These uses have frequently
been those which entail highly capital-intensive development. Un-
fortunately, public recreation ranks relatively low on a capital-
intensive scale. The highest is industrial development followed
by commercial development, housing, private recreation, with public
recreation probably ranking near ecology in this respect. The bids

40 Ibid., reference 23; p. 231.

126

for land from these capital-intensive uses far outstrip those of public
recreation and have led to the supply situations discussed in previous
sections, that is, most of the shoreline is in private hands. ib:

Competition among the highly capital-intensive uses is particularly
strong near the metropolitan areas where the demands for private
recreation, housing, commercial development, and industrial develop-
ment are all heavy, and results in severe escalation of shoreline land
prices. This happens even at greater distances from urban regions,
where the competition is most likely between public and private de-
velopment for recreation. Even here the demands of private parties for
recreational shoreline have forced the prices beyong the reach of many
local economies. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation has pointed out
this keen competition between individual developers and _ public
agencies for prime recreation lands, especially those that are water-
oriented. In a 1967 report“ on land price escalation, the Bureau
reported that land values were generally rising, on the average, from
5 to 10 percent annually, while the prices of lands suitable for public
recreation were rising at considerably higher rates. As an example, the
report cited an initial appropriation ceiling of $14 million dollars
established by Congress for the acquisition of land for Point Reyes
National Seashore in California, that was subsequently raised to $57%
million dollars, an amount more than four times the original authori-
zation.

In the past, as long as there was plenty of available shoreline
to satisfy all the demands from competing uses while still providing
adequate opportunities for those seeking recreational activity,
there was no perceived need to abandon the private market as an
allocative system. Even today, the market is functioning in a pre-
dictable way: as the supply gets smaller in the face of heavy demands,
the price goes up. However, it is now clear that the conditions neces-
sary for an optimal allocation of resources consistent with the values
of society are no longer fulfilled in the operations of the private
market regarding the coastal zone. One difficulty, clearly involved
with some aspects of shoreline allocation, is that it is often impossible
to put a price on certain values, much less find a way to translate
these values into revenue. For example, consider the difficulty in
trying to determine the value (in dollars and cents) of bluff shoreline
as an esthetic attraction. Conceivably, a developer could provide
coastal roadways with scenic vistas and charge user fees, but the
uncertainty in setting a fee based on willingness to pay and the
prospect of little or no short-term return on a large investment
makes this highly unlikely. Another relevant point is that people
will often misstate their values, depending on whether or not they
think the good will be provided anyway. This would come into
play if a State were to try to decide on a tax to be levied to support
the provision of recreational facilities. Most people, if they thought
a tax would definitely be levied, would understate their values;
and the resulting tax revenues (if based on what the people said)
would be too low to effectively finance proposed programs.

This fact, together with the large numbers of people that must be
polled, lead to high transaction (contracting) costs in the gathering of
such information and seems to provide an insurmountable obstacle

41 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, “‘A Reportjon}Land Price Escalation,”
January 1967. '

127

(in many cases) to the gearing of any system that allocates public
oods on an individual’s willingness to pay. On the other hand, the
evelopment of the shore as vacation homesites would provide an
immediate return on investment that is determined by a well-defined
rice. The same is true of all capital-intensive uses for the shoreline:
otels, motels, factories, and powerplants all begin to show relatively
high return on investment shortly after they are put into operation.
Recreation in general, such as ocean swimming at ai etioh! is low on the
capital-intensive scale. Unless a developer decides to provide facilities
on a large scale (such as amusement parks), there is little chance that
recreational uses can compete with private, commercial, and industrial
development. Yet, use for recreation may well represent the largest
value to overall society although, regrettably, this value is the least
quantifiable. As long as a public good such as shoreline recreation is
not forced to compete with other uses, there is no need for any valua-
tion at all. In present day circumstances, however, there is not much
shoreline left for development, and all uses must compete on an equal
footing. Hence, public recreation, undervalued because of the diffi-
culties outlined above and lacking in any mechanisms to discover and
translate true values into revenues, has been priced out of the market.
Another way to view this problem is from the standpoint of side
effects that accrue to future generations. We have seen that recrea-
tional uses, low on a capital-intensive scale and undervalued as a public
good in the private marketplace, cannot compete effectively with pri-
vate development for commerce, industry, or housing, while these
activities almost universally preclude other uses, especially recreation.
Now, this consumption and subsequent exclusion of the shoreline by
private development gives rise to the side effect of lost opportunity to
future generatious to use this resource in its unique capacity for recrea-
tional activity. Under normal conditions (price fixed at proper level),
this exclusion would be an indication of a properly functioning
market. However, in the context of undervaluation, exclusion results
in an allocation of the good in a way that is inconsistent with the
overall benefits and values of society, i.e., future recreationalists are
denied use of the coast. Since information on the true value of the re-
source for recreation is hard to determine within the framework of the
price system, and since the transaction costs of transferring informa-
tion of this kind (even if it were available) into revenues are prohibi-
tive, the market mechanism fails to provide reasonable competition in
which recreation uses could participate. If recreation values could be
handled by the market, it is likely that the private costs for the shore-
line would be astronomical (even relative to today’s prices) and would
greatly alter the patterns of consumption. But since they are not, since
the true costs (including the externality of lost opportunity for public
recreation in the future) are not generally included in the price of
shoreland, the public must bear these social costs while the pattern of
private consumption and development continues unchecked. These
factors point again to the identification of our natural shoreline as a
public good in sore need of a means of allocation other than that pro-
vided by an inadequate private market.
This completes the description of the economic environment within
which the allocation of shoreline resources takes place. But this is only

128

half the picture, since historically the private market has been subject
to regulation within the institutional environment of political decision-
making. This is the topic for discussion in the following section.

The institutional environment

The institutional environment of the American shoreline is
made up of a large and diverse group of governmental units having
some jurisdiction and control over varying amounts of coastal prop-
erty, usually through local ownership or State authority. These units
establish the political and legal constraints under which the private
market operates. From this complex structure of fragmented munici-
pal, State, and Federal responsibilities for the management of coastal
affairs stem the barriers to effective resolution of conflicts among dif-
ferent interests competing for the use of the same resource. This is
partly due to a lack of cooperation between the various agencies and
governmental units, and partly to a general ignorance of the tremen-
dous significance and implications of coastal problems. The planning of
public recreational services has traditionally been carried out through
the process of local political decisionmaking, while the state of the
techniques by which decisions are made is depressingly low. At all
levels, shoreline recreation has encountered the common nemesis of
all public services—‘‘the stifling effect of jurisdictional boundaries
which, by a curious osmosis, permits the diffusion of problems through-
out the region, while blocking any corresponding flow of governmental
responsibility.” ** This points to the natural consequences of frag-
mented political control. While the shoreline is obviously no respecter
of political boundaries, its control is distributed among discrete units.
These units are virtually forced to act irresponsibly with respect to the
values and interest of overall society of the region due to (1) the nature
of the demands, (2) the irregular distribution of the resources, and
(3) the particular economic and political context within which each
unit makes decisions.

The aspect of demand that contributes to an irresponsible allocation
of coastal property by local communities has to do with the ever-
increasing mobility that brings hordes of recreationalists to any
richly endowed area within an expanding radius of urban areas. This,
combined with the irregular distribution of these areas within the
region, results in a steady flow of recreation seekers to prime sites
from nearby towns, other States, and even more distant regions. The
severe consequences of this situation are described by the ORRRC:*

First, there is no logical place in the conventional government structure where
responsibility to deal with this mercurial problem has been fixed. The problem
certainly transcends the local community; but we find it also overflowing the
region and the State, and at the very top, it spills out of the Nation. Then, the
richly endowed community finds it increasingly difficult to haveits exclusive claim
to these riches recognized * * *. What happens, in effect, is that the resource-rich
communities find themselves exporting tremendous volumes of free recreation
services, frequently at a substantial social cost to themselves from the operation
and maintenance of facilities and from the debasement of the recreation facilities
to their own residents. One reaction has been to wall out the problem by restricting
the use of the resource: Public beaches confined to the use of local residents,
stream banks, and wooded areas taken over by private ‘‘clubs.’’ Carried to an

illogical extreme, as such things sometimes are, the end result of this process is that
a few have superlative opportunities for outdoor recreation, while the great

43 Tbid., reference 33; p. 84.
44 Thid., reference 33; p. 86.

a

129

majority must compete for the services of a limited supply of mediocre-to-poor
recreation resources.

It is not unreasonable to state that we are now approaching (in
many ways) that illogical extreme. Already we have noted the ‘fencing
out” tendency of local communities and private residents in Connect-
icut and even Maine, while fees and other restrictive measures to
limit prime beaches to local residents are commonplace on Cape Cod
and in many other areas.

The particular economic and political context within which local
governmental units make decisions about shoreline use will also lead
to irresponsible allocation on a broad scale.* The political organization
of the coastline is the historical one of many small communities, each
with control over a limited segment of coastal property. The only
political mechanisms that are available to help correct private market
deficiencies in shoreline allocation are the local zoning and taxation
policies of this fragmentation of local community control. We have
already seen how the uneven distribution of prime recreational shore-
line property places heavy demand pressures from the region on
specific communities, making their coastal property more valuable
(to them and to the people of the region) than some neighboring towns
not similarly “blessed”? with good beaches or whatever. Yet, in the
absence of this value being properly represented within the private
market (where the local community operates), local governmental
units make decisions based on other considerations. This can best
be illustrated by looking at the decisionmaking process involving
some coastal zone project, perhaps a powerplant project. It is im-
portant here to distinguish between two types of benefits (or dis-
benefits) of such a project—direct and indirect. Direct effects are
those that accrue to the consumers or users of the project, the
user of the power supplied, the bathers on a closed beach, the swallowers
of polluted air, the viewers of marsh wildlife, etc. All of these effects
are felt by the local community and by the regional society in general.
Yet only those benefits (or disbenefits) that accrue to the local
populace enter into the decision. The community may be willing to
give up beach or bluff property to have a powerplant, but this may
not be an optimal allocation of that resource on a regional basis.
But the “votes” of the region are not counted—only those of the
local community affect the decision!

We might ask why a community would be willing to give up this
valuable property in such a way? The answer is that the local com-
munity within its particular economic and political context is also
subject to a second type of benefits—indirect or secondary effects.
These effects accrue to the suppliers of the resource that make the
investment possible. Construction workers who build the plant will
spend a substantial portion of their paychecks in the locale of the
plants, certainly benefiting local merchants, doctors, and business-
owners. These people, in turn, spend some of this money in the locale,
and so on in the traditional multiplier effect. Values that arise in this
manner are called parochial (secondary) effects and imclude the
effects on local payrolls, retail earnings, and the broadening of the tax
base (usually a very powerful factor). For the local community, these

45 This discussion is based on the treatment found in J. W. Devanney III, et al., ““Economic Factors in
the Development of a Coastal Zone,’’ MIT Sea Grant Project Office Report No. MITSG 71-1, Nov. 20, 1970.

‘130

benefits are very real; but considering the regional economy as a whole,
parochial benefits are not net benefits since the benefits associated
with one location will be about the same as those associated with an
alternative site (barring large unemployment differentials). Thus,
parochial benefits represent a transfer payment from one place in the
economy to another, with no net benefit associated with the choice
of site (even though there is a net benefit to the community chosen).
Hence, parochial benefits can be overwhelmingly important to politi-
eal bodies representing the local community. As a result, a local
community can rationally view a project in a very different manner
from the regional economy as a whole. The region and the local
community feel positive and negative direct effects—the community
alone feels the parochial effects. These added benefits will persuade
the community to act in its perceived self-interest and approve the
powerplant siting, with no considerations of the negative direct
effect to the region as a whole. Such things have happened on the
Maine coast where much of the loss of shoreline property came “‘with
the encouragement of State and local agencies and officials eager for
new taxable property and the jobs that developments generate.’
John McKee, the Bowdoin land use expert, has said ‘it is surprising
how many people will sacrifice their coast. They say, if it’ll bring in
the tax dollar, let’s do it.” ”

Sometimes other forms of very localized political pressures hinder
effective planning for coastal land use and management. A case in
point is that of the tmy town of Harpswell on the Maine coast. In 1969,
a planning board was created to assist the selectmen in considering
some of the questions related to the future growth of the town. By
the 1970 town meeting, the board had developed the preliminary
plans for a 3-year project and had obtained the needed appropriations
from the local voters. A chronology of subsequent events has been
described in a recent edition of the Maine Times. 48

With a complete map of the town and a detailed soil map, the planning board
plunged into the nitty-gritty of formulating its first land-use ordinance. The
threat of unregulated subdivision seemed urgent. Out-of-town developers had
purchased a 400-acre plot on Great Island, and some 3,000 additional acres would
soon be up for grabs. Less than one-tenth of the town’s 24-square-mile area had
already been developed, and there were no local restrictions to inhibit irresponsible
exploiters of the land.

The board also sensed some danger from within. Local developers had divided
their land into undersized lots for trailers and small houses. Operating on shoestring
budgets they built inadequate roads—impassable to school buses and fuel trucks

in the spring—and petitioned the town to take over road maintenance and/or
improvement.

Slowly working their way through three rough drafts, the board and its con-
sultant, John Atwood, created an ordinance aimed at developers whose land-use
practices (insufficient soil surveys, inadequate sewage and water systems, narrow
roads) would not be in the best interests of the town of Harpswell. Nine detailed
sections dealt with the necessity for both a preliminary and final subdivision
plan to be submitted to the board; design standards for streets, sidewalks, lots,
schools, ete.; performance guarantee; character of the development; variations
and exceptions.

_ The release of this proposed plan triggered a great deal of political
infighting. Some Harpswell citizens, previously opposed to any form
46 Thid., reference 14A.

47 Thid., reference 14A. t
48 Gloria Hutchinson, “‘Harpswell: What Went Wrong?’”’ Maine Times, vol. 3, No. 2, Oct. 9, 1970.

131

of land-use planning (and seemingly the word planning itself!), were
vociferously against the plan.

Some interpreted the ordinance to mean that they would have to demolish their
own homes, remove lobster traps from their yards, receive permission to cut down
a tree on their property. Others were moved to protest that it discriminated against
the poor, the young, the large family. Discussion was propelled by emotional
arguments which the board was unable to direct into more reasonable channels.

The antiplanning group gained strength, including among its sup-
porters several local developers and contractors (who supplied bus
transportation for local voters to the town meetings). As a result,
the plan was defeated and the planning board was abolished at the
next town meeting.

Harpswell’s future was on the line, and she stood defenseless before those who
cared not for the common heritage of coastal land * * * with no plauning board
and no land-use laws, Harpswell waits naked for the developers’ invasion.

What happened in Harpswell * * * could have happened in any Maine town
that has not yet confronted the question of its destiny.

The problems within the institutional environment are further
complicated by the attitudes that some States have previously held
in failing to regard the coastline as a separate resource in need of
regulation on the State level. For example, in 1967 Maine citizens
approved a $4 million bond issue for park and coastal acquisition,
even though the legislation insisted on a provision prohibiting the
use of eminent domain powers. Yet, up until now, “‘though prices in
the meantime have doubled and quadrupled, and tens of thousands of
desirable acres have changed from open space to luxury developments,
the State parks and recreation department has spent only $567,000,
less than 12 percent of the money the voters authorized. And only
part of the purchases have been coastal property.’’ *® This, of course;
is only part of a larger overall problem with mstitutional involvement
in coastal allocation. In the absence of any long-range plans, local
and State governments usually take an mcremental approach to
satisfying increasing demands for shoreline recreation (and most other
things, for that matter). Most governmental units react only to
short-range problems of supply and demand, usually due to a lack of
funds. This is understandable to the extent that States and local
governments do not have the large amounts of money necessary to
compete on the private market for all the coastal land that is needed,
for the future uses, since there is no existing mechanism by which the
values of the future users of a public beach can be measured and
translated into tax revenues. Then, the only choice for Government
is to try to buy small stretches of shoreland when it is needed, to
plan only for the demands of the next 5 or 10 years. But while this
has been going on potential sites have been privately bought and
developed to the point where, as we have seen, practically nothing
remains to be acquired.

Summary

Having recognized the high intrinsic value of our shoreline as a
recreational resource in need of careful allocation, we have found
the private market to be wholly inadequate within the socioeconomic
and institutional environment. We conclude that market mechanisms

49 Tbid., reference 14A.

132

will result in an allocation of the coastal zone which is seriously in-
consistent with the values of regional society. Standard market.
imperfections such as undervaluation of public goods and side effects
work to price the recreational values of the general public out of the
market without having a similar effect on private, commercial, and
industrial development. In addition, the political organization con-
trolling the use of shoreline land through local zoning and tax policies
also contributes to a misallocation of coastal resources, since, even if
each community operates optimally within its own bounds, the total
shoreline allocation will not be optimal, due to the lack of considera-
tion of alternatives in which one community specializes in certain
shoreline functions while another specializes in some other activity.
Local planning may even lead to allocations that are worse than an
unrestricted market result, since whenever a local board is faced
with a development proposal, its first thought is toward the secondary
or parochial benefits of the project: the effect on local payroll and
retail earnings, broadening of the tax base, etc. Yet, these benefits
are not net benefits, but transfer payments from some other part of
the economy. In addition, the planning procedure of meeting in-
creasing demands on an incremental, piecemeal basis clearly wastes
opportunities for acquisition of valuable coastal acreage that is
rapidly bought and developed for private, commercial, or industrial
use. The absence of any long-range planning on the part of State
and local governments has clearly contributed to the formation of
the crisis we face today.

The final question to be resolved is: given the inadequacies of the
present system and the critical need for coastal zone allocation con-
sistent with the values of society, what are the alternatives to the
present allocative mechanisms? It is clear that something must be
done right away to satisfy the demands of the immediate future;
but there are also serious questions of long-range policy to be con-
sidered along with current needs. The final section of this article will
deal both with the short-term and the fundamental issues involved
in the making of long-range policy decisions.

V. A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

The short run

Clearly, there is a pressing need for the formulation of long-range
policy with regard to our shoreline resources. Such a policy might well
entail some radical departure from the currently accepted allocative
mechanisms of the private market and local decisionmaking. All
indications are that, without such changes, there is no way to provide
adequate public recreational opportunities at our coastal shores for
the hordes of people who will need and demand such opportunities in
the future. But the only way to avert disaster until such a policy is
formulated is to buy time with the traditional procedures of short-term
planning. Such procedures have helped to get us into this mess, and it
seems ironic that they should serve to help us correct the problems.
But we must be wary that the problems get worse at an increasing
rate; hence, the time that can be bought with each incremental meas-
ure gets shorter. Any recreation planner will attest to this—as new
beaches open, they are soon used extensively and frequently to
capacity, depending on the location. Also, it is clear that we are almost

133

without room for further expansion in terms of land acquisition.
Therefore, we must do two things in the short run: (1) in the face of
spiraling prices for shrinking amounts of available coastal land, State
and Federal authorities must take immediate advantage of current
opportunities for land acquisition, using all the legal tools available to
them to preserve more shoreland for public recreational activity, and
(2) recognizing the need for a better allocative mechanism, immediate
steps must be taken at the Federal level to formulate a policy that
successfully comes to grips with the complex issues that are raised
when the present system is discarded. The purpose of this section is to
focus attention on the political and economic questions that must be
dealt with in the formulation of long-range policy.

Establishing a political framework

If the allocation of shoreline resources as public goods is to be
handled in the public sector, then the first requisite is the development
of some sort of alternative political framework within which manage-
ment of the resource can take place. We have seen that the present
framework of local political decisionmaking is wholly inadequate,
while no political mechanisms exist that deal with our coast as a
separate and unique entity. Yet, clearly the social costs and benefits
of shoreline recreation go beyond every municipal boundary and spill
over from State to State. It is clear that new institutional arrange-
ments must be made so that long-range, comprehensive planning
policies can be formulated in the development of a recreational system
and to determine that allocation of coastal resources among multiple
uses that maximizes the general well-being of society. What are these
new arrangements to be?

A major criterion that should be applied to new institutions is that
the political decisionmaking unit affecting any particular use of coastal
resources must be broadly based enough so that the parochial benefits
of a given development project are not net benefits within its juris-
dictional boundaries. We will recall that a coastal town may decide to
zone its coastal property for industry, generating (secondary) benefits
for the town, but not for the regional economy as a whole (e.g., if the
area is a valuable beach site). If a State or regional body makes the
decision, a more broad consideration of benefits to the regional
populace would result. In this way a greater range of social costs and
benefits can be weighed in the decisionmaking process! The clear
implication is that planning for the use of coastal resources must be
carried out at a more broadly based governmental level.

Much careful consideration has been given to this issue at the
Federal level, beginning with a report °° to the President and the
Congress in 1962 by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com-
mission (ORRRC). This study outlined the status of outdoor recrea-
tion in America, describing in depth the conditions of supply and
demand as outlined in this article. To resolve the problems of shoreline
recreation, the ORRRC called for the establishment of new guidelines
for planning and policy and the design of new institutional relation-
ships to manage the complex set of interdependencies in a systematic
way. These relationships would entail a redistribution of responsibility
among governmental levels, with the States playing the pivotal role

50 Tbid., reference 28.

134

and the Federal Government taking on the responsibility of developing
and maintaining the viewpoint and interests of the national system as
a whole, while coordinating activities and providing a mechanism for
the resolution of conflicts between States. |

More recently, a number of other studies have made recommenda-
tions as to the proper political framework for sound coastal zone
management. These include:

(1) A report by the Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering,
and Resources.

(2) The National Estuarine Pollution Study, sponsored by the Water
Pollution Control Administration of the Department of the Interior
(November 1969).

(3) The Coastal Zone Management Conference, House of Repre-
sentatives Subcommittee on Oceanography of the Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries (October 1969).

_ (4) A report to the Committee on Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone
of the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering De-
velopment, on ‘Coordinating Governmental Coastal Activities’
(September 1968). }

(1) Report of the Commission on Marine Sciences, Enguneering, and
Resources.—This Commission, headed by Dr. Julius A. Stratton, was
formed in 1966 by the Marine Resources and Development Act and
charged with the responsibility of formulating a program of national
action for the most effective use of our marine resources and a plan
for governmental organization for the fulfillment of that program. The
relevant recommendations of that commission were put forth in a
statement by Dr. John A. Knauss, former Chairman, Panel on Coastal
Zone Management of the Commission: ™

A major conclusion of our Commission was that the primary problem in the
coastal zone was a management problem with all the attendant problems that
proper management implies. It is true that the Federal, State, and local govern-
ments share the responsibility to develop and manage the coastal zone. In review-
ing the situation, we concluded that effective management to date has been
thwarted by the variety of Government jurisdictions involved at all levels of
government, the low priority afforded to marine matters by State governments,
the diffusion of responsibility among State agencies to develop and implement
long range plans . . . the Commission was of the opinion that the states must
be the focus for responsibility and action in the coastal zone. We believe an
agency of the State is needed with sufficient planning and regulatory authority
to manage coastal areas effectively and to resolve problems of competing uses.

We recommend that a Coastal Management Act be enacted which will provide
policy objectives for the coastal zone and authorize Federal grants-in-aid to facili-
tate the establishment of State coastal zone authorities empowered to manage the
Coastal waters and adjacent land.

(2) Department of Interior Report—The National Estuarine Pollution
Study ”.—The recommendations and proposed program outlined im
this report put forth the policy objectives for a comprehensive national
program for coastal zone management and spell out the suggested
responsibilities and roles of the Federal, State, and local governments
within such a program.

What is proposed in a program that recognizes the primary responsibilities of
the States in a management program for their estuarine and coastal areas, and on

51 “Coastal Zone Management Conference,” hearings before Subcommittee on Oceanography of the
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, serial No. 91-14, Oct. 28, 29, 1969,
p. 11, vols. I, II, III. é

52 Thid., reference 1; vols. I, II, III.

135

the Federal side provides for the coordination of Federal activities in these areas
and for assistance to the States in their management activities.

Any comprehensive national program for the estuarine and coastal zone must
provide flexibility in many ways to fit regional and local conditions and situations,
but regardless of variables it must establish a guiding policy and a set of objec-
tives. Regardless of variables, in order to be effective the program must provide
for: (1) Planning and implementation; (2) active administration, coastal coordina-
tion, and financing; (3) the development of the knowledge and data necessary as a
basis for all action.

The recommended national policy will put in effect a comprehensive national
program for the effective management, beneficial use, protection and development
of the estuarine and coastal zone of the Nation involving Federal, State, and local
governments, and public and private interests in an appropriate manner. It will
permit the optimum use of this vital resource by recognizing the existence of
competing uses and accommodating them through appropriate management and
further, conserve these resources in such a manner as to keep open the options
for various uses in the future and not foreclose them. This management system
will recognize the primary and constitutional role of the States in managing
their resources as well as the role of the Federal Government in protecting the
wider national interest. The principal goal of the national program is the use of the
estuarine and coastal zone for as many beneficial purposes as possible and, where
some uses are precluded, to achieve that mix of uses which society, based on both
short- and long-range considerations, deems most beneficial.

(3) Coastal Zone Management Conference *.—These hearings brought
together a wide range of parties involved in the problems of coastal
zone management. The tone of the conference can best be illustrated
by excerpts from some of the testimony given therein:

Statement oF Dr. SamueLt A. LawreNcr, Former Executive Director,
ComMIssioN, ON MARINE SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND RESOURCES

* * * We need to establish a firmer legal framework for ownership and use of
coastal and offshore lands. Above all, the Commission concluded, the pressures for
multiple use of these limited coastlands require an organized approach in order to
coordinate the separate plans and activities of Federal, State, and local government
agencies and of private persons and corporations.

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. QuarRues, AssISTANT TO UNDER SECRETARY FOR EN-
VIRONMENTAL PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

There appears to be developing something approaching a consensus that re-
sponsibility should be vested primarily in the State government and exercised at
the State level.

* & * T don’t believe anyone who has seriously focused on the problem thinks
that the Federal Government can, from Washington and from the Federal level,
devise management plans which properly would anticipate the use that each acre
of land should be devoted to over the years ahead, so the Federal Government
needs to be ruled out as being the primary responsible agency in management of
coastal areas.

* * * The localities, I would suggest, are not suitable for exercising these
functions. It has been fairly widely recognized that localities suffer from deficien-
cies of not having strong staffs, skilled people to deal with some complex problems.
Also, of course, they are extremely concerned with development of their individual
tax bases of assessable property within the town limits.

These considerations, however, I would suggest, overlook the principal difficulty
with leaving responsibility at the local level, which is that good planning from this
time forth needs to encompass a range of vision beyond town limits * * *.
Development cannot be done well on a local basis * * *. I think that, regarding
this problem on a national level, serious consideration must be given to whether
we can continue to allow areas which can be seen as needed to meet other needs to
be used for residential development.

(4) Report to Committee on Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone of the
National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development on

53 Thid., reference 51.

136

“Coordinating Governmental Coastal Activities.” **—The primary aim of
this study can be described as follows:

To recommend means of coordinating governmental agencies
acting in the coastal zone;

To identify gaps, overlaps, and inadequacies of coordination in
the activities of Federal agencies in the coastal zone and to
recommend appropriate solutions;

To identify the need for improving Federal-State relationships
in the coastal zone and to recommend appropriate solutions.

The report identifies four basic uses of the coastal zone: enjoyment,
transportation, national defense, and land use. Some of the recom-
mendations and conclusions regarding land use and enjoyment are
directly pertinent to this study. One such recommendation urged that
the Department of the Interior lead a multiagency study to propose
national objectives and goals for enjoyment of the coastal zone. This
study would “address such matters as, (1) the relative roles and
values of low-density enjoyment, such as preservation, conservation,
hiking and hunting vis-a-vis high-density enjoyment, such as bathing
beaches, marinas, athletic facilities and entertainment; (2) future
recreational requirements, their types, quantity, and distribution;
and, (3) rational, measurable objectives, related to economic benefits
achieved and foregone, to help fill the partial void now facing Federal
agencies when tradeoff decisions must be made between quantifiable
economic effects and many as yet unquantified enjoyment values.”

