BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 06584

04 9

y. (<^ r oy

e**

GOVDOC

•Proceedings of the Land Use Subcommittee

of

THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON THE EFFECTS OF GROWTH
PATTERNS ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN MASSACHUSETTS

Volume II
(Spring 1975)
11 July 1975

BOSTON

PUBLIC

LIBRARY

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2011 with funding from

Boston Public Library

http://www.archive.org/details/proceedingsoflanOOmass

4'rv /S~^

■ Proceedings of the Land Use Subconunlttee

of

THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON TME EFFECTS OF GROWTH
PATTERNS ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN MASSACHUSETTS

Volume II
(Spring 1975)
11 July 1975

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ^

Acknowledgements

Resolution Establishing the Special Commission on the Effects of
Growth Patterns on the Quality of Life in the Commonwealth

Members of the Land Use Subcommittee

Agenda of 1975 Meetings

I. An Act Providing for the Formulation of a Massachusetts Growth
and Development Policy

A. July 2nd draft approved by the Wetmore Commission

B. Letter from Frank Keefe summarizing OSP proposed
changes from the Land Use Subcommittee's April 27th

. Working Draft

C. Summary of April 27th Working Draft

D. Working Draft of an Act Relating to Local and Regional
Participation in the Formulation of a Growth Management
and Land Use Policy for the Commonwealth

II. Subcommittee Background Papers

A. State Land Use Control in Selected States

B. Review of Legislative Issues in Land Use and Develop-
ment Planning

;s,!„v«<:i~s'.#*'"*6';' ALI Model Land Development Code: An Overview

I D. The Re-use and Revitalization of Central City Land

%

i III. Minutes of the 1975 Land Use Subcommittee Meetings

rts^^

■