The report goes on to conclude that considerable effective Federal-
State coordination can be obtained ‘‘through improved, tempered use
of such means as the normal course of business: informational services,
mutual assistance, grants, subsidies, and regulations. Where interstate
conflicts arise that could not be handled by existing institutions (river
basin commissions, etc.) new institutional arrangements should be
created.

As a result of the conclusions and recommendations set forth in
these and other studies on coastal zone management, considerable
attention has recently been devoted to the forming of new legislative
proposals at the Federal level. Among them are:

(1) A bill (S. 2802) to assist the States in establishing coastal zone manage-
ment programs—introduced by Senator Warren Magnuson (Democrat, Washing-
ton), August 8, 1969.

(2) A bill (H.R. 14730) to provide for the effective management of the Nation’s
coastal and estuarine areas—introduced by Representative Alton Lennon (Demo-
crat, North Carolina) November 6, 1969.

(3) A bill (S. 3183; H.R. 14845) to provide for the establishment of a national
policy and comprehensive national program for the management, beneficial use,
protection, and development of the land and water resources of the Nation’s
estuarine and coastal zone. Introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep-
resentative Fallon, November 18, 1969; introduced in the Senate by Senator
Hale Boggs, November 25, 1969.

It would be useful to examine the provisions included in these
bills so that we can compare them to the emerging concepts that
make up the new political framework for coastal zone management |

(1) S. 2802.—This bill, recognizing the harmful side effects of un-
planned and poorly planned development of coastal resources, de-

&% “Coordinating Governmental Coastal Activities,” a report by the Task Group on Interagency Co-

ordination, Federal-State Relationships and Legal Problems (COSREL), of the Committee on Multiple
vee ofthe Coastal Zone, National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, September

137

clares that the policy of Congress is to “preserve, protect, develop,
and where possible restore the resources of the Nation’s coastal zone
. . . through comprehensive and coordinated long-range planning
and management designed to produce the maximum benefit for
society from such coastal areas.” To facilitate such planning at the
State level, the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineer-
ing Development may award grants-in-aid (or underwrite bond issues
or loans) to coastal authorities (designated by the Governor of a
coastal State through legislative or other processes) to assist them
in developing a long-range master plan for the coastal zone and in
implementing a development program based on such a plan. To
secure the Council’s approval the State plan must—

Set forth desired goals and standards.

Promote the balanced development of natural, commercial, industrial, recrea-
tional, and esthetic resources to accommodate a wide variety of beneficial uses.

Kstimate future population and the needs of the above competing uses for
coastal land.

Include diagrams for the most efficient, beneficial, and liveable interrelationship
of these uses.

Gather information on the existing land use regulations and consult with various
governmental bodies whose jurisdiction extends over territory located in the
coastal zone (local, regional, port, intrastate, and Federal authorities).

In addition, the bill provides authority for the development of the
coastal zone in accordance with the master plan through the use of
land use and zoning regulations, acquisition of lands through con-
demnation or other means, and the issuance of bonds. Also, the
coastal authority has the authority to review all State and local
projects and to reject developments that do not comply with the
principles and standards set forth in the master plan.

(2) H.R. 14780.—Finding that the rapidly intensifying use of
ecastal and estuarine areas has outrun the capabilities of Federal,
State, and local machinery to plan their orderly development and to
resolve conflicts, this bill declares to be the policy of Congress to
foster the effective utilization of coastal and estuarine areas through
assistance to coastal States in the development of a management
system permitting conscious and informed choices among development
alternatives. This act would empower the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency to make grants (or under-
write bonds and loans) to state coastal authorities provided that the
authority submit and obtain approval of a long-range planning
proposal that must incorporate a number of particular considerations
as outlined in the bill. These include:

Identification of the coastal areas requiring concerned attention and develop-
ment of a plan for their most effective utilization.

Provision of machinery for the resolution of conflicts arising from multiple
iatpabyision for necessary enforcement powers through zoning, permits, licenses,
easements, acquisition, or other means to assure compliance with plans and
resolve conflicts in uses.

Provides for coordination with local, State, and Federal agencies, research
institutions, private organizations, and other groups as appropriate to provide
a focus for effective management.

Fosters the widest possible variety of beneficial uses to maximize social return,
achieving a balance between the need for conservation and for economic develop-

ment.
Takes into account the rights and interests of other States and respects Federal

rights.

138

(3) S. 3183; H.R. 14845.—This legislation, submitted to the Con-
gress by former Secretary of the Interior Walter J. Hickel, is based
on the findings of the National Estuarine Pollution Study and an
interdepartmental Coastal Zone Task Force chaired by Under Secre-
tary of the Interior Russell E. Train. Under the provisions of the
bill, the Secretary is authorized to make grants to any coastal state
for the purpose of assisting in the development of a comprehensive
management program for the land and water resources of the coastal
zone. In order to qualify for such grants, the coastal State must
demonstrate to the Secretary compliance with the following re-
quirements:

The coastal State must be organized to implement a management plan.

The agency or agencies responsible for implementation must have the regulatory
powers necessary to implement the plan, i.e., permit authority, authority to ac-
quire interests in land through eminent domain and zoning, authority to require
conformity of local zoning to the State plan.

The coastal State has developed and adopted a management plan for its coastal
zone.

The plan must include identification and recognition of National, State, and
local interests in the preservation, use, and development of the coastal zone.

The plan must identify and describe means by which the management proposal
will be coordinated with interstate and regional planning.

The plan must be developed in cooperation with relevant Federal, State, and
local governments, and all other interests.

The plan must develop a feasible land and water use plan, reasonably reflecting
the needs of industry, transportation, recreation, fisheries, wildlife, natural area
protection, residential development and other public and private needs, both in
the short and the long term.

The bill makes additional provisions for interagency coordination
and cooperation on the Federal level.

The Secretary shall not approve the plan submitted by the State. . . until he
has solicited the views of Federal agencies principally affected by such plan or his
evidence that such views were provided the State in the development of the plan.
In case of serious disagreement between any Federal agency and the State in the
development of the plan, the Secretary shall seek to mediate the differences. . .
Federal agencies shall not approve proposed projects that are inconsistent with the
plan without making investigation and finding that the proposal is, on balance,
sound. The Secretary shall be advised by the heads of other agencies of such prob-
lems and be provided an opportunity to participate in any investigation.

Based on the analysis in this article and the conclusions and rec-
ommendations of the aforementioned studies, we are now in a posi-
tion to outline some of the considerations that would go into the legis-
lative formulation of a new political framework for coastal zone man-
agement. It is clear that the destiny of shoreline resources should be
removed from the hands of local decisionmaking and entrusted to a
broader based governmental unit.

Many of our present-day problems, such as air and water pollution,
electric power production, and land use, are inherently regional in
nature and could seemingly be handled most efficiently by regional
governmental bodies. But if we are to assume that it is desirable to
work within the existing governmental structure, then it is clear that
the States should play the primary role in coastal zone management.
We must be careful, esol to realize that even the State may not
be broadly based enough to handle many coastal land-use problems.
We have noted how the trend toward increasing mobility and the
uneven distribution of suitable coastal opportunities has made the
problems of shoreline recreation ignore all State and local boundaries,

139

especially in New England where coastal facilities are often within a
2-hour drive from many parts of the region. The problems of ineffi-
cient allocation, which arise because decisions are based on considera-
tions of secondary benefits, are not restricted to the local communities.
This could happen at the interstate level, especially when there is a
large discrepancy in the economic posture of two nearby States. For
example, Massachusetts is a well-developed and economically healthy
State with a large population, while Maine is economically depressed
and low in population. Hence, these States might take a different
orientation toward the development of the Maine coast. The State of
Maine might welcome oil refineries and industrial complexes as a
stimulus to the State economy, while the residents of Massachusetts
value the coast as a unique recreational opportunity, especially since
Massachusetts’ shoreline facilities are already used to capacity. But
the benefits and disbenefits to the regional society outside of Maine’s
boundaries will not be included in the determination of the costs and
benefits of particular development projects. Hence, the State will
make decisions based only on the parochial effects to the State econ-
omy. Yet this could very well constitute an inefficient use of the re-
source and an irreversible depletion of a unique and valuable asset!
Any new political framework for coastal resource allocation that has
the State as the focal point for management must devote careful
attention to problems of this sort.

A second major consideration pertinent to the management of the
coastal zone in the public sector is the question of that decisions are
to be made regarding shoreline resource allocation between competing
uses. If we conclude that the allocative mechanisms of the private
market are to be abandoned, then the State and Federal management
authorities must have some alternative means for determining what
is an efficient allocation of the shoreline. This must necessarily involve
the determination and articulation of the public interest. In the private
market, goods have a mechanism (price-profit system) whereby the
demands of individuals can be felt; when the aggregate of individual
demands is high enough, private producers will attempt to satisfy those
demands. Thus, many individual preferences can be satisfied, since
each individual’s ‘‘vote’’ (in dollars spent) goes relatively far in
determining the supply. Whenever enough individuals want something
at a price, there is an incentive for someone to produce it at a profit.
Public goods differ in that private markets fail to respond to the eatire
range of individual demands, giving rise to a need for collective
action. The question is, how can individual preferences for these
goods be summed to determine if the aggregate benefit is sufficient to
justify the total cost? This is a central question in the area of welfare
economics, and the resolution of the issues involved must play an
important role at the Federal and State levels in the formulation of
management policy concerning coastal land use.

A number of theories have been set forth involving this crucial
determination of the public interest. The point of view of an ageregated
social welfare function holds that society maintains a hierarchy of
priorities based on collective values, inviting a search for the articula-
tion of these priorities. A fundamental question to be dealt with in
this regard is: Are these social priorities effectively articulated through
the democratic political process as it now exists so that decision-

57—242—_71——_10

140

makers are adequately equipped to act in the public interest? Another
point of view is that of willingness to pay, which holds that the
maximum amount of resources that consumers are willing to pay for
a good is a good measure of its value. This can be expressed as a
willingness to pay additional taxes, user fees, and other charges, to
give up the consumption of certain goods, or to pay a higher price
for other goods. The primary objection ot this scheme is based on the
difficulty in measuring the willingness to pay for public goods that are
not ‘‘unitized’’ and whose benefits to an individual are hard to deter-
mine. Cost-benefit analysis uses willingness to pay and appears to
have some potential for effective simulation of the working of a
properly functioning market in the allocation of public resources on a
project-by-project basis.

Such an analysis has been demonstrated and recommended, in a
report » to the Water Resources Council by the Special Task Force on
Evaluation Procedures, as a way to improve the policies and procedures
followed by Federal agencies in the formulation and evaluation of
projects for the use and development of water and related land re-
sources. More recently, a report * on economic factors in the develop-
ment of a coastal zone has described a preliminary effort at the de-
velopment and application of such analysis to particular coastal zone
development proposals:

The basic premise of this report is that economics in a sense wide enough to
cover all significantly important values, both market and nonmarket, can be use-
fully applied to coastal zone allocation, that is, to the problem of determining the
mix of uses of a particular coastal zone which is most consistent with the values of
the economy which uses that coastal zone.

Given the inefficiency of the private market with respect to the coastal zone and
the inefficiency of local control, the only feasible alternative appears to be control
at the State level with some Federal influence to prevent secondary benefits from
being used against an entire State. We strongly support the Stratton Commission’s
recommendations concerning the establishment of State coastal zone management
authorities.

However, the establishment of such bodies implies some rather heavy responsi-
bilities. Once the discipline of the private market is abandoned, coastal zone
analysis requires conscious economic analysis, for it is not enough to show that
the present system is seriously nonoptimal. One must also argue that the proposed
changes in the allocation process will result in coastal zone usage which is more
consistent with the economy’s values than the old.

Insofar as coastal zone allocation can be regarded on a project-by-project
basis, the methodology for inplementing this conscious economics is cost-benefit
analysis. Unfortunately, the present state of the art with respect to cost-benefit
analysis and the coastal zone leave much to be desired and, until a State coastal
zone authority can reliably determine the use of the coastal zone most consistent
with people’s values, it cannot promise to do much better than the private market
or local political entities.

Another problem with locational cost-benefit analysis is that, if performed too
narrowly, seriously inefficient suboptimization can occur. The problem is to
approach coastline allocation comprehensively while, at the same time, retaining
analytical feasibility. Given the compromises that must necessarily occur, the
results of cost-benefit analysis must be used with some judgment.

While there seem to be no clear-cut indications that any method of
determining the public interest is superior to the others, this is no
excuse for inaction—attempts must be made to determine the public
interest. Perhaps the answer lies in some combination of the viewpoints
of representative political consensus (based on overall social priorities)

55 “Procedures for Evaluation of Water and Related Land Resource Projects,” Report to the Water

Resources Council by the Special Task Force on Evaluation Procedures, June 1969.
56 Thid., reference 45,

141

and cost-benefit analysis (based on willingness-to-pay) as effective
measures of the public interest. The important point is that some
determination must be made, both at the Federal and the State levels,
before we can claim that the new framework for coastal zone allocation
is better than the old one of the private market and local political
decisionmaking.

Having warned of the dangers of interstate side effects and the
need to determine carefully the public interest, let us now attempt
to outline the roles of the State and Federal Governments in a sound
coastal land use management system.

The State role

The role of the States in coastal zone management is recommended
to be as follows:

(1) To assume primary responsibility for the planning and implementation of a
comprehensive coastal land use management plan to bring about effective utiliza-
tion of shoreline resources most consistent with the values and interests of national,
regional, State, and local society.

(2) To establish some form of coastal zone authority empowered to develop
a master plan for coastal and and water management and to implement this
plan through the use of any legal means, such as zoning, permits, licenses, eminent
domain, easements, acquisition, issuance of bonds, ete.

(3) To develop a master plan that has the following characteristics:

Sets forth desired goals and objectives consistent with the values of society on a
local, State, regional, and national level;

Establishes guidelines for the determination of the public interest consistent
with similar efforts at the Federal level.

Provides a mechanism by which decisions can be made regarding the most
efficient allocation of coastal resources among the competing uses and needs of
industry, recreation, commerce, transportation, residential development, wildlife
and natural area protection, etc., based on the established goals and guidelines
for the determination of the public interest.

Provides for coordination and cooperation in the development of the plan with
local, State, regional and Federal agencies and any other public or private organi-
zations with a vested interest in coastal land use management, and is consistent
with planning efforts at all the various governmental levels.

Provide up-to-date inventories and evaluations of the status of shoreline
resources within the State’s jurisdiction, including the accessibility and suitability
of beach, marsh, and bluff areas for various uses.

The Federal role

The role of the Federal Government in land use management in the
coastal zone is recommended to be as follows:

(1) To provide the overall political framework within which the
planning efforts of the individual coastal States and the various
Federal agencies can be coordinated in the development of an
efficient land use program that is compatible with not only state-
wide, but also regional and national interests and values.

This first function of the Federal Government in land use manage-
ment in the coastal zone entails substantial responsibilities. These
responsibilities come directly from the need to coordinate the planning
activities at the State levels and to resolve serious conflicts that might
lead to grossly inefficient allocation of resources due to the existence of
statewide secondary (parochial) benefits. The key concept here is
coordination; since many of the problems of coastal land use manage-
ment are inherently regional in nature, it is not enough to stop at the
establishment of State coastal authorities in the formulation of a
political framework. While such authorities seem to provide an effective
means to overcome the problems attendant upon local decisionmaking

142

in the presence of secondary benefits, they do nothing to solve the
problems of interstate conflicts of interest that come about for the same
basic reasons. Indeed, the issue is the same but occurs at a different
governmental level. Yet there is no political mechanism at the regional
level, where these problems might best be handled, to resolve such
conflicts. This underscores the necessity of the Federal Government’s
taking an active role in coordinating the planning efforts of States
and to fill the void created by the absence of regional decisionmaking
units. This might be effectively realized through the creation of a
national land use agency or commission, subdivided into groups that
are to take a regional orientation toward the coordination of State land
use Management programs. The characteristic activities of such an
agency would include the following:

(a) It would provide the financial and informational basis of
support for the planning and implementation of State and
regional land use plans, based on a review and approval of such

lans.

(b) It would encourage the cooperation of neighboring States
in the development of a regionwide land use master plan, possibly
through the formation of regional land use authorities.

(c) It would coordinate the activities of all the Federal agencies
in relation to land use management and develop mechanisms to
resolve interagency and Federal-State conflicts.

Up to this point, the formation of a new political framework has
dealt primarily with the problem of more effective government co-
ordination of activities with regard to coastal zone management. We
have given considerable attention to the need for a more broadly
based governmental body to manage coastal land resources and to
avoid the gross inefficiencies that have come about due to the un-
coordinated activities of local political decisionmakers. But again, we
must remember that this is only one side of the story; we have also
decided that the private market is unsatisfactory in the allocation of
scarce shoreline resources.

This presents us with the difficult circumstance of having to make
decisions in the public sector based on trade-offs between some very
quantifiable benefits and other inherently nonquantifiable values. The
fact that we have abandoned the discipline of the private market does
not mean that the circumstances that led to its failure as an allocative
mechanism must no longer be confronted. The same kinds of decisions
remain to be made. Indeed this is an indication that we must redouble
our efforts concerning the identification and ‘articulation of the values
and interests of society, since we no longer can rely on the relatively
automatic workings of the price system, which has performed this
function for us in the past. We cannot assume that the problems of
inefficient coastal zone management can be solved by political reor-
ganization alone. Poor decisions have been made in the past by local
governmental units and by the economic system itself. Correcting the
political problem is only half the solution, we must now face the issue
of how to make decisions in the public sector that are consistent with
the values of society. This is, as we have seen, no easy task. It requires
concerted effort at both the State and Federal level. This points to
the second major function of the Federal Government in coastal zone
management, to be carried out within the coordinating framework
outlined above:

143

(2) To help establish uniform goals and objectives that are an
effective articulation of the values of society at all levels, and to
set forth consistent guidelines for the State to follow in the formula-
tion of coastal land use management programs that will lead to
the achievement of these objectives.

This implies that it is not sufficient to assume that the States on an
individual basis can provide mechanisms through which decisions as to
the most beneficial allocation of a particular coastal resource can be
made. The States must have the capacity to make decisions based not
only on intrastate values, but also on regional and national interests.
Yet the orientations of different States toward what is really in the
national and regional interest are likely to be widely divergent and
heavily biased by the particular values of the people of each State.
The other implication is that the States need help in determining how
to measure and weigh the values of the people within their own juris-
diction. This gets back to the ideas of representative political consensus
and cost-benefit analysis as effective articulations of the public interest.
The failure of any one State to handle this crucial issue in a successful
way would necessarily have a deleterious effect on an entire region due
to the intraregional nature of land use management problems. To assist
the States in activities of this sort, the proposed national land use
agency should support in-depth investigations into a number of sub-
stantive issues of concern regarding coastal land use management with
the purpose of ‘establishing guidelines in the following areas:

(a) How to make decisions in the public sector that involve trade-
offs between quantifiable economic benefits and nonquantifiable eco-
nomic values.

(6) How to deal with circumstances in which trade-offs between
basic rights in a free democratic society seem unavoidable; that is,
the right to own, control, and develop personal property versus the
right to swim at an ocean beach or explore a rocky bluff.

(ec) How to eliminate as many conflicts in land use as possible
through the implementation of innovative technology, for example, by
encouraging the siting of electric powerplants or other industrial
complexes at off shore locations rather than im ecologically fragile
estuarine zones.”

(d) How to include both the quantifiable and nonquantifiable
values of regional and national society in the decisionmaking process
at the State level.

(ec) How a regionwide plan, once determined, might effectively be
implemented using the legal tools at the disposal of each individual
State; that is, effluent discharge fees, zoning, easements, et cetera.

This completes the outline of a new political framework for the
allocation of shoreline resources and the management of land use in
the coastal zone. Let me now turn to a comparison of these concepts
with those set forth in the coastal zone bills cited previously.

It seems clear that while the various coastal zone management
bills now under consideration have established the role of the States
in a substantive way, they have at the same time ignored the most

57 D. W. Duesik, “Offshore Siting of Electric Power Plants”, Jan. 15, 1971. See accompanying article,
this publication.

57-242—71—_—_12

144

crucial recommendations set forth in every study as to the role that
the Federal Government must play in the overall management
system. Each bill calls for State coastal authorities to develop plans
that set forth objectives consistent with regional and national
interests—yet none provides for the establishment of uniform guide-
lines for the States to follow in the determination of these interests.
Each bill calls for the States to provide a mechanism for the resolu-
tion of conflicts, fostering the widest variety of beneficial uses to
maximize social return—yet none suggests the mechanism by which
the needs and values of neighboring States can be effectively in-
cluded in the trade-off analysis.

In addition, none of the bills makes provision for the establishment
of national policy objectives and guidelines for planning by which the
plans of the various coastal States can be coordinated. Nor is there
any indication of how the administrator at the Federal level is to go
about determining whether or not each individual State’s master plan
is consistent with the national interest. Only one bill suggests a mech-
anism for the resolution of Federal-State conflicts while none tackles
the crucial issue of inefficient allocation due to secondary effects
between States. While all these bills seem to effectively spell out the
roles of the States in coastal zone management and establish the
financial and informational bases of support for such efforts, they are
seriously deficient in providing for a strong Federal involvement that
is necessary for two important reasons: (1) to establish substantive
policy objectives and guidelines for effective coordination, on a
regional basis, of the separate activities of the individual States; and
(2) to take the lead in tackling the difficult issue of how to make
decisions (at State, regional, and Federal levels) based on trade-offs
between measurable and nonmeasurable benefits and costs to society
at all levels. Unless this involvement is provided for at the Federal
level any political reorganization that relies on the primary role of the
States attacks only half the problem. Thus, we would have to be
prepared to accept, at best, halfway solutions. There is doubt in my
mind that this would be any improvement over the situation as it
exists today, as inefficient and deplorable as it certainly is. There is
real danger here for we run the risk, for all our well intentioned
uO of creating more serious problems than those we are striving
to solve.

B. Pricine Pouicy ror Pusitic Recreation LANDS
(By W. Robert Patterson, MIT)
I. INTRODUCTION

The guarantee of open spaces and recreational areas is not an iso-
lated policy on which politicians and government agencies can act
independently but is just one of many policies to be evaluated, having
as their common denominator the resource land. Open spaces and
recreational areas are lands to which people can go for the enjoyment
of their beauty, or recreational areas where people can appreciate the
pleasures of outdoor activities and living. Recreational areas can also
be the black-topped basketball courts stuffed into the heart of the
ghetto, for this area serves a similar purpose to its users. The urban
recreational area is more a function of city planning and land resource
reutilization within the urban-industrial core and, as such, will not be
treated in this paper.

Open space land development involves the trading of costs and
benefits between agricultural and nonagricultural land uses. Non-
agricultural land uses include urban developments, public facility
developments, industrial usage, wildlife reserves, parklands, and
Federal, State, and local recreational areas. Some of these are for direct
consumptive use such as homesite establishment, while others use
land as the necessary resource in the process before the end product
reaches the ultimate consumer. By measuring the benefit-cost ratios
for all those competing uses, the land manager can determine which
use best meets the demands for the future. Land for parks and recrea-
tional areas must compete for existing available land on this basis.

The demand for parks and recreational areas depends upon many
factors. The most important ones are the size of the population, the
level of income, the amount of leisure time, and the type of transporta-
tion available to the users. Social, cultural, and physical factors like
the level of education, the amount of physical activity on the job, and
the level of community participation in recreation, influence the
demand to a lesser degree.

Over the years, these factors have been changing so that the demand
for recreational areas and parkland has increased. This trend does not
seem to be leveling off, but rather all indicators point to greater rates
of growth in the demand for the future. The problem is one of providing
the new facilities and maintaining the existing ones to meet this de-
mand. The supply of land for recreation and open spaces is a fixed
quantity. Also, it is a characteristic of much recreational and open
space land that many uses render them economically unsalvageable.
The recreational use of these available lands must compete with all
other possible uses. In the long run, the people must indicate how
they would like these lands to be used, by their preference in the
market place or indirectly through the political process. Their de-
mands for recreational lands are shown in their willingness to sacrifice

(145)

146

the use of these lands for those competing applications, in order that
they can develop parks and recreational facilities. The magnitude
of their demand is reflected in the price they are willing to pay for the
recreational activities available to them.

This paper focuses upon the pricing policy in the establishment and
Management of parks and recreational areas. What price should be
charged the users of these areas and how does the price set influence
that use? Pricing is one of the key issues in the present utilization of
recreational lands and in the development of facilities for the future.
Should the price charged refiect in any way the benefit accrued to the
user? This type of pricing policy treats the recreational experience as a
private good. The opposite position can also be taken. Charging the
users very little and collecting taxes from everybody to pay for these
facilities. In this case, the recreational facility is a public good. This
paper looks specifically at the public versus private good arguments
relative to pricing.

In order to understand the problems in pricing, an overview of the
trends, past, present, and future, of recreational demand is given.
Following this, the pricing history of parklands and recreational areas
is documented to complete the background. The current problems of
pricing are discussed and conclusions are drawn on the best method to
price the use of public recreational lands. The discussion and analysis
continues by formulating several objective functions for parkland
use, then setting forth the pricing policies required to meet these
objectives. In conclusion, the future trend in recreation is reiterated
along with a summary of the key issues of public recreation and the
pricing policy best for the development and maintenance of recrea-
tional areas. ry

Il, DEMAND—PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

Open spaces and recreation areas are economic goods which the
people of this country desire along with all other goods. The benefits
of these recreational goods are far more intangible than most commodi-
ties and very difficult to evaluate due to the treatment of these as
public goods. Accordingly, the demand for lands as recreational areas
is a most complex problem to appraise.

In the early years of this country, the demand for land as homesteads
was great. It was one of the prime motivating forces behind the
dynamic movement of the economy. This land not only supported the
family, but also provided the necessary place for outdoor activities.
The goal for each individual then, was to own his land. Frederick
Turner noted in his book,! ‘“‘The Frontier in American History’ that
“the existence of an area of free land, in continuous recession, and the
advance of American settlement westward, explain the American de-
velopment.’ Thus, along with economic and social growth of the
country, the available lands for open spaces were dwindling. The
“continuous recession” ! of free land is most relevant to our demand
for recreational areas today.

The actual demand for recreation in the 1800’s was limited, al-
though public policy for city recreation areas dates back as far as
1828 in Philadelphia. It was not a widely demanded good, because of

1 Turner, F. J., “The Frontier In American History,’ Henry Holt, New York, 1920.

147

the puritanical concepts of the people who regarded hard work as
virtue and leisure as something to be shunned. At the same time, the
very activities, which are demanded today for recreation, such as
hunting and fishing, were just part of the everyday life then.

It was not until the urbanization of the late 1800’s and early
1900’s that the demand for parklands and recreational areas started
to materialize. The concentration of people in cities and their increased
affluence, created different needs in society. The establishment of pro-
fessional sport teams helped counter some of the puritanical attitudes.
The major impetus came during the 1910’s and 1920’s. Population
concentration in the urban areas was reaching 40 to 50? percent, and
the mobility of the people improved with the development of the au-
tomobile. In 1916 the National Park Service * was founded, with 17
national parks and monuments being established before 1932. Many
other Government departments have been established since to de-
velop parkland and multiuse areas for recreation and conservation.

What are the causal factors in the demand for recreation? First
and foremost is the population and its demographic distribution.
In 1850 there were 23.2 million 2 people in the United States. Over
the interim years there has been a rapid increase to the current
220 million. * this number is projected to reach 351 million by the
year 2000.” In 1850 only 15 percent of the people were urbanized
while by 1900, almost 40 percent lived in cities.” Today over 70
percent of the population live in the urbanized areas and by year
2000 the concentration could exceed 80 percent.” This means a
critical congestion of people onto a small percentage of the available
land and a continuous reduction, due to the increasing numbers, in
the land available.

Another of the causal factors that influences the demand for
recreation is the level of affluence in our society. There has been an
upward sweep of both the real personal income per capita and the
percentage of it spent on recreation. Adjusting for the depression
and the war years, expenditures on sports equipment as a percentage
of disposable personal income rose on the average of 1 percent per
year during the 1930’s and 1940’s and increased to 1.5 percent during
the 1950’s.* The demand for recreation is keeping up with the 1.5
to 1.75 percent increase of population annually.* The current trend
in real income per capita is nearer to 2 percent.

Leisure time is also a most important causal factor. With the
continual shortening of working hours, the hours of leisure available
to each person are increasing. Recent proposals for converting to
a 4-day workweek indicate how strong this trend may be. Over the
50 years from 1900, leisure time per capita rose about 27 percent, while
real incomes increased about 150 percent.’ Today the rate of increase
in leisure time is changing even faster and is expected to increase by
by 12 percent by the year 2000.* The working week in the year 2000
may be only 32 hours long. :

The mobility of the population is another of the causal factors in the
demand. As transportation systems improved, the relative cost per
person in traveling to and from his favorite recreation area decreased.

2 Ottoson, H. W., Land Use Policy and Problems In The United States, University of Nebraska Press,
63.

Lincoln, 19

3 Barlowe, Rahleigh, ‘‘Land For Recreation,” Land Use Policies and Problems In The United States,
University of Nebraska Press, 1963.

4 Clawson and Knetsch, ‘‘Economics of Outdoor Recreation,’’ Resources For The Future, The Johns
Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1966.

148

Before the First World War, travel by all mechanical means averaged
500 to 800 miles per person per year.* During the twenties, travel by
Americans made rapid increases so that by 1930, the average travel
per person was 3,000 miles per year. Presently, this value stands at
5,000 per year, and by the year 2000 it may be as high as 9,000 miles
per year per person.* With the continual increases in real per capita
income, more persons will be able to own their own means of transpor-
tation and the traveling in leisure hours will rise significantly.

Many secondary factors affect the demand for recreation. Some of
these are, however, extremely difficult to quantify. For instance, total
participation in outdoor recreation generally rises as the educational
level of the participants rises. The correlation here is not clear since the
level of income also increases with the level of education. The demand
for recreation may change, as the relative position of the individual
and the group changes in the whole social situation. Mass congestion
may create abnormal demands for open spaces and physical activity
in the outdoors. These demands may be channeled into other directions
through communications media, but it may not be enough to control
the large increases forecasted in the demand. |

How large an increase is very much debatable. Marion Clawson, in
his article ‘‘The Crisis in Outdoor Recreation,” ° foresees a fivefold to
fifteenfold increase, from 1960 to the end of the century. The US.
Forest Service is planning in terms of a fourfold projection for the same
period while the ORRRC looks for a threefold increase. The ORRRC
projection comes from the 95-percent increase in population from 1960
to the year 2000 and a 184-percent increase in the participation rate.
Even the most conservative of those estimates is a disturbing realiza-
tion for those who must create, develop, and maintain the parklands
and recreational areas necessary to meet this demand. At the same
time, consideration must be given to any decline in recreation facility
use due to the increase in the number of people visiting the areas and
to any downgrading in the quality of the environment from crowding
or overuse. Education, mass media efforts, and community restructur-
ing could bring about a marked reduction in the growth of the demand.
It is impossible to imagine that the growth could change so drastically
that the current facilities would suffice. Even in this case any restruc-
turing in the type of demands would also necessitate a change in the
recreational areas and parklands. Besides the causal factor influencing
the demand, there are several significant features of the demand for
recreation which must be noted.

The demand for recreation is unequally distributed throughout
the population. The very young and the very old desire less rec-
reation than do those in their teens and middle years. The type of
recreation demanded by teenagers and young adults is much more
physically active than for those of middle age. Participation by in-
come shows that as the family income increases so does the demand.
Barlowe in his article “‘Land for Recreation” ? states that for families
Whose income is under $3,000 there are 18.5 days of participation

3 Barlowe, Rahleigh, “Land For Recreation,” Land Use Policies and Problems In The United States,
University of Nebraska Press, 1963.
4 Clawson and Knetsch, ‘‘Economics of Outdoor Recreation,” Resources For The Future, The Johns

Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1966
5 “Crisis In Outdoor Recreation,’ American Forest, March-April 1959.

149

per person. For families with incomes between $3,000 and $6,000,
the days per person increase to 33.4; and for families of $6,000 or
more, the averages are from 40 to 50 days per person. Within this
level of participation the type of recreation enjoyed by the various
income-level families changes. Quite obviously, yachting would not
be one of the activities chosen by the lower salaried classes.

Other patterns exist in the demand. Cyclic fluctuations in the
demand occur over the period of a day, a week, a month, and the year.
Patterns also exist in the areas to which the people visit. Some recre-
ation or park areas are used only in the summer, while others find
use spread out more evenly during the year. The local areas are used
during the year while people vacation to some of the more scenic
parks. The reason for visiting the recreation area also changes over
the season. The fishermen in the summer are replaced by the hunters
in the fall.

The distribution of the demand over the type of recreation area
available in the intermmediate and resource base classes can be
shown by the National Park Service statistics.* Back in 1926, the
demand for these parkland and wilderness areas was approximately
4.6 million visits. In 1956, it had increased to 52.5 million and is
expected to reach 230 million visits by 1976. These visits were divided
between improved public areas (areas improved by public funds),
and unimproved public areas (wilderness areas). In 1936, one-fifth
of the visits were to unimproved public areas but by 1964, twice as
Many visits were made to unimproved areas as were made to im-
proved areas. This indicates cither an interest of the people in wilder-
ness areas or the lack of improved areas to go to. Of the total national
park visits in 1965, one-third of these were to national parks, one-
quarter to historical sights, and 10 percent to national monuments.
Wildlife refuges for hunting and fishing have seen an Increase in visitor
days from 3.4 million in 1951 to 11.1 million in 1961, a threefold
increase over 10 years.® Over the 10-year period from 1955 to 1965
this value only doubled. Many factors could influence this demand,
thus reducing its growth rate. Most important in this respect would
be the adequate supply of areas available to fulfill the demand. If
this supply were not sufficient, many people would have to do without.

The land required to increase the supply of land available for
recreation must come from the existing 2,274 million acres in the
United States. Of this total, 282 million acres is already available as
nonurban public designated outooor areas as of 1960, or slightly over
12 percent of the total.”* The governments, Federal, State, and munici-
pal own 34, 4, and 1 percent of the lands respectively. Of the 59 percent
in private hands, 50 percent is designated farmland. Thus for future
expansion of recreational lands, the Federal or State governments
could increase the supply or farmers and private landowners could be
convinced that it is beneficial to open their land for recreation. The
policy to guarantee open spaces and recreation areas for the future

6 Clawson and Held, ‘‘The Federal Lands: Their Use And Management,’’ Resources For The Future,
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1957. 1

7 Outdoor Resources For Recreation Review Committee Reports, (ORRRC), GPO, 1962.

(a) ORRRC #1, “Public Outdoor Recreation Areas: Acreage, Use, and Potential.’’

(b) ORRRC #3, ‘Wilderness and Recreation—A Report On Resources, Values and Problems.”

(c) ORRRC #12, “Paying For Recreation Facilities.”’

(d) ORRRC #19, ‘‘National Recreation Survey.” :
(ec) ORRRC #22, “Trends In American Living And Outdoor Recreation.”

150

must define which of the two is the most beneficial source and how the
necessary lands should be made available and where.

III. PRICING HISTORY OF FEDERAL LANDS

A prime policy concern is with the issue of what direct charges should
be made for the use of public recreation facilities. To set this discussion
in perspective it is necessary to understand, at least in broad terms,
the system of user charges that presently exists. Before commencing
a discussion of this point, however, it seems desirable to first discuss
the context within which the present system evolved.

First of all, the sale of Federal lands, resources, and its uses has
never properly fit the economists’ model of perfect competition. While
it is true that in the early history of this country competitive sale of
the original public lands was tried, little was disposed of in this fashion.
There were several reasons for this. For one, the concept of selling
land on the frontier at the greatest possible price conflicted with the
whole prevailing social value system of the era. The idea of competitive
sale was replaced with a system of fixed low prices, which became
lower yet since they did not keep pace with the rising price level. Grad-
ually, through the passage of years and through the homestead and
other laws, the idea of the public domain as free land came to be ac-
cepted. Significantly, these along with other factors, gave rise to the
attitude that public domain was common property, available on a
first-come-first-served basis with little regard for the interests of the
public at large. This attitude is part of our heritage and, to this time,
still has its effects on Federal land policy.®

For the most part, the idea of free land is no longer valid today, but
it has had an evolutionary impact on present pricing policies of Federal
lands. Acts have been passed giving the Federal Government the
authority to levy charges for the use and sale of Federal lands and
resources; however, they have frequently been resisted and the
charges that have been made are in many instances very low. The
pricing policy of Federal lands has developed along other lines than the
maximization of revenue. This has been especially true for recreational
users of the public lands.

For example, the National Park Service has collected entrance fees
at some major parks for quite a long time. Yet, prior to 1956 less than
10 percent of total expenditures on the national park system came from
this source; receipts per visit averaged about 10 cents, and car en-
trance fees for the entire system averaged out to less than $1 per car.
In more recent years, entrance fees to the national park system have
covered 5 percent or less of total expenditures. The National Forest
Service, has also made some charges—although rather low ones—for
some campgrounds and other areas. Receipts from this source were too
small to be even shown separately until after 1956. Other Federal
agencies, in general, made no charges for recreational use of land and
water properties under their management prior to the midsixties.* __

A significant development occurred in the area of pricing of Federal
recreation lands at this point. This was the passage of the Land and

151

Water Conservation Fund Act in 1964. This act permits and en-
courages user or admission fees to Federal recreation areas when cer-
tain broad conditions are met; moreover, the imposition of admission
fees does not preclude levying additional charges such as a camping or
boat-launching fee. The passage of this act has stimulated to some
extent the use of fees by a number of Federal agencies.

One reason to expect an increase in user charges is that funds raised
from fees at Federal recreation areas, along with certain other revenues,
are placed in the land and water conservation fund. Subject to con-
gressional approval, these funds are available for recreation purposes
as grants-in-aid to States as well as for the acquisition of additional
Federal lands for recreation. It would not seem unlikely then, that
faced with an increasing demand for recreation the Federal agencies
would be under considerable internal and external pressure to increase
the importance of user fees, in order to increase the land and water
conservation fund.

The use of recreation fees and charges is, of course, not confined
to Federal lands. A 1962 mail survey made by the Division of Parks
of the State of Ohio, for example, indicated that 17 of 45 replying
States made some charge for use of their parks, at that time. The
proportion has no doubt increased since then. The survey also revealed
the great diversity in the kinds of fees charged, ranging from a $10
annual entrance fee to a 25-cent daily parking fee. Neither is the use
of fees confined to the public level. Fees are commonly charged at
private campgrounds or for, activities such as hunting and fishing
on private land.*

In summary, then, user charges for recreational lands are evolving
from the point where essentially no charge was made to the present
situation where they have become quite common. They are still far
from universal and in most cases not a major source of revenue.

IV. PRICING: ITS DETERMINATION, APPLICATION, AND EFFECTS
Introduction

The intended effect of any free market pricing mechanism is to
maximize the utility or social welfare function of the individual con-
sumer or recipient of goods and services. The free market assump-
tion, when related to recreational goods and services, may be
challenged on the basis of numerous market imperfections that
nullify competitive market theory application. Political processes, as
history points out, dominate the less persuasive forces provided by
economic analysis in allocating resources to satisfy an elusive demand
for recreation that may often be characterized as a nonrevealed
preference good.

Limiting this discussion to national (resource-oriented) and State
(intermediate) facilities, it will be demonstrated that the arguments
for classifying recreational’ goods as public commodities dominate
those favoring a private categorization. The structure of pricing is
clearly sensitive to the merit of this conclusion. The application of a
user fee appears to contradict the philosophy grounding pure public
commodities as exemplified in the rationale of the price theory of

4 Clawson and Knetsch, ‘‘Economics of Outdoor Recreation,” Resources For The Future, The Johns
Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1966.

152

value in public finance in which taxes, either general or special, are
considered the price paid for a collective good which may be regulated
via legislative influence, by the buyer-voter. A balance sheet must
be constructed to reflect the trade-offs involved with both user fees
and taxation.

The effects of any pricing policy applied to recreational lands and
services are quite pervasive. Investment decisions, mostly at the
State level, often rely heavily on projected returns which might be
required to retire bond issues. As a management tool, pricing can be
used in rationing demand to prevent overuse, thereby maximizing
total user satisfaction. By varying the pricing structure discriminately,
user types can be regulated and various income distribution goals met.

It will be the purpose of this section to explore in detail the various
introductory issues, applications, and effects influencing the pricing
policy decision as related to resource-oriented and intermediate
recreational areas. The public versus private good issue will be docu-
mented and a balanced opinion formulated. The implications on pricing
policy generated by the public good classification will be researched
highlighting the taxation or free access versus user fee issue. Finally,
a cursory treatment of the various objectives and their pricing policy
means will be offered as a basis for more detailed treatment in the
section to follow on objective functions.

Recreational goods and services—Public or prwate?

The exact nature of, and justification for, a public good or service
has been the subject of much economic theory and debate. Fiekowsky
sets three criteria which an intended public service must meet to justify
its collectivity :”

1. It must be impractical to collect fees;

2. Benefits from consuming the good must extend beyond the
individual to other members of society; and

3. The individual can have little knowledge of the effects of
such consumption on his own welfare.

Samuelson, in his theory of government expenditure, defines collec-
tive consumption goods as those ‘‘which all enjoy in common in the
sense that each individual’s consumption of such a good leads to no
subtraction from any other individual’s consumption of that good.”
Downs further clarifies “collective goods” as those whose cost all
citizens should be coerced to pay since an individual’s share of the
benefits is larger than the cost he alone would agree to pay.” He
suggests intermediate cases of goods as well, noting that not all mem-
bers of society benefit equally from public services which are limited
by capacity. Margolis goes furthest i stating that there is no ‘‘tech-
nical’? reason why services furnished by the Government could not
be provided by private concerns.”*

When focusing on recreation as a “collective good,’’ as defined
by the theorists, several inconsistencies are apparent. Fees can be
collected in many cases. Increased consumption of any one resource

153

will ultimately reduce the satisfaction derived from that resource, on
an individual basis. Such technical flaws do not preclude use of the
public good concept in recreation, particularly in light of the numerous
market imperfections inherent in a ‘‘private good” approach. It will
be useful to methodically pursue the technical and practical arguments
which have been put forth in defense of each.

The case for the public good

Competetive market imperfections abound when recreational
services are considered. In pure competition, the seller must be able
to withold his product or service to force buyer prices up. Like national
defense, the more esthetic pleasures of wilderness (clean air, pano-
ramas, wildlife) could be witheld only at great cost, thereby destroying
the marketability of the recreational “product.” Public opinion also
exerts market distorting forces as witnessed by the number of private
landowners who have been coerced into opening their lands to hunt-
ing, fishing, etc. As Ely put it in 1935:8

Even though we respect the private owner’s rights to land for productive pur-
poses, we often experience a feeling of resentment whenever land is “‘posted’’ to
keep out picnickers, hikers, hunters, and nature lovers whose use of the land does
not and need not interfere with commercial land utilization.

Such opinion, though attenuated by increased urbanization, per-
sists today. Clawson sums it up nicely:

All in all, the market structure of the outdoor recreation “industry’”’ does not
favor private suppliers of recreation opportunity.’

A number of practical investment considerations contribute to the
lack of attractiveness of private recreational wilderness development.
In the resource and intermediate parks, demand generally lags physical
development of a facility, forcing the private operator to sustain losses
during an uncertain number of years, during which volume must build
to permit an eventual profit margin. Often the large size of recreational
ventures, both physically and monetarily, present a risk factor great
enough to deter investor pools. Even with government-sponsored risk
imsurance, which has been adopted in some European countries but
not yet in the United States, the return on investment remains
sufficiently low as to encourage enterprise to enter a host of alternative
industries rather than put capital in wilderness type recreation. The
present government concession system which is receiving much current
support, is strictly a compromise measure and cannot be considered a
viable investment in the context of this pro-public good reasoning, it
should be pointed out.

Another valid argument points up a defect inherent im the free
market system, namely the production of objectionable facilities
under free enterprise due to the profit motive under which most
managements must operate. By catering to those who are most willing
and able to pay, recreational facilities will develop that do not appeal
to the majority of prospective users. Cultural and esthetic aspects of
the environment, it is reasoned, will be neglected as the construction
of hotels, motels, and resort-type areas proliferates. An unequal income
distribution would be the overall economic effect with the rich monopo-
lizing the panoramas of the country’s resource based parks. A public

154

service treatment properly administered, would therefore move
toward income equalization.

Perhaps the most critical argument regarding pricing theory is based
on the social externalities of consumption; i.e., the general public
benefit that is derived from wilderness recreational areas. Such bene-
fits include the building of a full and well balanced personal life, the
vicarious pleasure involved in just knowing that such wilderness areas
exist, and the improved welfare of the Nation in the aggregate. Such
philosophic reasoning is difficult to justify quantitatively and the
absence of empirical data on the subject is obvious to these researchers.
Long ago, public schools were created out of similar reasoning over
the objections of many who thought it immoral to be forced to pay
for another child’s education. In this case, the electorate and econo-
mists agreed that the general public benefits were so great as to
justify whatever inequalities that developed from a general tax. Many
experts in the field of recreation believe that their commodity pro-
duces similar benefits. The force of public opinion in the United
States, however, has not yet rallied in this direction. Increased. popu-
lation densities of the future with the attendant frictions may very
well provide the impetus necessary.

A final argument uses the efficiency of centralization as its premise.
Global control of recreational projects and facilities permits the sensi-
tive balance to be maintained between types of areas. The services of
specialists such as archaelogists, geologists, and historians are avail-
able to a large management, services which would prove prohibitively
costly to the private developer.

The case for the private good

The proponents of recreation as a private good rely on the more
general attributes of the competitive market structure to justify
their position. It is implicit in their reasoning that the social externali-
ties for the consumption of recreational goods is exaggerated and that
the consumer can display a preference for the commodity which is
reflected in user data compiled by past researchers. By permitting the
free market forces to operate, the most efficient allocation of nature’s
resources will be attained, and with a minimum of expensive govern-
ment intervention. The problem of overuse would be rectified by the
high prices that would accompany excessive demands.

A second line of reasoning attacks the government’s, or any cen-
tralized management’s, for that matter, ability to accurately determine
the specific needs of its people in a timely manner. The free market
would be more sensitive to changing patterns of demand, it is argued,
and at the same time would eliminate the steel-grey uniformity that
seems to accompany most products of bureaucracy.

The balance

A resolution of the public-private good issue clearly involves
qualitative judgments which draw heavily on the personal character,
experience, and motivations of the individual. In my opinion, the
implementation of recreational facilities of the resource and inter-
mediate types is best accomplished through a central authority. The
problems outlined which would result from private control under free
enterprise are very real as can be witnessed in areas outside of the
recreational sphere; i.e., pollution. The adverse income distribution

155

effects created by free enterprise in this application are offensive to
our senses of equality and social justice.
Pricing policy implications of the public good concept

Under a pure public good system, free access to all recreational
facilities should be the rule, regardless of the costs involved in the
initial purchase, in construction, and in continuing general mainte-
nance of an area. A general or special tax levy would provide the funds
for such an undertaking and everyone would be charged, independent
of the amount of individual benefit accrued. This “pure” pricing
policy must be modified, however, to accommodate several very
practical problems.

Overuse, resulting from excessive demand, quickly despoils the
esthetic quality of a wilderness environment. Several of our biggest
resource parks (Yosemite and Grand Teton, in particular) are cur-
rently in danger of such overuse as automobiles choke terrain-limited
roadways during peak periods. Expansion of such areas is an impossi-
bility due to the physical constraints involved, leaving price as the
most obvious rationing mechanism. Valid philosophical arguments
again appear, decrying the reliance on social externalities of consump-
tion as being excessive. Fairness dictates then, that some form of user
fee be implemented to impart some element of individual (versus
eroup) justice.

The arguments supporting user fees are entirely compatible with a
modified public good concept. Advocates, referring specifically to
State intermediate areas, reason that user fees make the person who
lives out of State contribute, in some measure, to the cost of the area,
relieving lecal taxpayers of the entire burden. Federal grants-in-aid
to States cannot be expected, in this case, to alone eliminate this in-
equality. User fees will insure that the poor will not subsidize the rich,
given the demand patterns across income levels that presently exist for
outdoor recreation. User attitude will be improved, it is believed, if
some fee is levied, causing a respect to develop for the facilities that
otherwise would not have existed. (One can think of the opposite case
here, where users consider the charge to go toward clean-up men’s
salaries, hence demonstrating less respect for an area.) As a manage-
ment tool, fees could control use of parks, equalize income distribution,
or accomplish a host of other policies that the central planning agency
might promulgate. In a strictly practical vein, user fees would raise
the necessary revenue to finance future expansion in the absence of
government allocated funds, funds which require legislative sanction
centered on the arousal of public opinion which may be difficult to
generate.

Opponents of user fees resort to the broad economic principles
surrounding the pure public good concept. The price theory of value
in public finance, although not generally accepted by economists,
provides the backbone for the ‘free access” ® arguments. According
to it, the Government acts as a producer or firm in the economy,
providing public goods and services to the “buying” citizenry. Taxes
are viewed as the price paid for such goods and services while the
taxpayer is really a taxpayer-buyer. The determination of what
quantities of goods and services to be supplied is then based on the

9 Esearrez, Donald R., ‘The Price Theory of Value In Public Finance,’’ University of Florida Press,
Gainesville, 1966.

57—242—71——_11

156

taxpayer’s vote in the political process, and the individual’s taxes
constitute the allocation of the value or cost of the goods and sery-
ices. Theoretically, the majority will be satisfied with the results of
their own voting recommendation.

Such a view is too abstract to be useful. Specifically, voters rarely
cast their ballot solely or even remotely on the recreational policy
stand of their candidate. Other more important issues dominate
and the decision of the voter can be assumed to be relatively in-
sensitive to the pressures of recreational demands. Letters to Congress-
men and other forms of political influence are generally biased toward
usage by the upper socioeconomic classes, in effect defeating the income
equalization argument which ‘free access’ is designed to engender.

Opponents of user fees also cite funds created by the practice as
being subject to wild fluctuation in times of economic depression,
causing havoc within the financial structure of the managing agency
which will not be able to meet even fixed costs. This argument is not
supported by demand figures, it should be pointed out. Park usage,
save during times of declared war, has maintained a constant growth
rate, independent of the state of the economy at any point in time.

It can be concluded that the need for user fees is a relevant one,
considering the conditions threatening our parks due to increased
population. In our opinion, user fees, coupled with other rationing
devices, represent valuable management tools to the administering
authority. This compromise of the pure public good ‘free acess”
policy carries benefits far in excess of costs and should be implemented,

consistent with broader recreational policy goals. .

User fee composition and other rationing devices

The amount of user fee to be levied is a function of general policy
and the geographic makeup of the recreational area. Section V will
outline this relationship in more detail. Similarly, the composition of
the fee can be adjusted to implement such policy and is limited in
variability only by the imagination of the governing authority.
Entrance charges per car or per person are feasible in limited access
situations. Passes, either hand held or of the decal type, can be issued
annually or semiannually as an alternative to the pay-as-you-go
structure. Specific activities within the park can also bear fees.
Differential charges, based on the time of week, the geographic origin
of the visitor, or, perhaps, the income of the user are other alternatives.
Across the country to date, there are some 40 combinations of these
basic fee structures that have been implemented with varying degrees
of success.

Other rationing devices have found widespread use as well. In
camping areas, Maximum stay times can be enforced. For single-day
activities such as boating, hiking, picnicking, or just sightseeing, upper
limits on number of persons or cars can be set, turning away all
excess demand. In an extreme case, the transportation to an area can
be established by the authority (train line, shuttle busses, etc.),
thereby limiting the density of the visiting throngs.

Vv. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PUBLIC POLICY OBJECTIVES

As stated before, the purpose of this paper is to look at what role
user charges should play in public recreational policy. Up to this

157

point, the analysis has been set against the background of (1) the
development and expected increase in demand for recreation in the
future, (2) historic governmental pricing policies as they apply to the
sale and use of Federal lands, and (3) some of the commonly presented
arguments in support of different user charge policies. If such a policy
is to be formulated on a rational basis, however, it is necessary to
take into consideration an additional factor: namely, the overall
objective of recreational policy, as differing objectives will call for a
different system of user fees.

The goal of public recreational policy in society, moreover, is but
one aspect of the more general governmental problem of allocating
resources among various competing uses. Thus, governmental policies
influencing public recreation should desirably be consistent with this
larger problem of maximizing social welfare, and the specification of
what objective function should be operative is not an intuitively
obvious one in this context.

One way to gain some appreciation of the variations in user charges
that would result from different objectives is simply to list a set of
objectives and hypothesize what pricing policies would be consistent
with each. Before doing this, however, it should be interesting to look
at what the stated objectives are of an agency such as the National
Park Service, for in this case it is possible to make a comparison
between the pricing policy we would assume to be appropriate with the
system of actual fees.

One of the main problems in doing this is to formulate some definitive
statement of what the operating objective of the National Park
Service is. This is because usually multiple objectives are stated. To
establish some understanding of what these guiding principles are,
two quotations are presented below. The first is from the act establish-
ing the Park Service wherein Congress said:

The Service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal
areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations, herinafter specified
by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said
parks, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve scenery and the national
historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the
same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.

A more recent statement of what the proper objectives of the Park
Service should be was made by Secretary of the Interior, Stewart
Udall, in a memorandum on June 10, 1964. He listed six objectives,
three of which are noted below:'°

(1) To provide the highest quality of use and enjoyment of the
National Park System by increased millions of visitors in years to
come. [emphasis supplied.] Bi,

(2) To conserve and manage for their highest purpose the
natural, historical, and recreational resources of the national
park system. : :

(3) To develop the national park system through inclusion of
additional areas of scenic, scientific, historical, and recreational
value to the Nation. 2

Both of these statements place a great deal of emphasis on objectives
such as conservation and the maintenance of a high quality of use for

10 «A ministrative Policies—For Natural Areas of the National Park System,’’ U.S. Department of the
Interior, NPS, GPO, 1968.

158

future generations. The statement by Secretary Udall also brings in
the idea of expanding the park system presumably for the purpose of
conserving these new areas and to add to the future enjoyment of the
society.

If ieee fees were the only available policy instrument these objectives
would seem to require fairly significant charges for at least two reasons:

(1) To serve as a rationing device to prevent overuse of the park
system and subsequent deterioration.

(2) To yield a source of revenue for—

(a) Investment in the present park system to improve and
maintain the quality of the parks; and
(6) Financing the addition of new areas to the park system.

Pricing policies are not the only available instruments, of course,
and they are not the only possible source of revenues, and indeed for
some conceivable objective functions pricing policies may not be very
effective. But in this instance, with these stated objectives, and the
facts that revenues from user fees represent such a small fraction of
total expenditures,* little attempt is made to regulate usage with the
amount charged, and to ease the peaks in demand. It would seem that
user prices and revenues are far below what they should be and incon-
sistent with the stated objectives of the National Park Service.

There are a number of other possible objectives than the official ones
of the National Park Service. It is interesting to look at some of these
and see what pricing policies they imply. In doing this, it may be
convenient to reference figure 1 which attempts to portray graphically
the total usage (or perhaps enjoyment) that may be expected over all
time versus different levels of user charges, for say one park. This is
admittedly extremely simple and restrictive but it brings out some
qualitative effects.

(1) Conserve the natural state of the park. In this case very few
people if any would be allowed into the park. This would be the case
where extremely high user fees are levied.

(2) Maximize the usage of the park in the present. This is the
opposite extreme to the previous alternative and is the case where so
much use is made of the park in the present, that deterioration becomes
so great the park is less attractive to people in the future. This policy
would imply a zero or very low fixed fee charge.

(3) Maximize the usage of the park over time. In figure 1, this point
is represented by Q,,. There are several aspects that should be noted
about this case. First of all, there is no guarantee, unless cost functions
can be specified, that the amount of revenue generated at this point
will be sufficient to cover costs. Therefore, this case may represent
some form of subsidy operation, as indeed may alternative 1 and as
will alternative 2.

Furthermore, if the goal was to maximize usage of the entire system
and not just this one park, the decision would be even more complex.
For in this instance, a trade-off must be made between visits to this
park and profit generated that can be invested in additions to the
park system, which in turn, would bring in more people.

159

TOTAL LONG-TERM USAGE ‘vs. USER FLEE

User Fee

a tet te a EN ee LTT TS BT EY

Q

m
Usage

FIGURE 1

(4) Maximize the profit of the park over time. This would involve
setting usage at the point where the marginal net present value of
benefits of additional use equals the marginal net present value of
costs of additional use. In order to do this realistically an extensive
cost-benefit analysis would have to be made analyzing future usage
affects on expected costs and what pricing levels would lead to what
usage in the future.

It is, of course, possible to extend such a list of alternative objectives
almost indefinitely. However, the point to be made is that user fees
should play an important role and exactly what form they do take
will be influenced by the objectives society sets. Moreover, any realistic
system of user fees would most likely want to take into account many
factors not possible to show in figure 1, such as the attempt to even
out peaks in demand and equating individual usage with incremental
costs incurred, if this was consistent with the desired objective
function.

160

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Participation in outdoor recreation has expanded rapidly in the
United States in recent times and is expected to continue to do so in
the foreseeable future. As projections of future recreation demand are
related to changes in population, leisure time, income, and education,
all of which are expected to increase significantly, even the more
conservative estimates predict very large increases in future recreation
demand.

Satisfying this demand and preserving the quality of our natural
resources and open spaces at the same time is indeed a challenging
problem. It will require large expenditures for new facilities and better
management of the existing ones. Moreover, a number of practices
that have been carried over from earlier years will need to be re-
evaluated in the light of present and future demand to insure they are
consistent with national goals.

One practice that deserves serious consideration is that of charging
user fees for public recreation area. This has been done on only a very
limited basis in the past, while somewhat more extensively recently.
Revenues collected from this source cover only a small fraction of
actual costs, however, and there would seem to be a large incentive
to bring costs and revenues more into line. Such an action would have
several beneficial effects. It would serve as a rationing device, a source
of revenue, and to eliminate the degree of unfairness that presently
exists. The present system is unfair in the sense that some persons are
able to use resources at less than full value, while others cannot be
equally accommodated.

It should be remembered, however, that public recreation is not a
completely private good, and as such it has a number of collective
aspects and externalities that must be taken into account with any
system of user charges. Recognizing this, present charges and revenues
are still much too low for the effective operation of the park system
and should be raised.

PART III. ECOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF COASTAL LAND
USE

We have come to realize in recent years that pressures of develop-
ment on our coastal lands have resulted in critical strains upon many
of the unique and limited resources these lands provide. The proximity
of coastal lands to the resources of the sea and to convenient water
transportation have historically generated early concentrations of
population along the coasts of our Nation. Low-cost transportation for
industry, recreational values for individuals, and the indefinable
er ea of the sea have nurtured the massive development we see
today.

Multitudes of coastal dwellers have been prodigal users of the unique
resources of the land. They have used the estuaries and the sea as
garbage dumps and filled the marshlands to increase industrial acreage.
Now the consequences are becoming evident. Life cycles of valuable
fish and wildlife have been disrupted by pollution, dredging, and filling.
Access to clean beaches and unpolluted water is far short of public
demand.

The critical situation of our coastal lands is now widely appreciated
and attention is being given to emergency measures at all levels of
government. The situation can be instructive, however, because it
demonstrates the volution of a crisis in land use, a crisis which might
have been averted with an appreciation of the limits of the resource
and with thoughtful, comprehensive planning for its highest use.
Consideration of the Bee pris situation should raise the question
of what other classes of lands—perhaps less easily defined and recog-
nized—may also be in critical supply. What other scarce land resources
are we currently putting to inferior uses today?

The group of papers in this part were prepared by students working
with Dr. John Teal of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Woods Hole, Mass. They describe some aspects of the importance of
estuarine areas and the relation of land use practices to the estuaries.
They also demonstrate the complexity of the problems which arise
when ecological considerations have been ignored in the development
of land for narrow purposes.

OVERVIEW
(By Prof. John M. Teal, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

Some sort of sensible land use policy for the United States is clearly
necessary. To decide what shall be done with our supply on Jand only
on the basis of how the owner can make the most money is no longer
suitable, if it ever was. This is true of all of our land but particularly so
of the limited land associated with our coastline. For example, it makes
a great difference to people throughout the country whether or not the

(161)

162

citrus groves of California are maintained for growing citrus or are sold
for housing developments. But even if the best citrus lands are con-
verted to growing houses and people, there are yet outer lands which
can be used for growing citrus. The same sort of argument does not
hold for our coastal areas (nor, for that matter, for any of our wetlands).
The coastal wetlands are our most productive natural systems and a
considerable amount of this production is, and much more could be,
used by our citizens. Most of our fish and shellfish production depends
on these areas. A considerable part of our recreational activities are
concentrated at the edge of the sea. A number of industries cannot be
located anywhere but directly on the coast, the most obvious examples
being ocean shipping and fishing.

The limited nature of the coast which is essentially a linear rather
than an areal feature of the landscape, and the greatly increased pres-
sures which our growing population and economy are putting on the
coast make it imperative that we plan to preserve these areas.

The student papers that accompany this note detail in brief form
some of the problems associated with the coastal areas. Perhaps they
overemphasize our lack of knowledge, for several seem to indicate that
we would have to do years of work before making reasonable recom-
mendations about coastal land use. I believe the intention was merely
to emphasize the difficulty of the problem which became apparent to
the students as they tried to find definite answers to the problems
and questions they encountered.

A number of general conclusions can be summarized from these
reports:

The coastal ecosystems of the United States are adapted to the
changing conditions that are found in the coastal lands and waters
throughout the year. Many of the kinds of animals important to us
depend upon these seasonal changes to coordinate their lives. People
may like to live in constant climates—air conditioned when hot, heated
when cold—but many animals do not. Changes which we make in
coastal climates which tend to even out the extremes, or to make
changes more abrupt will be generally detrimental to the organisms
living there.

Not only are changes in climate important, but interactions in
various aspects of climate are important. For example, the interactions
of temperature and salinity determine the survival of the young of
many estuarine species of commercial importance.

Actions taken in one relatively small area of the coast may have
consequences over a much larger region. The circulation of water
along the coast and the migrations of animals up and down the coast
distribute the effects of human action over a wide area.

Actions taken anywhere and everywhere in the watershed of a river
will have their effects concentrated into the estuary into which the
river empties. Thus land use many miles from the coast may be
critical to the health of the coastal region.

An accidental event, such as the introduction of a new species of
aleae, may have important effects on the ecology and even the geology
of the coastal region. I think the point to be made is that land use
policy must be sufficiently flexible to adapt to such accidental, unpre-—
dictable changes as will certainly occur.

163

Of all our land types, the coastal regions are one of the most limited.
I think a reasonable land use policy with respect to such a limited
resource, would be to restrict its use to those things which must be
there because they, by their nature, cannot be located anywhere else.

A. Lanp Use—Estvarine INTERACTIONS: SOME CONSIDERATIONS
(By Bradford Butman, MIT)
INTRODUCTION

The biologic importance of the estuarine zone has often been ne-
glected or overlooked when planning land use. This has occurred pri-
marily for two reasons: first, the ecological value of estuarine land is
not generally reflected in the market price, and second, it is often
difficult to predict whether a land use will have a significant effect
on the estuarine environment. A simple scheme is proposed which
will identify when a land use could affect estuarine biology. Identifi-
cation of possible land use—estuarine interaction is a necessary start
toward intelligent land use planning. To determine the actual magni-
tude and significance of the interaction in any particular situation
will require further detailed study.

BACKGROUND

Pritchard defines an estuary as follows:

An estuary is a semienclosed coastal body of water which has a free connection

with the open ocean and within which sea water is measurably diluted with fresh
water derived from land drainage.!
In general, an estuary exists where the land meets the sea and there is
fresh water inflow. Estuaries are mixing zones where fresh water con-
taining 1 part per thousand or less of dissolved salts gradually mixes
with sea water containing 35 parts per thousand dissolved salts. Much
of the estuary is under tidal influence. Estuaries have also been defined
as areas where there is significant fresh water influence. These areas
may extend many miles offshore. This paper will be concerned pri-
marily with the more conventionally defined estuaries, but it should
be kept in mind that the influence of land activities on the ocean
does not stop at the coastline.

Development in the United States has historically been on the
coastline and particularly near estuarine areas where both river and
ocean transportation are easily accessible. The coastal counties of the
USS. contain 33% of the population, four-fifths of it in urban areas,
but only account for 15% of the land area.? Forty percent of all
manufacturing is located in the coastal counties. With such dense
population and industrialization, estuarine regions have many use
conflicts. Use of the estuary for cooling water supply, waste disposal,
urban development, transportation and recreation compete with its
natural function as a biological habitat.

Estuaries are ecologically important because they are tremendously
fertile regions, producing more food than is usable in the estuary itself,

1D. W. Pritchard, “What is an Estuary: Physical Viewpoint” in Estwaries, ed. by G. H. Lauff, Ameri-

can Association for the Advancement of Science, publication 83. (Baltimore, Md.: Horn-Schafer Co.,

1967), p. 3. E :
2 Federal Water Quality Administration, U.S. Department of Interior, National Estuarine Pollution

Study (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970), p. 148.

164

and because many species inhabit the estuary for all or part of their
life cycles. Conditions (light, nutrient levels, circulation, etc.) im an
estuary-salt marsh region are such that plants can readily capture the
sun’s energy and store it for use by other organisms in the community.
Estuarine regions produce about ten tons of organic matter per acre per
year, whereas agriculture produces about one and one half to five tons
per acre per year.’ Open ocean production is generally less than one
half ton per acre per year. Ryther has estimated that the coastal
regions of the world (which in his definition include a large part of the
continental shelf, total about 10% of the ocean) support approxi-
mately half of the ocean’s fish supply.t Much of this production is in
ine estuarine zone. Thus a small area supports a great deal of marine
ife.

Many species inhabit the estuary for all of their life cycle. Others
use the estuary for a spawning ground, a nursery, or as a means of
passage to fresh water rivers. Table I lists the dependence of important
sport and commercial fish on the estuarine zone.

TABLE 1.1—ESTUARINE DEPENDENCE OF IMPORTANT SPORT AND COMMERCIAL FISH

Type of dependence

Biophysical region Permanent residence Passage zone Nursery zone
SPORTS FISH

North Atlantic_._..____.___- Croaker, Atlantic mackeral, bluefish__. Atlantic salmon, shad____ Striped bass.

Middle Atlantic._.__._._.___ Croacker, drums, Atlantic mackeral, Shadeologayeras 4 2 Do.
spot, bluefish.

Chesapeake___-__-_-____-_-_- Crabs, croaker, drums, spot, bluefish______- Oe a een ee Do.

South Atlantic.____-.______- Crabs, croaker, drums, spottedsea —-___- dou. JIfhes Uber Do.
trout, spot, bluefish.

Caribbean: 222285 ise. fir Spotted sea trout, spot, bluefish___.______--_--+__L_--__+-------

Gulf of Mexico____.-____---- Crabs, croaker, drums, spotted sea Shad! 82 st raeie a> awake, Do.
trout, spot, bluefish. '

Pacific Southwest____--____- Abalone, rockfish, barracuda______+_____-__=--_-----_-=-+-+---

Pacific Northwest____-_.___- Abalone, rockfish__._._--.----------- Salmon (chum, coho, Pink salmon.

king, red).
Alaskas oe Fk 2 eS Crabs 282 ee Ree ee fe ia. fe (af ROR cae YS! So Do.
Pacific Islands.___.______-.- Barracudas Ses ht ot EE AE IG REO, “ee ern eee
COMMERCIAL FISH

North Atlantic.__-.-_.__._-- Oysters, clams, croaker, flatfish____.__ Atlantic salmon, eel_____. Menhaden, lobsters.

Middle Atlantic____.__-_________- Oe. te eee ae Ce ee Eel_____- _ Menhaden.

Chesapeake-__-_______._-.- Oysters, clams, crabs, croaker, flatfish _____- do_ Do.

South Atlantic_ . Oysters, crabs, croaker, flatfish_.....___-__- do_ _ Shrimp, menhaden.

Caribbean_____ 2iBlatfis hiss seas cy 7 we ee _ Lobsters.

Gulf of Mexico_ Shrimp, menhaden.

Pacific Southwest

... Oysters, crabs, croaker, flatfish___..__.-____-
“J¢lams;-abalone: tlatfishe 422 =). sa Eh es ee eee

Pacific Northwest__-_____ an. Oysters, abalone, crabs, flatfish_______ Salmon ee coho, Pink salmon.

king, red).
Alaskat\? ccies Paseo). Crabs, flatfish_._. “352 fags ee _ Tee doviet. ALOE Gt Tes Shrimp, pink salmon.
Pacific Islands___._._-_-___- Oysters, fflattish:.2 8222 te 8 We gh eee Lobsters.

1 From FWQA, p. 116.

The commercial value of estuarine dependent species is large. The
U.S. fishing industry landed $438 million of fish in 1967. Two thirds
of the catch were estuarine dependent species. Five of the top six
species by weight spend some part of their lives in estuarine waters
(menhaden, crab, shrimp, salmon, flatfish). Seven of the top nine
species by value also depend on the estuary in some manner (shrimp,
ay che pod Mildred Teal, Life and Death of the Salt Marsh (Boston, Mass: Little Brown and Co., 1969),

get ohn H. Ryther, ““Photosynthesis and Fish Production in the Sea,’’ Science, vol. 166, (October 3, 1969),
p. 72.

165

salmon, oyster, crab, clam, menhaden, flatfish).? The recreational
value resulting from estuarine dependent species is difficult to esti-
mate; however, salt water fishermen spent $800 million in 1965, A
user benefit scheme developed by the FWQA gives a crude estimate of
the recreational value of estuaries as $300 million.® None of these
estimates of estuarine value include multiplier effects.

Species utilize and depend on the estuarine environment in dif-
ferent ways. The variability of temperature and salinity, both sea-
sonal and spatial, appears to be an important factor in the lives of
estuarine species. The estuary is a fertile region, protected from out-
side predators that cannot stand the fluctuations or absolute levels of
temperature and salinity characteristic of an estuary. The marsh
grass Spartina inhabits the muddy banks of the estuary and is a pri-
mary source of food for many organisms. Oysters and clams use the
estuarine bottom and depend on the tidal currents to circulate food
to them and carry away their wastes. The menhaden requires the
lowered salinity of estuarine water for proper metamorphosis and
growth. The striped bass and the shrimp use the estuary as a nursery.
The salmon uses the estuary as a passage zone to the fresh water in
which they spawn.

THE ESTUARINE ENVIRONMENT

The estuarine environment can be characterized by three param-
eters: the shape of the estuary, the water of the estuary, and the
circulation in the estuary. The ecology of the estuary depends signif-
icantly on each parameter. The parameters are listed below and their
biologic importance is indicated. The parameters interact to some
degree as a result of the variability and complexity of the estuarine
environment. Although superficial, these parameters help to describe
the important aspects of the estuary. .

Estuarine flow

Circulation pattern—direction and speed of currents. Tidal flow
generally dominates. Circulation influences the sedimentation pattern.
distribution of water properties, temperature, salinity, etc.

Flushing time—how fast estuarine water is replenished and replaced
een river water and seawater. Important for pollution and plankton
growth.

Variations in flow, seasonal and tidal—variations are characteristic
of estuaries.

Turbulence—degree and rate of vertical mixing. May affect plant
growth, chemical distributions.

Stream inflow—amount of fresh water entering the system, time
distribution of flow. Strongly affects salinity distribution.

Estuarine water properties
Chemical content—
Dissolved oxygen—may limit animal populations, strongly
affected by sewage discharge.
Toxic pollutants—may be lethal or harmful to populations. Oil,
heavy metals, pesticides.

5 FWQA, p. 151.
6 FWQA, pp. 153-155.

166

Nutients—may limit or enhance plant growth. Nitrogen and
phosphorus are especially important.

Salinity—varies with season and tide. Tolerance varies with species.
Salinities less than seawater characteristic of estuaries. Extremes
are lethal to estuarine organisms. Variations are important.

Temperature—varies with season and tide. Tolerance varies with
species. Variations are important to some species.

Transparency—clearness of water, may limit vertical extent of
plant growth.

Estuarine form

Shape—influences circulation, number and size of habitats available.

Size—influences circulation, area available for productivity,
habitats.

Character of bottom and topography—influences circulation, deter-
mines suitability for benthic habitats.

LAND USE—HESTUARINE INTERACTION

The survival of estuarine species depends on the stuarine parameters
listed above. Land uses which affect these parameters will alter the
ecological balance and may reduce the value of the estuarine area.
Important effects may range from changing the absolute levels of
of certain parameters to increasing or decreasing the variations of
these parameters. The specific effect that a change will have on the
biology of an estuary cannot be generally determined. However,
once the interaction is identified, research can be initiated to de-
termine the extent and significance of the effect. It is important to
know whether an interaction will occur, and through what mechanism.

Table II summarizes various land uses and their effects on the
estuarine environment. The primary influence is marked with a
(1), secondary effects are marked with a (2). An (s) under form in-
dicates that the change results primarily from sedimentation.

TABLE II.—LAND USE—EFFECTS ON ESTUARINE PARAMETERS

Activity and location Flow. Water Form

Watershed activity:

Damconstwuction. 2.2. Pee ae, Sue ee ee 1 2) de PON
Streamflow augmentation._._______________________- eee, ee 1 2 2s)
‘Land use:

VASTICUILUTC Seem ek =o =< Ae ie 2 s SeeRea eeeos nere ee 1 1 2(s)

AUTTeL UST eae «ame Me "ai ce gh OP ty ty eS Se eee ae Se

Urbain? 2249: ee ae eek Eee PIE IO ae IL} etd b 2” 2(s)
‘Power generation (heat discharge)______________________________-_-=----+=----- Vs eens
NTT ea a NE ie hn a ee ae ec 1 2(s)
Heavy construction, roads_-_____________________-____ ee Deen ath Ss PEO 2(s)

lEstuarine activity:

‘Marine construction ereaniaers: barriers) I OES i | 1 2 2(s)
iLand use:

NBRiCUILU Tal eee Sere ees LON ke ee ae ee SS 1 1 2(s)

TRCUS trial: Se ee eee See I ele Rt penne ee sae Le...) a ee

(BF) eae i a es A oh al A MN ALD pl Sent ted Pes gn. 2 2(s)

‘Power generation (heat discharge)__________________________________---------- pissy Se eRe
Marre File es Be ee ea Sete EP ADEL oS SMR D1 Nee eee 1
Transportation:

Dredeing (if required) 25. aes ee a Soc De le ee ee 1

Pollutionshazard2es C25 SEL eee hs ee ee Nie aaa UGS eee
Mining:

Sediment-sa ne. i Ses Sere es eae eee | oo Se a 1 VAD BCCI SE RR TEESE 1

167

Some of the mechanisms through which land activities affect the
estuarine environment are poorly understood. Many activities remove
the natural vegetation from the land. This results in increased runoff
and thus increased fresh water flow into the estuarine system. Agri-
culture, road construction, and urban development all affect the
estuarine circulation and the distribution of water properties through
increased runoff. Artificial regulation of streamflow will also alter
imputs of fresh water, particularly seasonal inflow. Impoundment of
water in a reservoir may change chemical and thermal properties.
Runoff, particularly from agricultural land, contains nutrients leached
from the soil, and pesticides. These constituents directly affect water
quality. Another class of activities introduces quantities of sediment
into estuarine systems, affecting both water quality and estuarine
form. Urban development, construction agriculture and mining fall
in this category. It should be noted that the form of an estuary can
be changed by direct means—filling, dredging, etc.—or by sedimenta-
tion. The process of sedimentation is complex, but intimately con-
nected with the circulation. Thus a change in form through sedimenta-
tion can result from a change in circulation, or from increased sediment
loads in the water. All the secondary changes in form listed in table IL
result from increased sedimentation, either as a result of circulation or
increased sediment in the water, not as direct alteration of form.

The direct effects of estuarine and watershed activities listed in
table II are obvious. Discharge of toxic substances, heat or wastes
will affect water quality. Generally these discharges are a result of
urbanization or industrialization in the estuarine area. Dredging,
construction and landfill operation in the estuary will affect estuarine
form. Finally, construction, dredging and mining will affect estuarine
circulation and sedimentation.

CONCLUSIONS

Estuaries are a valuable resource. An estuary can be described with
three parameters. Land uses in the watershed of an estuary and in
the estuary itself should be examined to see whether they will affect
any of these parameters. This procedure should reduce the number of
land use—estuary interactions which are overlooked when planning
land use. The more difficult problem of determining the specific
effect on the estuarine environment due to specific changes in these
parameters must still be studied.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cronin, Eugene L. ‘‘Role of Man in Estuarine Processes,” Estuaries, ed. by
G.H. Lauff. American Association for the Advancement of Science Publica-
tion 83. Baltimore Md.: Horn Schaffer Co., 1967. p. 667-689.

Federal Water Quality Administration, U.S. Department of Interior. National
Estuarine Pollution Study. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1970 (Senate Document 91-58).

Pritchard, D. W. “What is an Estuary: Physical Viewpoint,’ Estuaries, ed.
by G. H. Lauff. American Association for the Advancement of Science Publica-
tion 83. Baltimore, Md.: Horn Schaffer Co., 1967. : :

Ryther, J. H. ‘Photosynthesis and Fish Production in the Sea,’’ Science, vol.
166 (Oct. 3, 1969), p. 72-76. |
Teal, John and Mildred. Life and Death of the Salt Marsh. Boston, Mass.: Little

Brown and Co., 1969.

aft Jtoofs, 2oitivitog bea i pir soba al a
SFOMMGT Gost LVA) sus 4 (tele booletebits ¥t90q STG Fuori
Toast bozcorit af effet ofl bal ont Gye noiiatsgoy
gh. wtaser2 oceania on) Ghat 2 oft tod eat hatagis
ail) dootte Te snc pole7ob isd ay “hew {ott MITE"
fesioruitesty isnot aia to oid drei aa} yt, ‘HORT
soot oelh Mier wohitke te! ‘Hoielyee Leioilirt ft
hy durser benoit UR AT Dose" + hinlisiraae viotew io
oitteqouy lanntedd bid tots s2en). yen iio
- BE aditepisartt a insiton bas! letuslusress coil vinel
adam tootsie: ee atstentiteno 4» g2odT eobinitescy bine
inaeibas To 2: Bp 2othoLit zaliivilos: to 2eslo, tod
SUGiideo bit ia vdiletp. tadey ddod, giiboalts «cri *y
Igteuicion bok outliers cooutianos Jrssaqoley
nD Yinied 18 to ogiotodt tad) bojom od blsode bY &
=H) emibes yu 190-949 etitgbonly gailla—engoar joo
“09 ip ek tid zelentoy at Toltadaemtibes: lo 229
“aiciactttbs 94 gsoul) cotpl if ogtido.s enn T ootglaaain ag
Horthee haarorodl eott to .cobalusts ML gis) 8 PLO
ii dldnducat batablereok ai ; aya! issélp Tebrtogex ol} HA, pen
iy AT io dJodiuesst s as odie jaottets onthe dseeow
twiolls dooith 28 don tolew ecto dag
na bodcroiew Bite rnin Toasts often
é Gs banda Simed to PLGA veiG].: Cuore !
TLE “ibs pepe oz Lewitt or) Wart Ont) 5
mnjeberl .eo1g. sgieaies. oe Ht —eotdaenilasetiaulattk rT
0G ee loots tery iautae att crete ‘heagge {itbetel baw
CeIn aici bes eee head Soba, » f
Athi suai sei

MOI Ws OR eee ts
5 a
fe)
i eee 7 ee }
ii? boctinesl od ste). visudes ad, 2yUs0291 ald Yh
AS bus: vinites tha lo bs ie metew of} mi esean brig

Joete lliw vortd teshtovlve soased arin veh Lyfaypenshen: fa
gay! [t ssuber Hbivode erabao1g edt StOnietAe
1 SOR fi SET SS pat Diets eTHpS OTC Be cz | MILs TG
ain vod bedooltevo ote Hoidve eenont: on at Case
Miooqe ails ‘odiatinrately to impute dns Teh sTonr ¢
OS 1 Bien oithooe fe oy enh tuomeaotrras ontisites
bothiste ad [lise Jere

YHaATDOLISIEL

VG bo “awww eoez90017 oninate ot mel? to eles a
—edilchiT, doqgie8 | for dnocmonevbA at 16} noiginoresA euagtisnnd
BO-TN0 «4 Fae! 0) tofledo# meH :.b14 sien

lonetoy, woitatal- to Prigsris18ef XL AL) \noitewetert: mb A rhikenQ
goin gaomroven) .4.J :.90.0 sotgaidasW pee arecrey
. Be--h0 ioocueoCl stecg )

-b9 sain “rioqwaty Lesiar&9 sss rel ae al jadW W
ld lT 99 iri 2% Yo Mentesuvb/ oft 10f foisiscesA weotea A Bus
JOCOL oD teedet wioH :bM sim

jor poyenae SS eo8 side at modtoubord de id bas viasdiaveotodd 5
BT-LT Gg 0aer

si ee .noteod lero WM Woe ols Yo Aiwa, svn ott cboib iii
oer o

B. Tue Ecoroaicat Imporrance or A SALT MARSH
(By B. W. Tripp, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

The salt marsh, for the nearly 200 years of our history, has been
considered wasteland and of little value to man. Except for the earliest
settlers who used marsh hay for their livestock, we have considered
the marsh only as an undesirable breeding ground for noxious insects
and fit only for waste disposal. To be of any value, the marsh needed
to be “reclaimed.” I intend to discuss a few of the environment-
biosphere relationships that occur in a salt marsh and to indicate some
of the vital aspects of marshes that have been ignored.

A salt marsh is an integral part of the estuarine system which it
borders. An estuary by definition is a protected, semienclosed bay
that is open to the sea and is diluted by fresh water derived from land
drainage. The distinctive characteristics of the estuary make it an
ideal spot for salt marsh formation. Geologically, the marsh is a
transitory feature and will eventually transform into upland. Salt
marshes are formed in sheltered areas behind sand spits and at the
heads of bays. Material that has been eroded from the continent
settles out from the water and the bay bottom rises to the low tide
level (fig. I). At this level, the exposed flat can be colonized by pioneer
species of plants and in vegetated areas of the mud flat the sedimenta-
tion rate is accelerated.

The vegetation causes the marsh to grow vertically upward and
laterally outward to include the entire area of sediment deposit. As the
marsh rises, a drainage system develops in the form of creeks which
follow the previous channels of the bay. The new marsh is regularly
innundated by the tides, and as the creeks carry the bulk of water in
and out of the marsh, they are kept open by the scouring action that
results. We now have a salt marsh—an intertidal plateau of silt and
sand, covered with vegetation and regularly flooded by the tides.

This new salt marsh has the appearance of a meadow, as the only
macro plant is a grass. Two species of the genus Spartina predominate
in the marsh: S. alterniflora (cord grass), and S. patens (marsh hay).
Zonation in the marsh is associated with dryness as the tall cord grass
grows in the wetter, low marsh while the shorter marsh hay grows in
the upper part of the marsh that is less often innundated by the sea.
The other marsh plants are less obvious but they are also ecologically
important and include mud algae and phytoplankton. The marsh is
also an essential habitat to a large animal population that includes both
marine and terrestrial species. Waterfowl such as the heron, egret,
osprey, duck, and rail, can be counted in a wildlife population of
insects, muskrats, deer, racoons, and skunks. Marine species that call
the marsh home, are crabs, terrapin, snails, shellfish, and fish (espe-
cially during the juvenile stages of development). Between the two
groups of macro flora and fauna we find the bacteria, which also fill a
critical role in the system (fig. II). The salt marsh ecosystem supports

(169)

170

fewer species than a terrestrial ecosystem might because only a few
plants or animals can adapt to the extremes in temperature, salinity,
and wetness that a marsh undergoes.

Plants
Macro plants.—Cord grass, marsh hay.
Micro plants.—Blue-green algae, filamentous algae, green algae, phyto plankton.
Bacteria.

Animals

Wildluife—Ducks,* heron,* egret,* osprey, rails,* sparrow, raccoon, deer,
mouse, opossum, skunk.

Fish.—Minnow,* menhaden,* flounder,* striped bass,* bluefish.*

Insects.— Grasshoppers, mosquitos,* leaf hopper.

Mud Dwellers.—Clams,* mussels,* snails,* sea anemones, blue crabs, worms,
fiddler crabs,* protozoa, hermit crabs.

Figure II. A partial listing of the flora and fauna of a Salt Marsh. An asterisk
indicates species for which the marsh is an essential habitat.

However, this implies that these relatively few species are free
from their natural competitors and enemies; hence they are more
abundant in the salt marsh than they otherwise would be. Using this
brief description of a salt marsh as a starting point, I will now expand
on some of the specific interrelationships that occur within the system
and try to show how these relationships create a balance that is of
acute importance to man.

The primary production of a marsh is mainly accomplished by the
marsh grasses, with secondary importance given to algae and phyto-
plankton. The growth of marsh plants is like other plants and is
affected by the supply of nutrients, availability of sunlight, water,
and by temperature. Given the proper growing conditions, the plants,
as plimary producers, synthesize inorganic materials into plant mate-
rial that is usable to animals. The nutrients are available from the
sediment deposits upon which the marsh is built, they are recycled
from decayed organic matter, and are found in solution. Many
nutrients are brought to the estuary via the river and, as a result of
the currents caused by the mixing of fresh and saline waters, these
nutrients are trapped and used rather than being swept out to sea.
As previously mentioned, plant species that inhabit the marsh are
found in certain areas, depending on the amount of wetness present.
Cord grass, which grows as tall as 6 feet, covers the low marsh and
the banks of tidal creeks where the soil is premanently moist.

Salt hay grows in the upper marsh where the soil 1s drier and less
saline. Both of these species are perennials and begin growing in the
spring but are dormant in the winter. Together they account for
two-thirds to three-fourths of the total production. The mud algae
produces less material than the marsh grasses, but it is productive all
year long and this fact makes it an important factor in the salt marsh
ecosystem. In the summer, algae produces fastest at high tide and in
the winter it produces fastest at low tides in order to take advantage of
the limited warming of shallow water. The unicellular phytoplankton
which grow suspended in the water are the least important contributors
to the primary production of the marsh. This is due to the fact that
the turbidity of the silty waters reduce their photosynthetic ability,
to the fact that constant mixing by the tides keeps the population
dispersed, and to the fact that the volume of the tital creeks is rela-
tively small compared to the total volume of the marsh.

171

The salt marsh system is extremely productive and it compares
favorably with agricultural areas. The results of chemical analysis of
plant materials varies with species, but all of the plants produce
protein, fat, carbohydrates, and vitamins in substantial amounts. On
the basis of dry weight of material produced, the marshes surpass
most agricultural lands, including intensely farmed areas of developed
countries, (fig. III). It must be noted that this high production is
realized without any effort by man and that this production is available
to be utilized by man.

_ It should also be noted that this productive system 1s a self sustain-
ing one and does not need to be constantly and artificially maintained
as does an agricultural system. The utilization of the very high salt
marsh production is especially interesting because in this system,
unlike most others, production gets ahead of in sito consumption and
there is an excess of energy-bearing material. This material can be
stored for later use or can be exported, and it is the export of material
from the salt marsh to the estuary that makes the system so important.
The salt marsh production is utilized in two ways. First, and least
important, is direct consumption of fresh plant material by herbivores
and plant parasites. This path way accounts for about 5 percent of the
total crop. The second type of consumption is that of detritus feeders
(crabs, snails, mollusks, worms), who utilize the material after it has
been broken down by bacteria and fungi. Decomposition of marsh
grass and algae occurs in the gut of plant grazers, and the residue is
available to other organisms in the form of feces. Decomposition of the
actual plant by bacterial action begins with the rupture of cell mem-
branes and subsequent release of cell components to the environment.
Fresh detritus is especially nutritive for detritus feeders because it
still contains protoplasmic material and adhering bacteria which are
easily digested. Older detritus contains relatively more carbohydrate
and less protein, but because decomposition is a continuing process
there is usually a mixture of both old and new on the surface of the

salt marsh.
Grams of organic material per meter * per year

iene Levers shes Oe) eer ere Eel yh, lhe he oP urepe er yeet ee Qeey seer ee 2, 000
@eccanhiContimental/Shelf_ oe win: pack inj) aes) seep ee fedee ea See RE 300
Casa. Cpe. ae ae 2S a SRS a Pee Pee Sa: 222 100
MinearmeenjOrldl average -- 8-222 ee 340
umeciieenmesenontnm yields “A. mee ON AIS ee ee ee oe 1, 400

Fieure III.—Table showing annual production (dry weight) of marsh land,
oceanic areas, and agricultural land.

spiders
Spartina ——-———> Herbivorous Insects ————————» sparrows

(chewers and suckers) dragon flies
Aleae /
i
\ Bacteria

pe am
Mud Dwellers PEERS. 5 aE y= Secondary Consumers
(feed on detritus and dead vegetion) raccoons, rails, etce)

Fig. IV: diagrammatic representation of the flow of energy-bearing
materials through the salt marsh system. (after Teal),

57-242—_71—_—_12

172

Detritus is critical to the estuarine ecosystem because it is the main
pathway by which energy flows from plant producers to animal con-
sumers (fig. IV). It serves to store the energy for later use, to trans-
port it to less rich areas of the system and as a buffer mechanism
against lean periods. The marsh exports 45 percent of its net pro-
duction, and most of this is transported in the form of detritus. I
would like to emphasize this important fact of marsh export. A useful
analogy would be that the marshes are the ‘wheat fields” that give
sustenance to the ‘teeming cities’ of fish in the estuaries. In com-
parison, a forest is also a balanced system but its total production is
utilized in sito (there is no excess of material for export) and agri-
cultural lands which are unbalanced, operate at a net loss, requiring the
artificial replacement of nutrients. Although the nutritive value of
detritus has been described, the actual pathways of utilization are
not fully understood. Detritus may be reused or used partially by
one organism and then passed on to another. For example, a crab
may ingest large detrital particles, assimilate some of their compo-
nents and then excrete a residue that is further utilized by snails or
worms.

Besides the instrumental role bacteria play in the formation of
detritus, they are important in other respects. Because of their large
numbers, their rapid rate of multiplication, and their intense bio-
chemical activity, they have a pronounced effect on the chemical and
biological conditions of their environment. As has been described they
break down plant material into usuable components for animal con-
sumption and they add to the nutritive value of detritus when ad-
hering microbes are actually ingested. In addition, bacteria are re-
sponsible for the remineralization of organic matter—thus completing
the circuit by making nutrients again available for utilization by
plants. Finally, some species of bacteria are able to synthesize vitamin
By, which is also a valuable export of the salt marsh and 1s utilized
by all of the animals that come to feed in the estuary.

The salt marsh, discussed in abbreviated form above, is of vital
importance to man and this can readily be seen when commercially
important organisms and their relationships to salt marshes are
studied. The coastal fishery has its beginnings in the marsh. It has
been shown that at least 60 species of fishes are dependent on the
estuarine-salt marsh ecosystem at some stage in their life cycle. Such
species as flounder, menhaden, bluefish, anchovies, and striped bass,
all spawn offshore but send their young up into the estuary where they
attain most of their growth. Tidal creeks are actually “nurseries” for
the juvenile of these species.

Of economic importance is the fact that about 90 percent of the
total harvest taken by commercial U.S. fishermen is dependent on the
estuaries. In 1960, sport fishermen in New England landed 800
million pounds of fish, worth over $60 million—500 million pounds of
this catch consisted of species that depended directly on the energy
excess produced in the salt marsh. The menhaden has been studied
rather closely and McHugh estimates that an estuary can produce
780 pounds per acre of this fish. Using shelled hybrid corn as a food
source, man can produce 1,000 pounds per acre of poultry, 540 pounds
per acre of pigs, and 270 pounds per acre of cattle. Menhaden reared
naturally do not differ greatly in overall production from livestock
reared by man’s efforts. In addition to the various fish that need the

173

estuary, other economically important species such as shrimp, clam,
blue crab, and oyster could not exist without its supply of nutrients
and its protected waters.

The salt marsh serves man in other ways besides supplying most
of the seafood that is consumed by him. Its resiliency serves as a
buffer zone that protects the upland against disastrous flooding and
erosion. The marsh is a natural safety valve that dissipates the energy
of storm waves before they can damage coastal structures and crop-
land. The marsh vegetation acts as a sediment trap and contributes
to the settling out of suspended material. If the marsh is destroyed,
sediment normally deposited here becomes available for deposition
in channels, harbors, and other navigable areas. Hence, marsh destruc-
tion intensifies silting problems elsewhere.

In summary, the marshes add a fringe to the continent and form a
feature of great ecological and economic magnitude. High productivity
is maintained by—

1. The ebb and flow of tidal action which serves to transport
nutrients.

2. An abundant supply of nutrients.

3. Rapid regeneration and conservation of nutrients due to
the activities of micro-organisms and filter feeders.

4. Three types of primary producers (marsh grass, mud algae,
and phytoplankton) that insure maximum utilization of sunlight
in all seasons.

5. Constant, year-round production of plant material.

This high level of production is naturally maintained by a dynamic
system of continuous interactions, and the effects of man on these
interactions generally leads to a general deterioration of the marsh’s
functions.

In spite of man’s general attitude that wetlands were fit only for
dumping, human effects on them were unimportant until the 20th
century. The great expansion of power production, increased industrial
activity, increased movement in navigable waters, higher fishing
intensity, and more sewage discharged into natural waters all have
combined to put strains on the estuarine system. It may be noted here
that one-third of the U.S. population lives and works close to an
estuary. The estuarine ecosystem is a limited vital resource and
decisions concerning the use of this resource are not now made in a
rational manner. To date, man’s effects on the marshes have been
unimaginative, poorly planned, and frequently destructive. Many
uses are served by the wetland-estuary system and the system is
under ever-increasing pressure from many sources, Intelligent manage-
ment is imperative, but for this to be realized, more basic research
is needed to produce facts upon which to base rational decisions (fig.
V). Human influences on the marshes fall into the following categories:

1. Modification of river influx, resulting in salinity changes.

2. Organic enrichment, mainly through the discharge of munic-
ipal wastes.

3. Addition of heated waters from powerplants.

4. Alteration of the drainage system.

5. Addition of noxious compounds such¥as industrial wastes,
pesticides, and oil.

174
RESEARCH NEEDS

Physical processes.—Flushing, circulation, mixing, diffusion, light absorption,
sedimentation rates.

Chemical processes.—Fate of terrigenous compounds, fate of man-made
chemicals.

Biological processes.—Reactions of various species to pollutants such as oil,
heavy metals. Nutrition, genetics, general physiology, growth of wetland species—
including those not directly useful to man. Interrelationships between species
energy flow.

Figure V. A list of basic research that must be accomplished before intelli-
gent decisions concerning multiple use of the wetlands can be made.

A few examples from this list should show how many of our actions,
including those not directly related to wetlands, often have very
serious effects on them. Marshland can be destroyed directly by dredg-
ing it for harbor and marina construction or it can be reclaimed to make
space for houses, highways, industry, golf courses, etc. Many of man’s
activities produce more subtle effects and nearby highway construc-
tion, erosion of agricultural lands, or sand and gravel operations may
increase silting to the point where it smothers the marsh and the marsh
grasses are replaced by less productive species. Drainage of the marsh
for mosquito control often has mixed effects. It usually results in im-
proved flushing action which makes more area available for food and
habitat but vegetation changes also can result in less productive
grasses being introduced. This is especially true when salt pans are
drained and the wigeon grass they contain dies, making the marsh
much less suitable to migratory waterfowl. The introduction of pesti-
cides or industrial wastes such as heavy metals and petrochemicals
has been well publicized, along with the resulting destruction or clos-
ing of shellfish beds. Pollution by such chemicals drastically alters the
salt marsh system and estroys its function by damaging flora and/or
fauna species that are critical in the food web. In Connecticut, the
average annual value of the shellfish crop between 1900 and 1920 was
$20 million. As a result of the direct destruction of marshland and the
destruction of its functioning by pollution, the average annual value
of shellfish since 1955 has been $1.5 million.

The decision that usually must be made is whether to maintain
the wetland area in its natural productive state or to alter it to make
it more directly useful to man. Cost-benefit ratios that are used in
making this decision are usually computed on a short-range, purely
economic basis. We must reverse this policy and begin to include all
of the costs, including the concealed social and long-term costs, when
making decisions that may cause alterations of the wet lands. Usually
“development” of wet lands yields substantially imcreased profits
for the developer, but if all the costs of the resulting damage are
totaled, the net loss to other users would greatly offset these private
gains. This does not imply that we cannot utilize wet lands to a greater
extent than we do now, but any increased utilization must be based
on ecologically sound principles. For example, usable ‘‘crops’’ such
as oysters, crabs, and clams can probably be more intensively produced
but to do this we must first learn more about the energy-flows within
the system. The diversity of the salt marsh reduces the usable
production because organisms other than man remove energy from
the system. However, it is this diversity that gives stability to the

175

system and concentrating on the increased production of a single
crop would destroy this stability and lead to a boom and bust economy.

Simplifications of the present system by man may destroy the
self-fertilizing and energy transport systems that are currently
functioning and quite possibly the extra input required to maintain
a one-crop estuary would be more than the benefits gained by the
increased production of this crop. Another possibility is that wet
lands can be used as a natural tertiary treatment plant for municipal
wastes. The detritus system of energy transport and storage could
probably handle the increased nutrient load without upsetting the
existing balance. However, more research is again needed before this
can be accomplished without resulting in the destruction of the marsh.
Are some municipal wastes incompatible with the system? How
does the system react to the increased nutrient load? What changes
occur in floral and faunal populations? Can the increased production
be utilized? These and many other such questions must be answered
before we can extend our wet land utilization into such an area.

Expanded utilization of wet lands will require knowledge of long-
range effects and coordination between the various agencies and
organizations that make land use decisions. The entire ecosystem must
be evaluated, as sound decisions cannot be made by considering only
bits and pieces of it. At present the multitude of private, local, State,
and Federal agencies that have some control over wet lands are
operating without a coordinating philosophy, with no intercommuni-
cations, and often with opposing mission. Mosquito control commis-
sions operate solely to eliminate this one insect, and ignore hydrology
and pesticide pollution. The Army Corps of Engineers bases its deci-
sions on navigation and engineering factors only, and gives no consider-
ation to the ecological changes that may result. Private organizations
too often base their decisions purely on economic gain without regard
to the environmental deterioration they may cause. Town zoning
boards usually are interested in public health and overall population
density, and make their decisions accordingly. I have tried to show
that the marsh is an important resource to a large segment of our
population and to a broad section of our coastal region. This general
importance of wet lands makes the establishment of a council with an
overview philosophy a necessity. Review and control of existing and
proposed projects and activities by the many wetland users should be
the main function of this council. Decisions made by mission-oriented
agencies that result in alterations of the wet lands should be subject to
review by someone who has the data to evaluate such decisions from
the broader viewpoint of general effects on this vital and limited
resource.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burkholder, P. R. (1956) Bull. Torrey Botanical Club 83:327-34.

Burkholder, P. R., and L. M. Burkholder (1956) Limnol. and Oceanogr.
1(3) :202-08.

Burkholder, P. R., and G. H. Bornside (1957) Bull. Torrey Botanical Club
84:366-83.

Chapman, V. J. (1960) Salt Marshes and Salt Deserts of the World, Leonard
Hill Ltd., London, 392 pages.

Committee of Scientists for a Quality Environmnent (1970), “A proposal for a
Council of Ecological Advisors to the Governor and Legislature of Con-

necticut.”’ >.
6. Cronin, L. E. (1967) in ‘‘Estuaries,” ed. Lauff, Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Publ.

No. 83.

Sh Se a

176

. Darnell, R. M. (1967) in “Estuaries,” ed. Lauff, Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci.

Publ. No. 83.

. Deevey, E. S. (1970) Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 51(1) :4-8.
. Lowe, J. I. (1965) Ecology 46:899—900.
. McHugh, J. L. (1967) in “Estuaries,” ed. Lauff, Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Publ.

No. 83.

. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board (1969) preliminary report.
. Niering, W. A. (1970) Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 51(1) :2-3.
. Odum, E. P. (1961) New York State Conservationist, June—July.

Odum, E. P., and A. E. Smalley (1959) Proce. Nat. Acad. Sci. 45:617-22.

- Odum, E. P., and A. A. de la Cruz (1963) AIBS Bull. 13(8) :39-40.
. Odum, EH. P. and A. A. de la Cruz (1967) in ‘Estuaries,’ ed. Lauff, Amer.

Assoc. Adv. Sci. Publ. No. 88.

. Pomeroy, L. R. (1959) Limnol. and Oceanogr. 4:386—97.

. Rawls, C. K. (1965) Chesapeake Sci. 6(3) :150-61.

. Redfield, A. C. (1965) Science 147:50-54.

- Schelske, C. L., and E. P. Odum (1961) Proc. Gulf and Carib. Fisheries Instit.,

14th session, pp. 75-80.

. Shuster, C. N. (1966) New York State Conservationist August-September.
. Smalley, A. E. (1960) Ecology 41:672-77.

. Starr, T. J. (1956) Ecology 37(4) :658-64.

. Teal, J. M. (1962) Ecology 43 (4) :614—24.

. Udell, H. F. et al (1969) Bull. Torrey Botanical Club 96(1) :42-51.

. Zobell, C. E., and C. B. Feltham (1942) Ecology 23 (1) :69-78.

C. Tue Errect or SEDIMENTATION ON PRIMARY PRODUCTION IN
THE WETLANDS

(By J. Macllvaine, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

INTRODUCTION

There is presently no standard by which to measure the value of
wetland areas. The value assigned to a given piece of land is commonly
dependent upon the use to which the land is put, and much of the
wet lands, especially such areas as swamps, marshes, and shallow bays
are considered more valuable after they have been drained, dredged,
or filled to allow commercial development. While fulfilling the de-
mands of short-ranged economics, there are obvious shortcomings
to such a system of land value appraisal, and in response to these,
a program to establish a more realistic land use policy is developing.
If such a program is to succeed, a much more widely based land
appraisal system must be developed. It seems clear that the biological
community in the wet lands will be considered in future evaluations.
When such policies are formulated, therefore, it will be necessary
to have as thorough an understanding as possible of the biological
community in the wet lands, and the factors which are likely to
influence that community. »

This paper presents some of the information which has ‘been col-
lected dealing with the effect of sedimentation upon the wetlands
community. Specifically, the nature of the interaction between sedi-
mentation and food production is discussed. The implications of
these interactions for the formulation of land use policy will be
touched upon.

While it is not within the scope of this paper to discuss in any detail
the genesis of the various communities, it should be noted that many
arise from the interaction of sedimentation, plant growth, and tidal
action as primary factors. A reasonable starting point is the estuary.
Estuaries are the wide mouths of rivers, where the tides meet the
river currents; or more broadly, an estuary may be defined as a
body of water in which river water mixes with and dilutes sea water.
This latter definition aptly suits the requirements of this paper, and
can be taken to include areas commonly termed estuaries, lagoons,
and lower deltaic regions. In addition, it sets no lower limit on the
size of these features.

Estuaries are areas of sedimentation; since they are often protected
from surf action by their shape or by sand spits or bars, the water is
quiet in at least some parts of the estuary. In addition, there is abun-
dant sediment available to the estuary, from the watershed draining
into the estuary, and from seaward, in some cases. The combination
of abundant sediment supply and quiet water conditions causes dep-
osition of sediment. Tidal action is strongest in the central channels,
and may resuspend sediment in these areas, reducing the net deposi-

(177)

178

tion. In most estuaries the bulk of sedimentation takes place in the
peripheral, quiet areas, producing shallow flat sand banks. These, in
turn, offer support for rooted marsh plants, which act as sediment
stabilizers and accumulators, leading eventually to the development
of the salt marsh. in areas of the United States where mangroves
thrive, this process may be enhanced by the seeding of mangroves
on sandy bottoms, followed by sediment accumulation and the
buildup of a community.

PRIMARY PRODUCTION

The primary producers of the estuaries and associated salt marshes
are of three types, including higher plants, algae, both on and in the
sediments, and phytoplankton. Because of the basic instability of the
environment, caused in part by the constantly shifting balance of
deposition and erosion, the number of species in any wetland area is
small. The competition between species is characteristically not
intense, but rather the ability to withstand high salinity, strong winds,
erosion or burial, salt spray, and periodic inundation is essential to the
survival of higher plants. Likewise, algae must be able to withstand
high turbidity, low salinities, tidal, and other environmental fluctua-
tions. Many plants found in the wet lands have worldwide distribu-
tions within their physical tolerances. Widespread dispersal is due in
part to oceanic circulation, which distributes resistant seeds and plant
parts, and in part to transplantation by man!. The uniformity of
wetland communities offers considerable encouragement, since this
would indicate that implications from detailed studies may be general-
ized with more certainty than is generally possible in nonmarine
ecosystems.

Among the higher plants, the distribution of species in a given area
is controlled largely by the range of tides, and a succession of plant
groups generally can be discerned proceeding from the deeper estuary,
through the tidal flats and up onto the meadowy surface of the higher
marsh. Below low tide levels, only those plants capable of withstanding
continued submergence are found. Eel grass (for example Zostera
marina) is a typical representative of this group. It flourishes on the
muddy substrate found in protected estuaries, and grows in depths
from slightly above mean low tide level downward to considerable
depths, perhaps 75 feet in some areas ?.

In the region extending from low tide level upward to about mean
sea level, including the areas of mud flats, seed plants are often
absent except for local colonies of eel grass or salt marsh grass. Tidal
flats present an unusually harsh environment for plants, with charac-
terestic extreme temperature fluctuations and rapid water movements.

Salt marshes are typically developed on mud or muddy sand,
between mean half tide and high tide levels, where perennial grasses
or grass-like plants predominate. Lower levels within the salt marsh
are exposed to the greatest influence of tidal influx, and coarse, reedy
grasses predominate, while at higher levels, finer, lower grasses are
found. Various varieties of Spartina are characteristic of the salt
marsh vegetation ”.

Mangrove communities constitute a separate class in this discussion,
which to this point has dealt with plants typical of temperate wetlands,
similar to those found on the eastern coast of the United States. In

Footnotes at end of article.

179

areas favorable for mangrove growth, seedlings become established on
shoals, banks, bars, and in bays and estuaries, on sandy soils which
are commonly below sea level, but are moderately protected from
waves. The young plants send out tiers of prop roots which act as
traps for sediment and organic debris, and given proper conditions,
the soil level may be built up into the mature swamp profile. After
some 20 to 30 years growth, the mangroves become so thickly tangled
that their roots act as highly effective sediment traps, and the com-
munity becomes extremely resistant to the erosive forces of storms.
Plants invade the swamp, taking advantage of the accumulating soil,
and in the mangrove regions mature communities consist of salt marsh
associations grading into mixed salt marsh and mangrove types.’

The second major group of wetlands primary producers are the
algae. These may occur as attached macroscopic varieties, microflora
living on or in the substrate, or as free living phytoplankton. The
distribution of these types is dependant upon a variety of facters. For
example, the attached forms may be lmited by tides, substrate,
turbidity, temperature, salinity, pH, illumination, and wave height,
among other factors. Red and brown algae are, on the whole, less able
to adapt to reductions in salinity than are green algae, and thus those
red and brown varieties which occur in the wetlands tend to pre-
dominate in subtidal and lower zones near the mouths of estuaries
and lagoons. Green algae, on the other hand, tend to predominate in
the higher zones and near river mouths.* Some algae live on the
soil, forming dense carpets in shallow water when conditions are
favorable, and tend to stabilize marsh sand and mud; others live
attached to stones or shells, and some are epiphytic on other algae or
higher plants. Some types break loose from their substrate in rather
large masses, and accumulate in deeper water.

Microscopic algae living on and in the sediment of the intertidal
zone constitute an important part of the wetland flora. Pennate
diatoms, green flagellates, dinoflagellates, and blue-green algae are
common varieties. Diatoms migrate vertically each tidal cycle, moving
downward a few microns into soft, wet sediments before inundation
by the rising tide. Shortly after the sediments are exposed by the
falling tide, they migrate to the surface, forming a layer one to five
cells thick. The distribution of the benthic microflora is deter-
mined by a complex interaction of factors similar to those cited above
for attached forms.

The phytoplankton in estuaries is predominantly marine in origin,
adapted to withstand greater or lesser dilution by fresh water. These
forms are closely dependent on nutrients supplied from land by the
inflowing rivers, and great increases in phytoplankton concentrations
often occur following the flooding of streams, bringing a large influx
of nutrients, or following artificial fertilization by sewage containing
nitrates and phosphates. Offsetting the effect of increased nutrient
supply accompanying periods of great river discharge, is the inhibiting
effects of increased turbidity, which reduces the light penetration.
Thus the phytoplankotn in estuaries is generally more abundant in
the lower estuaries or immediately outside, than at the head. The
reduced salinities at the heads of most estuaries is probably a con-
tributing factor in this respect. arow gai

This brief review of the primary producers should give an indication
of the variety of plants which live in the wet lands. While it is by no

Footnotes at end of article.

180

means exhaustive, it is well to have a general feeling for the distribution
of the flora which supports the wet lands community before proceeding
to a discussion of the factors controlling the processes of production.

FOOD PRODUCTION .

Studies of primary production carried out in the wet land tend to be
of a few types, including measurements of photosynthetic activity and
concurrent measurement of factors which the experimentor suspects
of influencing this activity. Most studies on the actual production are
limited in time to the duration of the experiment, which may be a few
hours, and in space to the area under the bell jar, or the volume of the
sample bottle. Care must be exercised, therefore, in generalizing the
results of these experiments, which may or may not be representative
of the area of study. There have been a sufficient number of produc-
tivity studies in some regions, however, to warrant generalization.
Production studies can be divided into those studies which measure
the total net production of plants in and on the sediment, including
higher plants, attached algae, and microscopic benthic algae, and
those which measure phytoplankton production.

Production studies of the first type commonly deal with salt marsh
productivity. Pomeroy® made bell jar experiments on algal produc-
tivity in Georgia salt marshes. Photosynthesis during low tide was
significantly higher than at high tide in winter, while photosynthesis
at high tide was higher in late summer. This is because illumination is
inhibiting both in excess and insufficient quantities. Taken over a tidal
cycle, the gross productivity is almost constant throughout the year,
at about 1800 keal/m? yr. The net production he calculated to be not
less than 90 percent of this gross production. Smalley, and Teal and
Kanwisher’ have investigated the productivity of Spartina, both
by harvesting at regular intervals, and by respiration methods.
Unlike algal production, the production by higher plants varies
seasonally. For example, short Spartina may give values of respiration
of 235 kcal/m? for 2 months of winter, and 6450 kcal/m? for 4 months
in the summer. Averaged over the salt marsh, the gross production
was calculated to be 24580 kceal/m? yr. of which net production consti-
tuted less than 25 percent. Thus, though the higher plants have much
ereater gross production, the net production of higher plants is some
6580 keal/m? yr.®

Studies of plankton productivity in estuarine waters near salt
marshes have been made by several, workers.*:° Using light and
dark bottle measurements, Ragotzkie obtained slightly negative values
of net production in the estuary for the plankton community including
organic detritus and its associated bacterial flora.’ He cited the
salt marsh as the probable outside source of organic material required
by his results. Whether these results can be taken to indicate that
there is actually a negative net. production in the estuary is doubtful,
in view of the time limitation in the experimental technique and the
extreme variability of phytoplankton production. It is clear, however,
that taken over its entire depth, the estuary has a much lower net
production than the salt marsh.

Pomeroy compared the relative importance of various plant popu-
lations in Boca Ciega Bay, Fla.,? and found that in waters less than
2 meters depth (which constitutes some 75 percent) of the area, phyto-

Footnotes at end of article.

181

plankton, marine spermatophytes, and benthic microflora are about
equally important as primary producers. He found that the compensa-
tion depth for phytoplankton is 5 to 7 meters, but the critical depth
(of Sverdrup) is never less than 25 meters, and is typically much
deeper. He concludes that the entire bay is productive throughout the
year, with the greatest production between 1 and 7 meters depth.

THE ROLES OF SEDIMENT IN THE WET LANDS

The sedimentary nature of the estuaries is dependent upon complex
interactions between the physiography and geology of the estuary and
the watershed draining into the estuary, the circulation of the estuarine
waters, climatic factors, and biological processes. Good detailed dis-
cussions of the sedimentary regime can be found in Lauff.! This paper
will consider the sediments themselves only in so far as they affect
productivity.

Sediment in the estuary may be suspended in the water or deposited
on the bottom, and in either case it affects primary production. In
addition, the active processes of sedimentation, such as erosion, de-
position, and transportation also affect energy flow. To some extent,
this discussion must also consider the processes taking place in the local
environment of suspended particles, in so far as these affect produc-
tivity.

It seems obvious that if a large concentration of sediment particles
(for example clay and organic detritus) is suspended in the water, then
penetration of light will be sharply reduced. There have been numerous
studies of the effect of suspensoids in scattering and absorbing light,
but these results are somewhat superfluous to this paper. More to the
point are studies which relate light penetration directly to the con-
centration of suspended particles. A good example of this type of study
is by Chandler,? who determined turbidity (the inverse of trans-
parency), temperature, standing crop of phytoplankton, and quantity
of suspended matter, both organic and inorganic, at depths from the
surface to 10 meters over the period of a year. He found that light
penetration varied by a factor of 10 depending on the concentration
of suspensoids: the depths to which 1 percent of the light penetrated
varied from 9.7 to 0.8 meters; the percentage of light reaching a
depth of 1 meter varied by a factor of 10.8, and the maximum light
reaching 2 meters depth was 86.6 times greater than the minimum.
Chandler showed that these differences are caused by variations in
turbidity, which when expressed in terms of suspended sediment
varied from 5 to 230 parts per million, and not to changes im the
nature of incident light. Fluctuations in turbidity took place sea-
sonally, the water being most transparent in winter, spring, and early
summer, and least. transparent during late summer and autumn.
Further changes in turbidity took place weekly or daily due to changes
in meteorological conditions. In areas where tidal currents are ex-
ceptionally strong, such as the Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary,°
turbidity may vary much more markedly, by a factor of 30, for
example, between daily samples.

Such variations in,the turbidity can be expected to have important
effects upon photosynthesis. Pomeroy * has shown that production
by the marine spermatophyte Thalasia showed a linear relation to
the intensity of radiation reaching the plants. The restriction of

‘Footnotes at end of article.

182

Thalaisa to waters of 2 meters or less depth is most probably due to
this effect. Thalasia is not inhibited by strong illumination as is much
of the wetlands population, so that it grows best in very clear, shallow
water A small average increase in the turbidity of the water in which
Thalasia is growing could therefore be expected to inhibit net produc-
tion by this group, and perhaps reduce the area over which it is viable.

The turbidity of the water might be least important to those
microscopic algae which migrate downward into the sediments during
periods of inundation, and at the other end of the spectrum, the
turbidity of the water has a salutory effect on those plants for which
the incident radiation is great enough to be inhibiting during summer
months. Pomeroy * has presented photometric measurements which
indicate that incident radiation may exceed the optimum value
(cf. Ryther, 1956) by 0800 hours, and remain above optimum until
1600 hours during the spring and early summer in Georgia salt marhes.
He postulated that when the marsh is under water, much of the
sediment surface is within the optimum illumination range.

For those plants which live on or in the bottom, the effect of
suspended sediment may vary according to the plants’ light require-
ments. In some cases, increased turbidity may be inhibiting, for other
plants it is not. This would suggest that long-term variations in sus-
pended sediment concentrations might cause changes in the com-
munity of primary producers, giving an advantage to certain groups.
Thus a decrease in average turbidity would favor the spread of plants
such as Thalasia, since the increased illumination would have an
inhibitory effect upon competing species.

The effect of suspended sediment upon phytoplankton growth is
similar, since like most of the benthic microflora, attached algae, and
higher plants, phytoplankton productivity is mhibited by excess as
well as insufficient illumination. Verduin,® for example, has shown that
during early spring, before the phytoplankton pulse develops, growth
is low regardless of turbidity; but as the season progresses, phytoplank-
ton crops develop most rapidly in waters of intermediate turbidity.
The crops remain low in the most turbid waters, and show only slow
growth in the clearest waters. In considering the effect of turbidity
upon phytoplankton growth, the entire water column must be taken
into account, since in most estuaries mixing insures that the phyto-
plankton will be distributed more or less uniformly in the vertical
direction. Thus if the light is essentially extinguished at half the depth
of the estuary, the average time per day spent in light is reduced to
some 6 hours. This type of argument may be extrapolated for any
turbidity, and it is evident that increased suspended sediment not
only diminishes the light available to plants in the upper waters, but
also decreases the average time spent by plants in lighted water. It is
well to note at this point that though the control of photosynthesis by
ilumination is obvious, there are other factors which are at least as
important, any one of which may inhibit growth. Verduin ° reports
low phytoplankton crops in Lake Erie which were obviously not
limited by high turbidities.

To this point we have treated the suspended matter in the water
as a passive element, affecting primary production indirectly through
the reduction of light transmission in the water. While it may seem
strange to visualize the sediment particles as very active agents in the

Footnotes at end of article.

183

wet lands, they are part of a dynamic system and in fact have an ac-
tive role as well as passive in the biological community.

Shallow parts of the wet lands owe their existence to the balance
between erosion and deposition. Thus in the steady state, tidal flats,
even those with no protective vegetation, are maintained at a fairly
constant level, the sediment eroded during storms, and carried seaward
is replaced by new sediment from the estuary. There is constant
deposition over the shallow wet lands (since some material must
always settle out of suspension), and there is likewise constant erosion,
the two processes acting in turn. The balance between these processes
is largely dependent upon the amount of material suspended in the
water. Erosion is largely independent of the concentration of suspen-
soids, so that given constant physical conditions (range of tides,
current velocities, wave height), erosion will remain unchanged, even
if the amount of suspended sediment is altered. Deposition, on the
other hand, is highly dependent upon the concentration of suspended
sediments, both because the number of particles which settle to the
bottom is proportional to the concentration of particles, and because
various physical and chemical processes increase deposition as particle
concentration is increased. Since sea level is rising slowly (it has been
rising since the last glaciation), deposition must slightly exceed
erosion for balance to be achieved. The factors controlling the balance
of sedimentation and erosion are in fact much more complex than this,
but for our purposes, we may assume that undisturbed, the wet lands
will reach some sort of equilibrium, in which the various parts of the
environment, the marsh, tidal flats, and open estuary achieve a stable
configuration, more or less. In the next section the impact of man
upon this equilibrium will be considered.

Considerable attention has been given in the literature to the
effects of the biota upon the processes of sedimentation, but much
less work has been done on the converse problem. Erosion of the salt
marsh surface must affect productivity; burial of the benthic micro-
flora must affect their growth. The solutions to these problems await
further research, but some speculations are in order. Ranwell’ has
measured rates of sediment accretion in British salt marshes, and
found rates of up to 10-12 cm./yr., supporting similar reports of
much earlier workers.’ There seemed to be no adverse effect of such
high rates of sediment accumulation upon Spartina, indicating that
higher plants may not be limited by high rates of deposition. The
effect of this rapid deposition upon the microflora was not studied.
Richards ° arrives at somewhat different conclusions from his studies
of the Dovey Estuary, which indicate that in areas of rapid accretion,
most of the energy of higher plants is required for upward growth of
the main stem, with little development of branches. Faster accretion
could presumably overwhelm the plants, leaving a barren surface. It
is clear, however, that this would not represent an equilibrium con-
dition: the factors controlling deposition will not allow continuous
rapid accretion in the wet lands for long periods, especially if plants
are absent. Thus we may conclude that rapid deposition may curtail
the net production of higher plants, but will probably not eliminate
their growth. i ; ceil

It would seem that rapid accretion might affect the benthic micro-
flora more markedly than the higher plants. The ability of diatoms to

Footnotes at end of article.

184

migrate, for example, is limited to a distance of a few microns per
day, which could easily be exceeded by fairly rapid accretion. When-
ever the deposition rate exceeds the ability of the microflora to mi-
erate upwards, the population at the surface will be a function of
how rapidly the microflora can recolonize the mud surface, since new
populations must be continuously established to replace those buried.
The periodic nature of accretion could be important in this respect if,
for example, colonization takes place sufficiently rapidly for a large
population to become established and do considerable growth during
those seasons when accretion is relatively slow. There is not enough
data yet to indicate whether or not rapid accretion is severely limiting
to the benthic microflora.

The process of erosion presents similar problems. There is ample
evidence indicating that rooted vegetation affects the rate of erosion
in tidal and supertidal ranges. There is an additional suggestion’
that the benthic microflora may stabilize the mud surface, even where
rooted plants are absent. Again, the converse of these relations have
not been sufficiently analyzed. We know that marsh and estuarine
plants have a considerable ability to resist erosion, but there is no
way to predict the point at which this ability will be exceeded and
erosion will become dominant. Yet we do know that this situation is
possible; indeed it can be observed along much of the coast of Louisiana.
As with deposition, erosion has a potentially important but virtually
unstudied impact upon the process of primary production.

The phytoplankton, too, is influenced by the processes of sedimenta-
tion, and the detritus which has been shown above to constitute a
vital link in the energy flow is also affected by these processes, but
here again there is insufficient data to draw significant conclusions.
Weiss,’® has shown that when silts are centrifuged from river waters,
as much as 50 percent of the population of #. coli may be removed.
Fox and others ™ have demonstrated the potential significance of the
sorption of organic dissolved substances to clays in the estuarine
environment. Macroscopic organic-inorganic complexes occur mainly
in the form of loosely aggregated, flaky, sometimes frothy mixtures
of organic molecules, including vitamins, organic colloids, and organic
fragments intermixed with various proportions of clay, silt, fine sand,
and living microbiota. These detrital aggregates typically have a
specific gravity approaching that of sea water, and settle out very
slowly. There have been no studies dealing with the direct interaction
of sedimentary processes and energy flow through the agent of detritus.

These results imply that there are processes taking place in the
local environment of suspended particles which could have important
implications for the energy-flow system. In the estuary where both
dissolved organic matter and inorganic sediment are abundant in
the water, the concentration of organic matter by sorption onto clay
particles may provide an important food source for estuarine filter
feeders. Likewise, the process of adsorption of bacteria upon inorganic
grains, and the composition and distribution of detritus are closely
related to processes involving suspended sediment. The exact nature
and importance of these processes remain uninvestigated, but these
results indicate potential interactions of inorganic suspended sedi-
ment with biological processes related to primary production sufficient
to warrant further research. At present we cannot speculate with

Footnotes at end of article.

185

any certainty upon the possible effects of variation of the concentra-
tions of suspended sediments.

THE ROLE OF MAN

I have discussed, where sufficient evidence exists, the possible
roles of sediments and sedimentary processes with regard to primary
production. This final section deals with the ways in which man
may influence the productivity of wet lands through actions which
influence the sedimentary regime. Man’s influence may take two
basic forms: (1) He may vary the amount of sediment in the estuary
(or its distribution), and (2) he may alter the nature of the material
entering the wetlands system. The Jatter would include sewage and
industria] waste problems, problems involving insecticides and other
particulate toxins, and so forth. These topics are receiving considerable
attention, and will not be discussed here.

Man may alter the amount of sediment in the wet lands by a wide
variety of actions, which may be divided into those actions which
increase the sediment supply, and those which decrease it. Among
the former, deforestation, agricultural practices, dredging, filling,
and in some cases flood control, are among the most important. Of
those actions which decrease sediment supply, flood control is the
most important, involving the construction of dams, canals, spillways,
and levees.

It is difficult to estimate the degree to which man can increase the
amount of sediment reaching the estuary with any precision, because
there are so few estuaries which have relatively undisturbed watersheds
to use as references. For example, virtually all the virgin forest in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed had been utilized before 1900, and erosion,
siltation, and sedimentation which accompanied the deforestation
increased throughout the 1800’s. The magnitude of the cumulative
effect is suggested by the estimate that half of the former upper
estuarine areas for fish spawning and shellfishery areas for oysters have
been destroyed or shifted downstream in Chesapeake Bay."

There is no doubt that deforestation and poor agricultural practices
imerease wetlands sedimentation. What is more difficult to establish is
the effect, in the long run, of such increases. It is also clear that if it
can be shown that increases in sedimentation are detrimental to
primary production, then a case can be made for measures such as
effective soil conservation, small watershed dams, and larger resevoirs,
all of which are effective in retaining silt.

Dredging and filling are now common wetland “reclamation’’
techniques. Due to the possible deleterious effects on the commercial
shellfishery, the effects of dredging operations has been investi-
gated 41516 but there is as yet no study relating dredging operations
to primary production. Generally, the effects of channel dredging are
relatively local, but silt deposition has been reported as thick as 27
centimeters and as far as 0.5 mile from the dredging site.’® In addition
to the stirring up of sediment by dredging, wave action resuspends
sediment from the spoil bank for long periods after the operation has
ceased, creating a possible long-term increase in suspended sediment
concentration.

Footnotes at end of article.

186

Hspecially deleterious to primary production are dredging and filling
projects on submerged banks, tidal areas, and salt marshes, where the
effects of such operations are painfully obvious. It is testimony to the
public’s ignorance about the value of the wet lands that such opera-
tions continue to be so common.

On the other end of the spectrum are those projects which reduce
the supply of sediment to the wet lands. While such practices have
been cited just above as possible remedial measures for overabundance
of sediment, there are instances in the United States where flood con-
trol has been championed to the exclusion of all other considerations,
most notably along the Louisiana coast. Gunter '’ has studied ex-
tensively the effects of flood control projects on the Mississippi Valley,
In its natural condition, the Mississippi flooded annually, overflowing
its natural levees and spreading out over its flood basins for many
miles on either side. From the first settlement of the area, therefore,
levees have been built; the present system exceeds 2,500 miles in
length, and is up to 35 feet high. As the river was cut off from its
flood basins, flood levels grew even higher, in New Orleans from 14.9
feet in 1882 to 21 feet in 1912. Gunter estimated that present flood
heights are 10 times greater than before the levees were constructed,
because some 35,000 square miles of overflow areas have been walled
off and receive no flood water.

It is this overflow area which most concerns us here, much of which
was formerly floodplain swamps and lower delta marshes. One effect of
the almost perfect canalization of the Mississippi is the annual loss
of about 730 million tons of fine soil, which is presently washed into
the Gulf of Mexico each year. Much of this soil was formerly avail-
able to aggrade the swamps and marshes of the lower delta, and the
loss to this area is equivalent to 380,000 acres of soil, 3 feet thick.
There is clear historical evidence that these areas are indeed no
longer agerading, but are being destroyed by erosion caused by the
slowly rising seal level on the Gulf Coast.

CONCLUSIONS

The insufficiency of the present data has been a recurrent theme in
much of this paper. There is no conclusive evidence that sedimentary
processes are being disturbed to the point of elimination of the wet
lands entirely, but I think it has been demonstrated that this situation
is not entirely impossible, either. Problems related to sedimentation
and primary production will doubtless be low on the list of priorities
when money is allocated for environmental research, perhaps because
the problem seems inconsequential to many people. This, in turn, is a
function of the present commercial appraisal of the value of these
areas.

In the event that research were carried out, and even assuming
that it indicated unambiguoouly that sedimentary processes must be
considered in managing the wet lands, it would be a task of monu-
mental proportions to include such considerations in land-use policy.
The area of the wet lands is minute compared to the area of its water-
shed, and activities anywhere in that watershed may be concentrated
at the estuary. Effective management of the wet lands is therefore

Footnotes at end of article.

187

Inseparable from the management of a much larger area, and on this
scale of management, there is little probability that the problems dis-
cussed here will be taken very seriously. Problems arising within the
wet lands, such as dredging and filling are much more likely to receive
Serious consideration, since they may be resolved among a relatively
smaller group of interested parties.

REFERENCES

1 Lauff, G. H., 1967 ; “Estuaries,” A.A.A.S, publication 83, 757 pp.

2 Chandler, D. C., 1942; Limnological studies of Lake Erie, II, light penetration and its relation to
turbidity: Ecology, v. 23, 41-52.
_ §Bassindale, R., 1943; Studies on the biology of the Bristol Channel, XI, the physical environment and
intertidal fauna: Jour. Ecol., v. 31, 1-29.

4 Pomeroy, L. R., 1960; Primary productivity of Boca Ciega Bay, Fla.: Bull. Mar. Sci. of the Gulf and
Caribbean, v. 10, 1-10.

5 Pomeroy, L. R., 1959; Algal productivity in salt marshes of Georgia: Lim. and Oceangr. v. 4, 386-397.

6 Verduin, J., 1954; Phytoplankton and turbidity in western Lake Erie: Ecology, v. 35, 550-561.

7 Ranwell, R. S., 1964; Spartina marshes in southern England, I1., rate and seasonal pattern of sediment
accretion: Jour. Ecol., v. 52, 79-94.

8 Oliver, F. W., 1920: Spartina problems: Ann. Appl. Bot., v. 7, 25-39.

9 Richards, F. T., 1939: The salt marshes of the Dovey Estuary: Annals Bot., v. 48, 225-259.

10 Weiss, C. M., 1951: ‘‘Adsorption of HE. coli on river and estuarine silts :’’ Sewage and
Industrial Wastes, v. 23, 227-237.

1 Fox, P. L., FE. D. Isaacs, and H. F. Corcoran, 1952: ‘Marine leptopel, its recovery,
measurement, and distribution :’” J. Mar. Res. v. 11, 29-46.

142 Carriker, M. R., 1967: “Ecology of estuarine benthic invertebrates, a perspective: In
Estuaries,’ G. H. Lauff, ed., 442-487.

13 Mansueti, R. J., 1961; ‘‘Effects of civilization on Striped Bass and other estuarine biota in Chesapeake
Bay and tributaries’: Univ. Miami Ins. Mar. Sci., Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries inst.

14 Cronin,, L. E., 1967; “The role of man in estuarine processes”: In Estuaries G. H. Lauff, ed., 667-692.

18 Hutton R. F., B. Eldred, K. D. Woodburn, and R. M. Ingle, 1956; ‘“The ecology of Boca Ciega Bay
a reference to dredging and filling operations;”’ Fla. St. Bd. Conserv. Mar. Lab. Tech. Series,

0. 17.

16 Hellier, T. R. Jr., and L. S. Kornicker, 1962; ‘‘Sedimentation from a hydraulic dredge in a bay’”’: Publ.
Inst. Mar. Sci., Univ. Texas, Vol. 8, 212-215.

17 Gunter, G., 1956; ““Land, water, wildlife, and flood control in the Mississippi Valley:’’ Proc., Louisiana
Acad. Sci., Vol. 19, 5-11.

57—-242—71——_18 S

er = oe

ei? ao fete SOLS worn! Hosen es
~zib extoldorg ony tose: ys ilictinc lon

jo sv9nirag
a) slisibet 9% oe
offt aiddive giizite eovolderS .vieu

~~
e ditoe win neal st ad
ariser oF lool « stom dsunonm anil bie uitio best) ‘ei

a?

vaniialets & gions i boviorened yer yori. sonia noid
rs as eng tg te zoitsoe4 é

St
le %
aM" te AS a (ig Sot as mess (ee

ty TEP, SB rohtavi iduq Aik. nm "eoksansate 3
r 9 eoibisie 2 [eoig olan Sper
ts

at tioitele't all Bins Hotienionad, digit If orig 9 dat d if
ysoke ond ait 0 jolbute 3 3

s-t f6.,

miki lt it A mes:

fing inenmmoivae (eofercdc olt..

Gea tat? 8016 348 weak ait:

PER-O8S dove sre
Thane
isonnbas fo rr;

ybTostic: (cf eve
Fe at oz tins siqoh

ve
iy er AA, ansaid iy. or Seo
Lagi bo ae

Hse s> a
é (

DUS syeared ile saitatiiae hae

es

“EaeTGoer2tin buotqel satnele" Paar vel gerd @ hte ower
( Ge ti «¥ gost eh bt gota
RL yariran ] sieht co9 oalss JeS*%0 * }

B20;
: e baatate 110 10) tnestityio ? }
4 18) | Bee eal ees

2 PSD ueNt, 1] tagen090 anttendas et cacy te ser aut” 6
Baul) RICE Loloan 4f ir agt etary. 6 .atasscls D0 AU Sashl
291788 doo dal aM wrnanoD) bel ae ah, mHolersco omit} vise wttgboth 1

r Least Weak f

i: “Faedeobeabath

abo: 6h

iltrebyrl & recor Laobingito rertiiee * sone

au

a RygigulsetM at mf feriiod foo! She vant ae aye artes Siac BACT ,

an
; at
res
L yo
4 4
> « we
1o4
‘ ei
~ " toe
; ? i ieee eke
|
mn #
‘4 \ A ARES
a.
: i é e comune

D. Some ConsIDERATIONS ON THE Errects or NATURAL AND MAn-
Mapr Anoxic ConpDITIONS ON THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT

(By Kenneth Mopper, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

INTRODUCTION

Nature has a tremendous capacity to recover from the abuses of domestic
pollution so long as the rate of addition does not exceed the rate of recovery of
the environment. When this limit is exceeded, however, the deterioration of the
environment is rapid and sometimes irreversible—B. H. Kercuum.

An anoxic condition in the marine environment occurs when the
concentration of dissolved oxygen has diminished to zero. Processes
leading to anoxic environments have been initiated either by nature or
by man. This paper discusses these processes and also with the con-
sequences of anoxic conditions on the surrounding environment. Stress
is placed on ecological effects of the New York Bight waste and sewage
sludge disposal area. The water directly above the sludge is rapidly
becoming anoxic and no bottom life, with the exception of anaerobic
bacteria, has been found. Possible dangers of heavy metals in the
sludge to the surrounding environment are explained.

PROCESSES LEADING TO ANOXIC CONDITIONS

Natural

Permanent natural anoxic conditions originate when the water circu-
lation is restricted horizontally by a physical barrier (i.e., a sill) and
vertically by either a strong halocline or pycnocline. Examples are:
the Black Sea, the Cariaco Trench in the Caribbean, and Lake Nitinat
on the coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Figure 1 shows a
plan view and a cross-section of Lake Nitinat. Although called a
lake, it is in reality a fjord which has been cut off from the Pacific
Ocean by a 2.7-kilometer long sill. Horizontal water circulation across
the sill extends to depths of about 4 or 5 meters. Because the water
circulation is restricted, the water in the lake below 30 meters is
stagnant. Once the dissolved oxygen below this depth became con-
sumed by biological processes, the water became anoxic. The anoxic
zone is essentially abiotic; the only organisms capable of surviving are
anaerobic bacteria (ZoBell, 1942). Photosynthetically produced organic
debris rain down into the anoxic zone and collect on the bottom. Some
of this organic matiter is oxidized by anaerobes via nitrate, sulfate,
carbonate (or CO.), and phosphate reduction, in order of decreasing
free energy (table 1). That is, most of the available dissolved nitrate is
consumed before sulfate is reduced, and so on. Nitrate and sulfate
reduction are the most important sources of oxygen for the anaerobic
bacteria. Ammonia and molecular nitrogen are products of nitrate
utilization, while hydrogen sulfide results from sulfate reduction. For
details of these processes see: Richards (1965a, 1965b) ; Richards et al.
(1965); Redfield, Ketchum, and Richards (1963); and Richards (1968).

(189)

Figure 1. Richards (1965a). Map of Lake Nitinat, Vancouver oa and the
distribution of oxygen and sulphides observed there June 10-12th, 1964. Oxygen

and total sulphide isopleths are in ywg.-at./1. The map and profile are reproduced
through the courtesy of Dr. T. C. Northcote of the University of erisishs Columbia.
5 contours, ug.-at./1.,- — — —; Sr contours, yg.-at./1.

Table 1.—Order of oxidation of organic matter in the marine environment

AG?(w) Keal
CH20—CO,/O0.H+—-H2O______ ee oe ee ot ~—29. 85
CH,0 —CO;/NO;- —N, a ee a ae ee en ae ere as [oe — 28. : 85
CH,0->CO3/Mn0O,>MnOO,e usvsld 6 vel Lg DONO be lapiises_ — 22, 70
CH20 >COn/:NOs- NN Ost uesees us cational eats @ sgdtie gle — 20.88
CH,.O —CO;/NO.- —N H3+ BS LS oy Seen hs Ree ee Pie eee seem td 5 See {4.22 ee —19. 05
CH,O0—CO,./FeOOH >FeCO3___- | pahifatnpet Mies pet rare GET — 8. 88
CH,0—HC00O-/CH,0>CHLOH_ _ 2 lee 2 ee eee ee —§. 95

Fermentation is an organic redox reaction where 1 organic substance gets
reduced by oxidizing another organic substance. In alcoholic fermentation ise
products are metastable with respect to CO, and CH)!

CH,0C0,/SO.-FHS 2B G MOF SMUOO8 10 ehiGoh OF eIMiores —6. 06
CH.0>CO,/CO.-CHg.a2si_ ssl isiew adit__bojoariias L 2 £4 = 5. 53

RELIES fermentation)

Oxygen-deficient marine environments have developed when tie
water circulation is so slow that oxygen consumption is greater than
oxygen replenishment. Such conditions can occur in the open ocean.
For example, the eastern tropical North Pacific Ocean has such low
oxygen concentrations that denitrification is taking place (Brandhorst,
1959). This situation occurs intermittently in protected fjords, inlets,
and gulfs such as a (Nessa Saanlich Hult (V ancouver

—t

191

Island, British Columbia), and Gulf of Cariaco (Caribbean). However,
at certain times of the year, these areas are flushed out with heavier,
oxygenated water. When flushing occurs rapidly, poisonous sulfide-
bearing waters impinge on the productive surface layers resulting in
massive fish kills. Several such catastrophies have occurred in ithe
Norwegian fjords.

Man made

When water circulation is restricted by the construction of man-
made barriers anoxic conditions may develop. An example of this is the
Charles River Basin and the Charles River Dam in Boston (see fig.
2a). As in the example of Lake Nitinat, the horizontal circulation is
severely restricted. Only the top few meters of the water are sufficiently
oxygenated to support a fish population. If this stagnant water,is over-
turned (as in the Norwegian fjords) by displacement with heavier
waters, large volumes of noxious hydrogen sulfide gas will be released
into the Boston air. The gas would be immediately oxidized to equally
noxious sulfur dioxide. The above situation could have been readily
avoided by construction of ducts in the lower portion of the dam

ae could be opened periodically to allow mixing to occur (see_fig.
2b).

Figure 2 Charles River Basin. Not drawn to scales
A. Present situation
Be solution

Be

Anoxic conditions can be initiated by excessive dumping of organic
wastes into the marine environment. Excessive dumping means the
rate of accumulation of nutrient-rich organic wastes in the sediment is
so high that a large biological oxygen demand (BOD) results. That is,
oxygen is consumed through biological activities at a rate higher than
can be supplied by normal circulation. As in natural anoxid environ-
ments, the normal marine benthic population dies off and is replaced
by anaerobic bacteria. Examples of the above situation are common in
waters of large coastal cities. Many estuaries and bays are extremely

192

polluted by sewage and industrial wastes. The sediment-water inter-
face in these areas has become permanently or intermittently anoxic
(Wheatland, 1954). A specific example of this is the sewage sludge and
dredge spoils dumping area in the New York Bight region. Fourteen
square miles of sea floor at water depths of 60 to 90 feet have received
domestic and industrial solid wastes from New York City for several
decades. Figure 4 demonstrates that the water directly above the
sludge is well on its way to becoming anoxic. The data were taken by
the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the Sandy Hook
Laboratories and are plotted in the figure as the degree of oxygen
saturation in the water. From this diagram, one can readily see the
relevancy of the opening quotation. The environment can be pushed
up to a certain limit; once this limit is exceeded rapid deterioration
ensues.

100

05
satuation
in water
above sludge
bs 2 J a

Q

1) ee
date measured = }

(0)

Figure: |} Oncoming of-anoxie conditions in the water over the sludge
dump in:the New York Bight

My concern is not the destruction or the effects of this destruction
on 14 square miles of sea floor, but.rather the effects on the complexly
interrelated ecological cycles in the surrounding coastal regions. For
example, the land-sea interface (i.e., coastal waters) has greater bio-
logical productivity and diversity than any other area in the world.
Ryther (1969) has made estimates of fish production in ‘three major
oceanic provinces: open ocean, coastal areas, and areas of upwelling:
His results are summarized in table 2. It is obvious from this table that
although coastal regions occupy less than 25 percent of the:total world
ocean system, they produce 100 times more fish. The larger fish density
is due tothe greater primary productivity (e.g., phytoplankton) which
in turn is-related to greater nutrient concentrations in the:water.).)

193

TABLE 2,—ESTIMATED FISH PRODUCTION IN THE 3 OCEAN PROVINCES,
NEE

Primary Fish

production production

[tons Corgante Trophic Efficiency [tons (fresh

Province carbon)] levels (percent) weight)]
Oceanitcsad 88 Sus ee ee eaee 16.3109 5 10 16105
Coastal: 2225.) RIOR a seeeet = ee. . ee 3.6109 3 15 12107
Upwelling= css. sees ies seeeeset = 2-2 -- 2-28. 0.1109 1% 20 1210?
Ot ae eece ree oa ono ween ew ew a aw es ner enn oe seme enee tera o<osaaceceecc=~5 24107

Note: Table 2, Ryther (1969).

It is exactly at the land-sea interface that pollution and exploitation
by man is causing severe and perhaps irreversible destruction to one of
his major food supplies. The potential for cultivating coastal regions to
feed future generations can be greatly diminished by the continued
practice of dumping highly toxic materials in the form of industrial
and agricultural wastes into these waters.

Our society has the misconceived attitude that the environment is
infinitely capable of producing goods for man and dispersing his wastes.
It is easy to say that the ocean can handle pollutants, even resistant
ones such as chlorinated hydrocarbons (DDT and its derivatives), and
radionuclides (plutonium 239, strontium 90, cesium 137, etc.), by its
great dilution powers. However, such statements ignore the fact that
there are natural processes which can concentrate diluted.pollutants to
a point of being lethal to some organisms.

Anoxic basins provide an excellent example of the process of concen-
tration. Anoxic basins act as sediment traps because of sluggish circu-
lation and lack of benthic animals. Any pollutant which enters this
system is also trapped and thus concentrated. In this instance, how-
ever, as long as the water column in the basin does not overturn, such
pollutants are-not a hazard to the surrounding environment; but the
possibility of an overturn is always a real danger. sa

Another example is the concentration of DDT and its derivatives,
DDD and DDE, in food chains. Figure 5 shows that DDT is taken up
by plankton and_ other plants from sea.water. These small organisms
serve as a food source for smallfishand zooplankton which are in turn
eaten by larger fish and sea birds and so on. DDT is resistant to meta-
bolic degradation, and will be passed up the food chain becoming
concentrated in more complex organisms at the top of the food chain
(Woodwell,, 1967). For example, humans have concentrated DDT to
the extent that female milk is unsafe for infant consumption (Radonski
and Deichman, 1969). The concentration of DDT in the ocean is less
than a part per trillion; the final concentration in man is on the order
of 10 to 50 parts per million (Wondwell, 1967).

194
» 5
eet (1967) _

I BIOMASS

LOSSES THROUGH —
RESPIRATION AND

CARNIVORE 2 EXCRETION

eee

fe ece DDT ag
° é eco
ie &

ADE Geld 45-0

ee, 2% ee
2 oS 9.2 8
4

CARNIVORE 1

ef ete eaee 00°

oe)
ee ee
es)

ore
° J.

° eee e e
e @sa e
9 :
e
e
e e © ©

HERBIVORE

CONCENTRATION of DDT residues being passed along a simple food chain is indicated
schematically in this:diagram. As “biomass,” or living material, ,is transferred from one
Jink to another along such a chitin, usually more than half of jt is consumed in respiration
or is excreted (arrows); the remainder forms new biomass. The losses of DDT residues
along the chain, on the other hand, are small in proportion to the amount that is transferred
from one link to the next. Fer this reason high concentrations occur in the carnivores.

195

’ Figure 6
Sandy Hook Report, 1970

160

140

= -~—
o o o n
° S ° °

HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATION - ppm (DRY WY. BASIS)
>
o

20)

36 Y-2 39 39 70 63 53

Gaye STATION (center of seviage
sludge dump
° 2 4 6 8 10 12 1s 16 iy

DISTANCE ‘FROM SHORE (MILES)
TOXIC METALS. IN NEW YORK BIGHT DUMPING AREA

Analyses of sewage sludge for toxic metals have been conducted by
G. G. Gross at Stony Brook and by the Sandy Hook Laboratory. Fig-
ure 6 shows the concentration in parts per million of lead and chro-
mium in an east-west! transect through the sewage sludge dumping
area. Table 3 demonstrates some additional analyses for heavy metals
in the sludge and surrounding sediments. The wide variations indi-
cated in the table result from inhomogeneities in the sludge material.

196

TABLE 3.—HEAVY METALS IN SEDIMENT; (2 PERCENT HNO; EXTRACTION), SANDY HOOK REPORT, 1970
{In parts per million]

Transect
Station Cr Cu Pb
Northernmost: ;
1 | ep 731 ee a eee is Stes een gees 0.35 0. 42. 1.30
0) ee ee eee. eee ee oe ees . 66 . 028, 1.69
Tisc2ix Ged Dae /ie Os Sea, 5 GR Ee ns TN a Ae .99 . 016 2.98
5 )) patina gee SAYRE 0 eae. See ae! “Aiea .93 . 052 3.35
Near north:
MOGs i chs i Me 2 RO a a st ee ./0 . 027 1.99
0 ares tt oh NPR pt A AE ae Ce eee 1,12 . 073 5.71
104. ogee 52 ao) a as Be ee ee 2. 04 13 6. 49
(1): an RIS FS) SS Re Se ae he aes 12.3 12.3 30.1
Sewage sludge:
Bee epee SU i eee eae ES re Mat REE . 66 .23 RES
| eee ane eo aRRR RY WU Sateen Bn NS eee i het 11.9 10.3 26.1
BOE SR as Se aa aa Se See are ee A 37.9 58.3 Wot |
TOE Se 5 eA Pe nie eee Oe aa ee te See I PY OPE ene 16.1 35.9 67.9
G3eter ae ee a Ba a ee Se cee mee 2. 34 . 103 3.58
Lk eur inn eet mane eN Ln arene Hebe ait 0. See es .25 . 024 .95
Southern ‘
[: RoeR ene Ra! eM EEDA PPR T RS eee eS uk! BG doa ue “Ie 63 2. 87 2.47
Lh ie ats ee me Onn RS US eg PAs ES Ie ee 1.46 | 43 3.97
Le ee ee ae EL ln Ae e's a A 1.17 318 8.25

The water just above the center of the dumping area is almost
anoxic and inhospitable to benthic animals. The periphery maintains
a limited benthic community. As long as sufficient oxygen is available
in the water, these sediment dwellers will ingest the nutrient-rich
sludge matter as a food source. At the same time, heavy metals from
the sludge are becoming incorporated into the body tissues of these
animals. Table 4 contains metal analyses of a worm (Neanthes sp.)
and a pelecypod (Cyprina icelandica) which were taken from the edge
of the sludge dump. The values for chromium are an order of magnitude
ereater than FWPCA maximum allowable concentrations; and for
lead, two orders of magnitude greater. More analyses are needed
although the general trend is already discernable: heavy metals are
becoming’ concentrated in the tissues of benthic animals. ©

TABLE 4.—SANDY HOOK REPORT, 1970

> Concentration, (p.p:m.)
Animal ‘Cr Gu- “Pb-

Nexhttes. 2coitettay ofive ofl _staarhihes on nibyerris 9.3 24/5

525, 0°
Cyprinaiicelandica: see. gg ee a AS DE ir 0.0 r al, 3
FWPCA manual concentrations.____-._____¢ 2-2-2 eee 0.24.0 © 4-50 : 0.5

The exact nature of these heavy metals is still unknown. The
metals can be present in either ionic solution or as an organometallic
complex such as a chelate. Because of the abundance of organic
materials in the sludge and dredge spoils, the latter form seems
more probable. The toxicity of heavy metals and heavy metal
chelate complexes lies in their ability to inhibit enzymes functions.
Enzymes act as biological catalysts; that is, they increase the rate of
essential biochemical reactions without themselves being transformed.
Most enzymes are active only when they are complexed with a specific
metal; i.e., copper, (Swelter, 1970). When complexed with other
metals they are biologically inactive. When chelate complexes from
the sludge are taken into this biological system they are capable of

197

losing their metals. If a metal, such as lead, is equally capable of
forming a complex with the enzyme, it can compete with the bio-
logically active metal for the enzyme site, The degree to which this
competition occurs is dependent upon the concentration of the lead.
A certain critical lead concentration will be reached beyond which
the enzyme will no longer function properly and thereby upset the
biochemical balance within the system. This type of poisoning is
usually irreversible.

Poisoning of animals in the New York Bight region will have serious
repercussions elsewhere along the coast. Most animals and plants in
the marine environment are a part of a complex food web. Animals
living in the polluted area will be eaten by others higher up in the food
chain, perhaps from outside the area. Toxic materials will be passed
along, as described earlier for DDT, and eventually man may be
affected. This situation is aggravated by the abnormally high nutrient
concentrations in the water (concentrations of 50 to 100 times that of
normal sea water were recorded by Sandy Hook scientists). These
concentrations are a result of the high percentage of nitrate and
phosphate in the sludge material. Nutrient-rich waters usually result
in high primary productivity which in turn, results in increased
predation (Ryther, 1969). Higher organisms, such as the fish, will be
attracted to the area for feeding. Increased biological activity in the
general area of the sewage sludge dump increases the probability of
the spread of toxic materials and the possible contraction and spread
of disease.

In addition to the heavy metals, other poisonous and noxious
substances are being dumped into the waters of the New York Bight.
These include persistent pesticides and petrochemicals. The effects of
these substances on the environment are only now being determined
and more research is needed.

In conclusion, the 14 square miles of ocean floor in the New York
Bight used for sludge disposal is irreversibly destroyed. Even if
dumping practices were to cease today, the effects of the noxious
substances present in the sludge already would be felt in this environ-
ment for an unknown length of time. However, if dumping is con-
tinued in the same manner, the situation can become even worse.

Domestic wastes should be separated from industrial wastes since
the latter contains most of the toxic metals. The domestic wastes
contain large quantities of nutrient substances, and therefore, can be
recycled in the environment. This sludge can be dried, ground, and
sterilized, then packaged as fertilizer or soil conditioner. In addition,
predetermined limits should be set on the concentrations of heavy
metals in industrial wastes. These limits will depend upon such factors
as relative toxicity and methods of dispersion in the environment. The
metals concentrated from the wastes can also be recycled. Industries
which do not monitor their wastes should be severely penalized.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brandhorst, W. (1959), J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer., 25, 3.

Radonski, J. L. and W. B. Deichman (1969), in ‘‘Chemical Fallout,” ed. Miller
and Berg, Charles C. Thomas Publisher, U.S., p. 297.

Redfield, A. C. and L. A. Walford. (1951), Nat. Res. Counc., Publ. 201.

Redfield, A. C., B. H. Ketchum, and F. A. Richards, (1963), in “The Sea,” vol.
II, Hill, ed., Interscience Pub., New York, pp. 26-78.

198

Richards, F. A. (1965a), ‘“Chemical Oceanography,” Riley and: Skirrow,..eds.,.

. vol..II, Academic Press, London, pp. 611-645.

. (1965b), Proc. 2d Inter. Water Pollution Res. Conf. , Tokyo, 1964, p. 215.

Richards, F. A. et al. (1965), Limnol. Oceanogr., 10, pp. “R185-R201.

Richards, F. A. (1968), paper adaaie at the Symposium! on | Organic Matter
in Natural Waters, College Al Alaska. (00

Ryther, J. H. (1969), Science, 166,72.

Sandy Hook Laboratory Rept. to the Corps of Engineers, New ‘York Bight
Pollution, 1970.

Swelter, C. HL. (1970), Science, 168, 789.

Wheatland, A. B. (1954), J. Hyg. Camb., 52, 194.

Woodwell ’G.M. (1967), Sci. Am., 216, 24,

ZoBell, C. E. (1942), J. Sed. Petr., 12, 127.

PART IV.—OFFSHORE SITING OF
ELECTRIC POWERPLANTS

Electric powerplant siting has emerged recently as one of the most
difficult, politically heated issues of our Nation. As we have grown
richer and more populous, we have witnessed a mushrooming growth
in demand for electric power. At present growth rates demand is
doubling every 7 to 9 years!

The resulting pressure on land resources for powerplant siting has
become most noticeable in the heavily populated coastal regions of the
country. The paper within addresses the possibility of using offshore
sites as possible locations for these powerplants.

A. OrrsHorE SITING or ELEctTRIc PowERPLANTS
(By Dennis W. Ducsik, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
ABSTRACT

It is increasingly evident that electric utility companies are hard
pressed to satisfy the rapidly multiplying demands of modern American
society for electric power. While the technology associated with power
generation is well developed, the industry has encountered major
stumbling blocks involving social, political, and economic issues. The
most severe difficulties have been associated with questions of environ-
mental quality, public safety, and land use priorities in relation to the
selection and approval of sites for new generating facilities.

The siting of electric power facilities at offshore locations is an inter-
esting concept that has emerged in the recent past and which seems to
hold great potential for the effective solution of the land use problem
while having extremely attractive additional features in the areas of
environmental protection and public safety. A number of studies have
indicated that this concept is within present technological capabilities
and is potentially very attractive economically.

What is needed is a careful evaluation of this concept as part of a
coordinated effort at the Federal level directed toward long-range
planning and the formulation of a national energy policy. At present,
no governmental mechanisms have taken on the responsibility for the
consideration of national priorities in this crucial issue of electric power
production. Yet, this issue is closely related to the problems of environ-
mental quality and efficient land use that are being addressed in the
formulation of a national land use policy program. The proposed Land
and Water Resources Council can foster effective land use management
in relation to powerplant siting (especially in the coastal zone) by
sponsoring a coordinated, in-depth study of the offshore concept as
a viable alternative to land-based installations.

(199)

200

I. INTRODUCTION

The rapidly increasing demands of our automated society for electric
energy are relatively well-publicized yet nonetheless staggering. These
demands for electric power in the United States double every 10 years
while increasing at a faster rate than the population, the gross national
product, the research and development budget, the supply of scientific
manpower, or almost any other measure of growth in our affluent
society. We can comprehend the immense proportions of the power
production task by considering that, in the next decade, ‘‘we must add
as much new generating capacity as has been constructed since the
invention of the light bulb. If the increase continues at the present
rate, the same amount of capacity—as much as has been constructed
through 1969—would then have to be added in the followmg 5
years.” (1) This translates nto an estimate of future loads that will
require over 1 billion kilowatts (electric) of installed generating ca-
pacity by the year 1990.

Needless to say, the fulfillment of these requirements will place
sizeable burdens upon the resource base of our economy and, indeed,
that of the world. First, if present trends continue for the next 15
years, we will need approximately 67 percent more oil, 33 percent more
coal, and 100 percent more natural gas than we have consumed to date,
while continuing to deplete our stockpiles of fissionable materials.
Second, the construction of large powerplants is an extremely expen-
sive affair ($200 million for a new nuclear plant) requiring large capital
expenditures. In 1969, utility companies accounted for 20 percent of
all new U.S. corporate bond financing, and each year 80 percent of the
industry’s new money needs come from the bond market. (2) Third,
the site requirements for large generating stations entail the purchase
of several hundred acres of land, frequently near heavily populated
metropolitan areas where land is at a premium. Estimates of future
demands indicate that over 250 new plants will be required by the
year 1990. (3) Fourth, power production places severe demands upon
our environmental resources of air and water. It is estimated (4) that
power stations burning fossil fuels are responsible for one half of the
sulfur dioxide and one quarter of the nitrogen oxides that contaminate
our nation’s air. The air pollution problem is compounded by the fact
that it is most economical, in the conventional sense, to locate generat-
ing plants as close as possible to the load; yet it is here, in the heavily
populated, industrialized metropolitan areas that the air pollution
problem is most severe. .

Another matter or great concern is the effect of discharge of waste
heat from nuclear power facilities to local cooling water supplies. Such
plants operate at thermal efficiencies much lower than those of fossil
plants, thereby producing more serious temperature increases 1m
cooling waters. It is estimated (5) that, by 1980, the electric power
industry will require about one-sixth of the total available fresh
water runoff in the entire Nation for cooling purposes, and this demand
for water will continue to grow. While cooling towers and cooling
ponds are technically feasible, they can involve cost increases of up
to 20 percent of the capital cost of an installed generating plant, an
extremely undesirable (albeit necessary in some cases) additional
economic burden. Apprehension over the impact of the resulting

i et ee

|
|

201

temperature increases imposed upon bodies of water whose life-
Sustaining capacity is more often than not already badly weakened
by other sed fees (sewage, industrial wastes) has led to both
national and local restrictive legislation.

To meet the projected demands of the future, the technology of
nuclear generating plants has forged ahead rapidly since their intro-
duction to the power market in 1964. Currently a number of 1,000-
megawatt (electric) plants are under construction, while it is the
general consensus that the 2,500-megawatt (electric) liquid-metal-
cooled fast-breeder reactor will replace present light-water units by
the 1990’s. Clearly the advent of nuclear technology has been a major
contributing factor in the emergence of our Nation into what is
commonly known as the space age. Yet, for all our technological
capabilities, there is doubt for the first time that the electric industry’s
capacity will be able to keep up with the rapidly escalating per capita
demands of our population, which is growing both in numbers and in
affluence. Each summer, evidence accumulates indicating that the
power companies are hard pressed to keep up with these demands,
particularly during peak hours. Many large electric companies in
cities of the Northeast, notably New York City, have experienced
brownouts, while the appeals of these companies to customers to
reduce consumption during peak hours are becoming commonplace.
The occurrence of brownouts and blackouts poses a serious threat to
the health, safety, and well-being of the entire Nation. Glenn T.
Seaborg, Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission,
has speculated on the possible outcries of angry citizens ‘who find
that power failures due to lack of sufficient generating capacity to
meet peak loads have plunged them into prolonged blackouts—not
mere minutes of inconvenience, but hours, perhaps days, when their
health and well-being, and that of their families, may be seriously
endangered. The environment of a city whose life’s energy has been
cut—whose transportation and communications are dead, in which
medical and police help cannot be had, and where food spoils and
people stifle or shiver while imprisoned in stalled subways or darkened
skyscrapers—all this also represents a dangerous environment that
we must anticipate and work to avoid.” (6)

One might ask how the present situation has come about. The
answer is that a combination of unanticipated circumstances has
handcuffed the electric power industry to the point where it is difficult
for them to take the necessary steps to alleviate the pressures placed
on them by increasing demands. The two major stumbling blocks
encountered by the utility industry have been (1) long delays in
construction scheduling, and (2) difficulties in securing approval of
site selections for new generating facilities.

Delays in construction scheduling

A major problem facing the power industry is the continual slippage
in construction schedules and excalation of site labor costs. This is
usually associated with the specialized nature of the work involved in
the traditional practice of constructing power stations as one-of-a-kind
entities. For each new facility, a different set of laborers must be
recruited, trained, and organized to carry out the specialized construc-
tion peculiar to that particular plant and geographic site. This prob-
lem is particularly acute in the construction of nuclear power stations

202

which must be designed to meet stringent radiation containment
standards, even in the event of severe seismic disturbances. Although
factory-type construction techniques have been utilized -in\ other
types of large-scale construction, power stations are still built, using
traditional methods. As a result, we are witnessing inordinate delays
in construction schedules: Nuclear: plants now take from 5 to 7 years
for completion. (7) These setbacks in construction scheduling are
extremely costly and could wipe out any cost advantage that one
particular type of plant might have over another. Also, power com-
panies may be-forced to anticipate delays by increasing construction
leadtimes, running the risk of premature retirement | of existing
facilities if the construction schedules are met.

Also, if nuclear power is to be increasingly relied upon in the future,
the installation of nuclear stations must proceed even faster than net
power demand. The doubling time for nuclear plant capacity would
then be on the order of 7 years, since new demands must be satisfied
while old fossil plants are phased out. Hence, the combination of short
doubling time and long construction time could be a major plisiiale
in the way of increased reliance on nuclear power.

Difficulties in securing approval of site selections

The most severe problems facing the utilities of late have arisen
from difficulties associated with the selection of sites for new generating
facilities. The situation is accurately described as follows:

Everyone agrees that electric power supply is vital to the Nation and that we
must find sites for the powerplants needed to meet the Nation’s rapidly expanding
use of electricity. Nevertheless, ‘‘Don’t Put It Here’”’ is increasingly becoming the
publie’s reaction to particular sites selected by the utilities. Furthermore, the
electric utilities are facing increasing competition for sites because our land re-
sources are limited, and the ingredients of a prime site for electric generation also
make it attractive ‘to many other expanding industries.(8)

This statement points out the two major difficulties related to site
selection and approval: Competition from a wide range of prospective
users, and the multiple pressures of public opinion.

Competition for prime sites is not restricted to mpdnetiagl develop-
ment. The site that is ideal for electric power generation is often very
well suited for various forms ‘of residential development, the location
of transportation corridors, commercial development, or. recreation.
This competition becomes especially intense as the utility companies
move to acquire coastal locations to assure adequate supplies of cooling
water. Yet many of these areas, as Senator Jackson pointed out in
his introduction of the National Land Use Policy Act, ‘‘with the
benefit of planning and foresight, should have been reserved for other
uses,’’(9) such as recreation, parks, or wildlife preservation. Strong
arguments of this kind have been made (see reference 35) asito the
need for preserving coastal resources in recognition of their extremely
high intrinsic value for recreation, conservation, and wildlife preser-
vation. The esas trends toward: locating powerplants at coastal
and estuarine sites is in direct and irreversible conflict with considera-
tions of this sort. The State of California has already located 85
percent of its power stations on tidal waters. Of large nuclear units
now planned, built, or operated in the United States, 18 percent use
ocean or bay water as condenser cooling water, and another 12 percent
are sited on estuaries.(10) If this trend is allowed to continue for the
next 20 to 30 years, 80 percent of the cooling water for States border-

203

ing on the Pacific coast and 50 percent on the Atlantic coast will be
saline. Even if the ecological ana esthetic effects of these plants on
the fragile marine environment can be demonstrated as negligible,
the use of large blocks of coastal acreage for powerplant siting
constitutes an irretrievable loss which cannot be regained for use by
future generations. Careful consideration of this issue is of crucial
importance in the formulation of long-range planning for land use
management.

In addition to market factors, the utilities are likely to encounter
inereasingly stringent constraints on site selection imposed by public
agencies, such as the conservative site standards set by the Atomic
Energy Commission with regard to areas of potential earthquake
hazards. All these factors are further compounded by the fact that
the greatest percentage of future sites are likely to be required in
the regions of heaviest concentration of population and existing
plantsites, especially in the northeast corridor. It is here that land
is the scarcest, especially at the seacoast.

The problem of public acceptance is primarily one of an overriding
concern for the quality of the environment. The areas of most
coneern are: (1) the air pollution caused by fossil-fired plants; (2) the
thermal pollution caused by nuclear plants; (3) potential radiation
hazards related to nuclear plant accidents; and (4) the visual intrusion
of generating facilities on the beauty of the natural landscape and other
esthetic considerations. Presently, political action has led to the situ-
ation whereby 20 percent of new plants are delayed by actual litiga-
tion, while 40 percent are delayed by general conservation and environ-
mental considerations. (11) It is reasonable to expect that problems
of this general nature will occur more and more frequently, causing
delays of increasing consequence when considered together with the
delays in construction scheduling.

A most recent manifestation of these multiple problems associated
with powerplant siting can be found in a report entitled “The Turkey
Point Case, Power Development in South Florida—a Study in
Frustration.’’ (19) In this article, Harris B. Stewart, Jr., Director of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Atlantic Oceano-
graphic and Meteorological Laboratory in Miami, documents an
extraordinary chronology of events (covering a 7 year time span)
concerning the location of a new nuclear powerplant to satisfy the
increasing demands for power of the residents of Dade County,
Florida. Turkey Point was about the last remaining section of water-
front in Dade County available for the needed expansion, a site which
was relatively remote from population (25 miles south of Miami and
5 miles from the nearest dwelling), was accessible to cooling water
(Card Sound to Biscayne Bay) and the transportation necessary to
supply fuel for the units. Yet for the last 7 years the Florida Power
and Light Company, despite clear evidence of good faith on environ-
mental issues, has been frustrated at every turn in its attempts to
secure approval of its expansionary plans, with the most intense
pressures coming from conservationists who feared that the thermal
effects of discharged cooling water might be detrimental to the eco-
logical systems of the area. The issue has risen to national prominence,
while at present construction is at a standstill while the fight goes
on in the Federal courts. In concluding his examination of the con-
flict, Stewart reflected on the dilemma:

57-242—71_—_14

204

My personal feeling * * * is that the real endangered species in the overall
ecosystem is man himself. Those who now scream that Biscayne Bay is being
ruined by the warm water will be the first to rail against the power company when
a power brownout or blackout occurs. The problem then is one of the conflicting
uses of a resource held in common—in this case the estuaries of our coastal zone.
At the very heart of the problem of coastal zone management lies conflict between
those who would use the waters for the cooling of electrical power generating
plants and those who would keep our estuaries in their pristine, pre-man, condition.
Some mutually agreeable meeting ground must be reached. It must not be con-
sidered as a case of power or estuaries, but rather a case of how to develop the
power we require and still have estuaries that are needed for the development of
fish and for the many uses to which our growing coastal population wishes to
put them. (12)

Certainly this constitutes an accurate expression of the central issue
at stake; yet more and more we are finding, to our dismay, that the
multiple uses that we would like to see supported by our natural
environmental systems are so incompatible that use for one purpose
often must necessarily preclude use for many others. When we are
confronted with basic dilemmas of this sort, we can only make deci-
sions based on the relative weights of perceived value judgments of
society as a whole. |

We can now summarize the primary land use issue regarding the
siting of electric powerplants in the following way: we are running out
of usable inland fresh water cooling capacity; we are running out of
coastal and estuarine land resources for recreation and conservation
(let alone for powerplant siting); and we are running out of patience
with regard to the harmful side effects that power generation imposes
upon our environment. Perhaps it is with the words ‘“‘we are running
out” that we can begin every discussion of the allocation of all our
precious environmental resources.

So, having examined these difficulties facing the power industry,
it is small wonder that we are now facing the prospect of serious
power shortages. The most immediate issue we face today is not
one of reducing high power costs or of choosing between particu-
lar methods of generation (although this is certainly of great
importance from a resource-consumption standpoint and other long-
term considerations of national concern), but ‘‘the vital one of
persuading the American people that a crisis exists right now” (13) in
satisfying the present needs of our highly power-dependent society.
Sometime in the near future drastic new approaches must be taken to
alleviate the “‘saturation” problem (of which power production is an
integral part) before we exhaust our technological capabilities to
hold back disaster, before we exceed the ability of our environmental
resources to disperse waste, or before we run out of usable land for
recreation or powerplant siting. It is mevitable that we face in the
long-run some of the serious tradeoffs (such as that between undis-
turbed estuaries and power generating plants as described by Mr.
Stewart) given that we continue with our present patterns of exponen-
tial growth in so many areas. |

Perhaps we must eventually try to cut back on consumption by
buying fewer air conditioners, televisions, and cars, although this
would seem socially unacceptable in our present democracy. The only
really effective long-run solution to all congestion-related problems is
to attack the source of congestion—continued population growth.
Yet solutions are also needed in the short run; the vanguard of crisis
is here and now. We must find measures to avert dangerous power

205

shortages with an eye to the future consequences of our actions on
man’s total environment. Perhaps we are not adequately equipped at
present with the institutional mechanisms (social, economic, political)
to completely resolve issues brought on by the preponderance of man’s
presence on this earth. Until we become so equipped, we can turn to
technology to provide the short-run solutions to pressing problems
such as the one here described—trealizing at all times that we are just
buying time and that the consequences of failure at some later time
may be all the more severe.

It is in this context that I present a concept that strikes at the
heart of the power production issue, providing relief for pressing
problems and holding great promise for the future. This concept has
the relatively unique feature that it holds the potential for simul-
taneous solution of the two major difficulties faced by the power
industry—construction delays and_ site selection and approval—
without placing additional stress on the financing aspects of the overall
situation, while removing a serious area of contention and conflict
from the already overburdened shoulders of land-use planners. The
general features of this concept are described in the remainder of this
article.

II]. THE OFFSHORE CONCEPT

In recent years the concept of locating large electric generating
stations at offshore sites has gained increasing attention. There are a
number of extremely attractive aspects to this concept. One is the
potential elimination of many of the difficulties associated with the
selection and approval of sites. Questions of land cost and availability
are no longer relevant; competition with industrial and other devel-
opment interests would be nonexistent; use of the ocean’s capacity
for cooling seems to be the only answer to the environmental problems
of thermal pollution; and siting of plants offshore allows new flexibility
in locating close to the load, especially as our population concentration
shifts to the coastal perimeters of the Nation, where land is already
at a premium. Hence, nearly all the problems of land-use manage-
ment associated with the siting of power generating facilities can be
effectively obviated.

The second major advantage of great importance is the amenability
of many offshore designs to shipyard construction. While U.S. ship-
yards are presently operating with a backlog of orders, their utilization
is subject to large variations depending on the construction plans of
the U.S. Navy. This is because the U.S. yards are generally not com-
petitive on the world market, the costs of a given shipyard produet are
approximately 20 percent less in Europe and 35 percent less in Japan,
where shipyards are larger. Diversion of American shipyards to the
mass construction of powerplants might constitute a more efficient use
of this well-developed resource while haying beneficial side effects on
regional economies. Shipyards are geared to hold tight construction
schedules. For example, it is estimated (14) that large (43,000 ton dis-
placement) nuclear-powered containerships could be produced in as
short. a time as 18 months, at a shipyard price of $40 million. Com-
pared to these ships, a powerplant is a very high value product: A
1,000 megawatt nuclear plant now costs a utility over $200 million.
Furthermore, like ships, powerplants could become an important
regional export industry. The market for the eastern and gulf coasts of

206

the United States alone is estimated to average 10 plants per year (15),
worth a total of more than $2 billion, for the next several decades.
Another benefit, perhaps the most important, is that the construc-
tion of a powerplant. at a shipyard has the potential for significant
savings in construction time. A shipyard maintains the permanent
base of shops, equipment, and skilled labor that is lacking in the
traditional methods: of powerplant construction. This provides for
(1) increased stability of the skilled labor force, (2) increases in the
efficiency of the skilled labor force by allowing a learning curve to
develop as additional stations are built, and (3) elimination of dupli-
cative areas of management, management support, engineering,
construction support, and quality control presently necessitated by
separate construction locations. Shipyards are also frequently hubs
of transportation networks that can use the most efficient combina-
tions of land, sea, and air facilities to reduce transportation costs
over onsite construction of land-based plants. The possibility of
shortened construction times to help the power industry stay ahead
of rapidly increasing consumer demands, together with a potentially
large savings in capital outlays by utility companies for new plants,
are most encouraging prospects in these times when substantial
delays in construction are both costly and commonplace. .
Several designs for offshore power stations have been proposed in
the literature. (See app. A for a ‘‘Selected Bibliography of Reports on
the Offshore Concept.’’) These designs usually fall mto two broad
categories: the basic choice is between floating platforms or enclosures
(indirectly coupled to the ocean floor by a mooring system) and fixed
structures that are solidly attached to the bottom.

Fized structures

Fixed structures can be of several forms: (1) Man-made islands;
(2) fixed-pile platforms; (3) jackup platforms; (4) grounded barge.

(1) Manmade islands—The technology of this scheme does not
differ in any appreciable way from that of land-based plants, except in
the added complexities (and cost) of site preparation and transporta-
tion of men and equipment across a water gap. Studies investigating
the feasibility of this concept have been undertaken on both the Hast
(16) and West (17) coasts.

(2) Fized-pile structures—In this scheme, piles are floated or
barged to a given location and erected permanently. A platform is then
erected on these piles, similar to a Texas-tower configuration. Japanese
engineers (18) have proposed construction of an offshore power station
based on this design. Like the manmade island concept, this design
entails conventional land-based construction techniques, again with
the added complexities of offshore onsite construction.

(3) Jackup platform.—The power station is constructed in a shipyard
atop a platform equipped with extendable legs, floated to the chosen
site, then jacked up on the legs (grounded to the seabed), out of the
water, and into a position similar to that of the fixed-pile structure.
The jackup system is generally thought to be useful in depths up to
250 feet, while 300 feet is accepted as the practical limit.

(4) Grounded barge—This scheme involves the permanent ground-
ing of a floating bargelike platform to the ocean floor (in shallow water)
or on a prepared site. The barge and power station are again con-
structed in a shipyard, towed into position, and then ballasted until
the grounding is complete. :

207-

——_
“~—

F loating structures geal an eo
A number of designs-have~also-been suggested for. floating struc-

Wee: These include: (4) Submersible stations; @)“ship~hulls; BF
arges. Ji

(i) Submersible stations.—This concept, is:presently under investi-
gation by the Quincy Division of General Dynamics “under the
auspices of the Department of the Interior(19). As described in a
proposal by R. W. Marble(20), this scheme consists of a grouping of
cylindrical containers enclosing the reactor, steam, and electrical sys-
tems, positioned at sea and tethered to the bottom by a multipoint
mooring. The position of the station with respect to the ocean surface
would be controlled by ballasting in much the same way as on a
present-day submarine. The best-position for the station with respect
to the surface must be ascertained—at least 100 feet over the main
hull section probably would be desirable. In shallow water this might
demand bottom siting. A personnel transfer system would be provided
by a long access trunk and elevator to a light heliport structure above
sea level.

(2) Ship hulls—The U.S. Army presently operates the Sturgis
craft(21), a floating nuclear power station utilizing a small pressurized
water reactor (PWR) in a conventional ship hull. For the much larger
plant sizes necessary for commercial power generation, this shape
would not be suitable because of excessive stability problems and the
difficulties in designing suitable mooring, although the good towing
characteristics would provide excellent mobility for smaller size plants.
Experience with such reactors aboard a number of naval vessels, in-
cluding the NS Savannah(22) and the Otto Hahn(23), have indicated
that “there are no inherent-reasons why reactors should not be
installed on floating platforms—at least not for pressurized-water
reactors. Some concern has been expressed in the past: about the per-
formance of boiling water reactors on ships * * * under conditions
of roll, pitch, and heave. Several studies, plus the performance of the
Otto Hahn, suggest that this is not a serious problem(24).”- .

>

208

<i BA eae at
ene “he F 3
EBS Per EP reas

Fig, 1. Floating nuclear-power plant,

(Taken from Reference 26)

(3) Barge Mounted Power Stations (BMPS).—This concepttinvolves:
the location of a powerplant on a floating barge, built in shipyards
and towed to, and moored at, appropriate offshore locations. One
possible configuration that was the design selected in a recent study (25)
is shown in figure 1. The barge supports the reactor and its
containment dome in the center, surrounded by the personnel and
generator housings. The latter contains the turbines, generators, con-
denser and condensate systems, and transformers for high voltage
transmission. The switch gear and other auxiliary equipment are
located on shore. The generator part of the plant would not differ in
any substantial way from modern steamplants now used in conjunc-
tion with fossil-fueled stations. The personnel area contains the reactor
and steamplant control stations, administrative offices, and auxiliary

209

equipment compartments. Access for operating and maintenance
personnel would be provided by a causeway, while docking facilities
could be constructed if boat transportation is more economically
attractive.

To protect the plant against extreme environmental effects, such
as 30-foot storm waves, 7-foot. tidal waves, and 200-mile-per-hour
winds, a rock breakwater can be constructed in depths less than 50
feet. This breakwater can also serve as the basis for the mooring
system and as a collision shield for the barge. Protection from seismic
disturbances is provided by the fact that the barge is floating, while
“air springs’ can be designed which will shield the barge from vertical
shocks. All these issues are more widely discussed in a study by
Harold M. Busey at the Donald W. Douglas Laboratories(26).

It should be noted at this point that determinations of the tech-
nological feasibility of the offshore concept should not be restricted
to consideration of nuclear plants alone. In many respects, the issues
are independent of the type of powerplant that is located offshore.
It may be that locating fossil plants offshore might be desirable if the
atmospheric dispersion conditions are favorable enough to avoid air
pollution in nearby cities. This report has based the analysis on
nuclear technology since the literature related to the offshore concept
has been developed primarily in this area.

The literature describing variations of the offshore concept has
focused on primarily three designs: manmade island, submersible sta-
tions, and floating barge-mounted facilities. The general consensus is
that all of these concepts are technologically feasible, (27) the ulti-
mate determinant being that of cost. Of the three, the manmade
island concept appears to be the least desirable due to reasons cited
previously, while the floating and submersible designs each have
singularly attractive features. For example, both designs appear to
provide near absolute protection from seismic disturbances. (28), (29)
In addition, it is thought (30), (31) that underwater containment of
nuclear reactors would provide much better postaccident fission-
product retention than is now possible in land-based plants. Also,
floating stations offer a relatively limitless choice of locations since
they would be unaffected by. ocean depth or bottom contour. The
possibility of moving stations at some future time in response to
changes in population or consumption patterns might be a factor in
favor of floating stations.

It seems at this point that the offshore concept contains a number
of extremely attractive features that go a long way toward eliminating
the twofold problems faced by the power industry—construction de-
lays and site selection and approval. While it is, not the purpose of
this paper to go into the details of the technological and economic
aspects that require careful examination, it, would be useful to set
forth the major tradeoff variable (economic, technological, political,
and legal) that must be considered in any comprehensive analysis of
this concept. If the technology andthe economies of this proposal do
not provide new obstacles of comparable complexity with today’s
problems, the realization of the offshore concept could be hailed as
one of the most significant adyances,in the history of electric power
production. )

210-
II, 18gUBS IN THE CONSIDERATION oF THE OFFSHORE CONCEPT!

Two recent aundiea! conducted at’ the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology have provided a preliminary analysis (32) and’ ‘an’ in-
depth followup investigation (33) of the major technological, economic,
political, and legal trade-off variables that must’ be considered in an:
analysis of the offshore concept. The results of these studies are in
general agreement with previous investigations in the conclusion’
that a number of offshore designs are well within the limits of present
technological capabilities:

These reports examine some of the general winsliedations that would
go into the design of offshore power’ installations, imcluding fixed:
and floating structures, as well as some areas in need of special at-
tention due to the differences between a land and a water environ-
ment in connection with a large-scale power facility. ‘The treatment
has led to the identification of a number of major trade-off issues that
must be assessed in the choice among alternative schemes and their
affect on costs. These include:

(1) The degree of seismic protection required.

(2) The suitability of various mooring schemes and their
ability to withstand the forces of maximum storm conditions for
a large number of years.

(8) The minimization of ecological stress on local sea life and
on coastal ecosystems to within allowable margins (a function
of oceanographic conditions and constraints imposed by the
institutional environment).

(4) The protection against collision with air and sea vehicles.

(5) The effect of tidal movement and tsunami (tidal wave
triggered by a remote earthquake).

(6) The establishment of a thermocline to prevent mixing cold
influent with hot effluent—constraint on depth of water. |

(7) The limitations on draft of floating structures imposed by
the depth of harbors providing shipyard access.

(8) The suitability for use with undersea or tower pee
lines (cost is the major variable).

(9) Ease’ of’ access for personnel and suitability for heavy
maintenance.

(10) Radiation containment, and radionuclide waste dis-
persal during normal and accident conditions must conform to
AEC standards.

(11) The adaptability of various offshore structures to satis
yard construction without incurring prohibitive costs.

(12) The susceptibility of the plant to sinking and loss of access,
and how this might interact with design features such as use of
soluble poison control.

(13) Effect of winter icing on plant operations.

(14) Coupling to onshore transmission facilities and suitability
for clustering to reduce costs: that is, how far apart should
multiple plants be?

(15) Refueling and maintenance schemes adopted: need for
barge or truck access and so forth .

(16) Legal and political considerations, such as the 3-mile
limit, jurisdiction of Federal, State, and local governments,
applicability of recent environmental legislation, national security,
and so forth.

211

In the comparison of a number of alternative offshore schemes
to a land-based plant, the major differential cost components were
identified as follows:

(1) Costs of alleviating thermal pollution.

(2) Interest costs and savings due to shipyard construction.
(3) Cost of real estate for plantsite.

(4) Cost of transmission to shore.

(5) Shipyard construction costs.

(6) Cost of site preparation.

(7) Transportation costs.

(8) Insurance costs.

(9) Cost of operations.

(10) Additional labor costs.

The results of this analysis have indicated that at least one offshore
design can be shown to be economically competitive with a land-based
facility, while the realization of offshore siting would meet no severe
legal obstacles and could be regulated within the present institutional
framework. This is an encouraging result since the analysis was
deliberately conservative in nature. There seems little doubt that as
land prices continue to spiral upward, this component alone will make
the offshore station the most economical choice for the utilities. Other
factors which were not included are potential savings due to closer
location to load centers and savings associated with the development
of a learning curve in the mass production of large-scale installations.
Both of these considerations could make sizable contributions to
savings over land-based plants in the near future.

1V. CONCLUSIONS

What now are the implications of this analysis of the offshore
concept? It is clear that this concept provides a viable alternative to
land-based power stations and can eliminate some of the most serious
problems faced by the power industry today in meeting our Nation’s
increasing demands for electric power. All indications are that the
concept is feasible from a wide range of technological, political, legal,
and economic standpoints. What then can be done to set the machinery
in motion to give the feasibility of this concept a long hard look?

To answer this we must first decide what machinery we are talking
about. In our country today, there is no centralized governmental
body at the Federal level that is charged with the formulation of
national goals and priorities and the long-range planning that is
necessary if we are to meet our future needs for electric energy. Yet,
it would be difficult to imagine a more pervasive issue in relation to the
maintenance of our society as it exists today. The aspirations of every
American citizen for a greater level of well-being are based in part
upon the confidence that this Nation can maintain the capability to
provide adequate supplies of electric power on a continuing basis.
Yet, today, we live under the recurring threat of brownouts and
blackouts in our major cities each summer, while evidence of any
substantive effort at the Federal level to attack the root causes of these
problems remains conspicuously lacking. This is not. to say that there
is a lack of concern—certainly the Atomic Energy Commission has
been instrumental in developing the technology that we need to meet

212

increasing demands. But a number of the problems of power produc-
tion, as we have seen (plant siting), are not technological in nature;
rather, they are social problems generated by an awakened sense on
the part of our society of the value of the environment and of the
mistakes we have made for so long in pursuing a course of unbridled
srowth. Yet there is no existing mechanism to direct our course and
help resolve conflicts in a manner consistent with a carefully considered
set of national objectives and policies in the area of electric energy
production. Hence the path of power generation continues to wander
helter-skelter in whatever direction that is randomly dictated by the
activities of the private marketplace and local political decisionmaking.

Is it wise to entrust such a crucial issue as electric power production
to anyone other than the highest level of government where the true
national interest can be fully determined and appreciated? I think not.
It must be emphasized that this is not a matter to be resolved at the
State or local level—the problems of air and thermal pollution and
land use (especially of coastal resources) in relation to power produc-
tion are regional and national in scope. Nor can it be the responsibility
of the electric utility industry unless present forms of regulation are
modified to allow for the generation of the large amounts of capital
that would be required to fund a large-scale research and development
effort. The responsibility lies clearly at'the Federal level where the
power-production issues related to land-use management and a host
of other areas of national concern can only be resolved as part of
coordinated effort in the formulation of a national energy policy.

The implication is clear—we are in need of a comprehensive, long-
range, coordinated effort at the Federal level that will bring together
all those areas of concern that are affected by the lack of a national
energy policy. Certainly one such area is the formulation of policies
for effective land use management. One might make the general
statement that the first principle of effective land use management is to
factor out and avoid as many conflicts as possible before trying to
manage the multiple use of a common resource. Undeniably, the
implementation of the offshore concept would virtually eliminate one
of the most troublesome issues of land use management—powerplant
siting. Hence, careful consideration of this proposal is particularly
germane to the formulation of a national land use policy at the Federal
level. The issues of environmental quality and land use that are
inherent in the problems of powerplant siting are directly related to the
questions being addressed by the proposed national land use policy
program. Any political mechanism that is established at the Federal
level to coordinate a national land use program must provide for the
investigation of the imterrelationship between electric energy produc-
tion and land use management. © Ail .

I find in reviewing the most recent report ** on the National Land
Use Policy Act that such provision has: been made in a substantive
way by the participation of the Chairman of the Federal’ Power
Commission in the proposed‘ Land and Water Resources Council.
I feel that this Council, under the mandate set forth in section 106
concerning the establishment of a Federal planning mformation
center, can foster effective land use management in the area of power-
plant siting (especially in the coastal ‘zone); by sponsoring a coor-
dinated, indepth study of the offshore concept as a viable alternatwe to
land based installations, bringing together Federal agencies including

213

the Office of Science and Technology, the Atomic Energy Commission,
the Department of the Interior, and any public or private organiza-
tion with a vested interest in land use, environmental quality, and
other issues related to powerplant siting. Such an effort could be in-
strumental in eliminating a troublesome source of controversy from
land use management and is certainly relevant to the concept of
intergovernmental coordination that is fostered in the land use policy
program. At the same time, this could be the all-important first step
that would draw attention to the increasing need for the establishment
of a formal governmental mechanism that can effectively deal with the
formulation of a long-range, national energy policy.

REFERENCES

1. Sherman R. Knapp, Chairman of Northest Utilities; Statements in Panel
Session on ‘““The Nuclear Controversy”, Annual Conference, Atomic
Industrial Forum, December, 1969.

. Gordon R. Corey, economist for Commonwealth Edison (Illinois); from
nuclear engineering lectures given at M.I.T., April 7, 1970, entitled
“Effects of Recent Changes in the Money Market?’.

3. Estimate based on information assembled in connection with updating of
the 1964 Federal Power Survey; reported in Considerations Affecting
Steam Power Plant Section, a report sponsored by the Energy Policy Staff,
Office of Science and Technology, December, 1968.

4. U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, The Sources of Air
Pollution and Their Control, 1966.

5. Report of the Energy Policy Staff, Office of Science and Technology, Con-
siderations Affecting Steam Power Plant Site Selection, USAEC Report
TID-24936, December, 1968.

6. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, testimony
before J.C.A.E. hearings on ‘‘The Environmental Effects of Producing
Electric Power’’.

7. F.C. Olds, Nuclear Plants—Late and Later, Power: Engineering, March, 1969.

8. Report of the Energy Policy Staff, Ibid.

9. Senator Henry M. Jackson, “Introduction of the National Land Use Policy
of 1970’, Congressional Record-Senate, January 29, 1970.

10. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Environmental Effects of Producing
Power, August, 1969.

th. J.C.A.E., Lbid., Part 2, January—February, 1970. i

12. Harris B. Stewart, Jr., ‘‘The Turkey Point Case, Power Development in
South Florida-—a Study in Frustration”, Meeting of the Marine Tech-

nology Society, November, 1970.

13. J. A. Carver, Jr., statements in panel session on “The Nuclear Controversy,”
Annual Conference, Atomie Industrial Forum, December 1969.

14. General Dynamics, Quincy (Mass.) Division, pamphlet describing Proposed
Fast Containerships as part of a Total Transportation System, 1968.

15. Based on data presented by R. W. Marble (Reference 20) and projected
demands for electric energy consumption.

16. ‘‘Con Ed has taken the First Step Toward a Serious Look at Artificial Islands’’,

_. Nucleonics Week, Vol. 11, No. 14, April, 1970. ;

17. Bechtel Corporation, Engineering and Economic Feasibility Study Phases I,
II, III for a Combination Nuclear Power and Desalting Plant, USAE C
Report. TID—22330, Vols. 1 and 2, December, 1965.

18. News items from Nuclear Engineering International, Vol. 15, No. 169, June,

1970, and Ocean Indusiry, Vol..4; No. 12, December, 1969.

19. “Undersea Sites Projected for Nuclear Power Plants’, New York Times,
August. 19, 1970.

20. R. W. Marble, ‘‘A Submerged. Commercial Power Generating Concept’,
General Dynamics, Quincy Division, January, 1970 (unpublished).

21. R. M. Bunker; ‘‘Deseription, Application, and Siting of the STURGIS
(MH-1A) Floating Nuclear Power Plant’, Trans. Amer. Nuclear Society,
Vol. 8, No. 1, June, 1965. ’

92. Staff of First Atomic Ship Transport, Inc., “Operating Experience of the U.S.
Savannah in Commercial Service’, Nuclear Safety, Vol. 8, No. 1, Fall,
1969.

i)

23

24.
25.
26.
27.

33.

34,

214

W. Wiebe, et al., ‘‘Safety—Design Aspects of Nuclear Powered Ship Otto
Hahn’’, Nuclear Safety, Vol. 9, No. 6, November-December, 1968.

T._D. Anderson, “Offshore Siting of Nuclear Energy Stations’, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, 1970 (unpublished).

Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, ‘‘A Floating Earthquake-Resistant
Nuclear Power Station”, USAEC Report TID-24558, April, 1968.

Harold M. Busey, “‘Floating Plants for Seismic Protection”, Nuclear Applica-
tions, Vol. 6, June, 1969.

H. G. Arnold, W. R. Gall, and G. Morris, ‘‘Feasibility of Offshore Dual
Purpose Nuclear Power and Desalination Plants’, USAEC Report ORNL-
TM-—1329, January, 1966.

. H. M. Busey, Jbid., Reference 26.

. Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, Ibid., Reference 25.

. R. W. Marble, Jbzd., Reference 20.

. O. H. Klepper and C. G. Bell, ‘“Underwater Caisson Containment of Large

Power Reactors’, USAEC Report ORNL-4073, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, June, 1967.

. D. W. Duesik, editor, Project NECAP, reporting the results of an inter-

disciplinary course at M.I.T. investigating selected issues of long-term
significance to the well-being of the New England region, including electric
power production, shoreline recreation, air and water pollution, and politi-
cal reorganization (to be published by the M.I.T. Press).

“Offshore Siting of Nuclear Power Generating Units”, results of investiga-
tions of the technological feasibility and economic viability of the offshore
concept in Course 22.33, given at M.I.T. in the Nuclear Engineering
Department, Fall, 1970—internal document MIT NH-120.

National Land Use Policy Act, Report of the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, United States Senate, No. 91-1435, December 14, 1970.

APPENDIX A

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REPORTS ON THE OFrFrsHORE CONCEPT

A-1. R. W. Marble. ‘‘A Submerged Commercial Power Generating Concept”’,

General Dynamics, Quincy Division, January, 1970 (unpublished).

A-2. T. D. Anderson, ‘‘Offshore Siting of Nuclear Energy Stations’, Oak Ridge

A-8.
A-9:

National Laboratory, 1970 (unpublished).

. Daniel, Mann, Johnson, and Mendenhall, ‘‘A Floating Earthquake-Resistant
Nuclear Power Station’, USAEC Report TID-24558, April, 1968.

- Harold M. Busey, ‘Floating Plants for Seismic Protection’, Nuclear
Applications, Vol. 6, June, 1969.

. H. G. Arnold; W. R. Gall, and G. Morris, “Feasibility of Offshore Dual
Purpose Nuclear Power and Desalination Plants’, USAEC Report
ORNL-TM-1329, January, 1996.

. O. H. Klepper and C. G. Bell, ‘“‘Underwater Caisson Containment of Large
Power Reactors”, USAEC Report ORNL-4073, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, June, 1967.

. Bechtel Corporation, Engineering and Economic Feasibility Study, Phases I,
II, III, for Combination Nuclear Power and Desalting Plant, USADC
Report TID-—22330, Vols, 1 and 2, December, 1965.

“Con Ed has taken the First Step Toward a Serious Look at Artificial
Islands’, Nucleonics Week, Vol. 11, No. 14, April, 1970.

D. W. Ducesik, editor, Project NECAP, reporting the results of an ieter-
disciplinary course at M.I.T. investigating selected issues of longterm
significance to well-being of the New England region, including electric
power production, shoreline recreation, air and water pollution, and
political reorganization. (to be published by the M.I.T. Press).

A-10. ‘Offshore Siting of Nuclear Power Generating Units’’, results of investiga-

tions of the technological feasibility and economic viability of the offshore
concept in Course 22.33, given at M.I.T. in the Nuclear Engineering
Department, Fall, 1970—internal document MIT NE-120.

O

a Winkie et ol, “Safes
Hahn", Nee lost Rakery,, ¥

4. 'T. Dy Anderson, “Oiiabaat

Mai fests i Tanlpo ratory, ae ‘a Sa

Wie Sa gti +f, ALi che Pics sorte aes on peep ae Vhoss oS
Nwetuss SP uate oi arrow , ARTES seer 9 sa 3 j aos 4508);

its. Rervls i. Bangs: igi DB ne tare Sekerse Proky

» } : 4 pay ee K
f Reaclaraent Chwcis ti

TA gee Eeactte Pai aint :

4! i i]
,
.
7 /
" '
at
a wu i ‘
ead } ‘
| steht Ghee
eo ee
fs ES ORL arr y N3 : Se (Sr See Oe.
5 rye b. Feral igone
4 z i Wet RreehiGin. | Pie i4j thas
oy = a ; 3 Voor eek) TS ase ang Peres" Sst ntio 2
oe re Ca ‘ ‘ “ay SU Aer} eo
Re (0 taki, A Yicating Marthe
gal ort “TL ah 15a,
& it ; sie for Siic’ Broke
SPR, th rik ; ; ie nae I ty
ay « > 2 roa > 7, 4 -
iy Wy Ve ah, wn Morea, aagiltty nie
th Ane Deshliviatte a Plante’, AG
* SLOT Cant

AGT: Ostet

Lee The i 7 pee SECU LCV ENING Possibility Sts
ee rt Meh, ar Peron rid 5 altinge; :
oe ae oo tet en Phena bth, 19857" :
Size Biap i Wwartia 'Seriaue’
BR fy 32, Novis Ap eRe
ees acer PS farting the result
soe ae vost ting selesied anes
ti ok ie! Neerey Fngland gion, a

neaayis roland bigs. ‘air end water, :
tat atte 3 hed hive ere ert ty a
Sea ia querasin ruta’ sesualtel f
218 “eee ¥ wad 6s eo Tcl viabiiis of
naeitiog Se FH i rae et: oe wa VALE. ip te Natlearc

‘ele snc hag Well wes ee, oy cae: tee ea ent Recast ales
; rar

1 4 \ i

‘
i 7 ‘ i
i pti « ULE ns
MSc - .
U a
%
2
5 i
i
y L
cate!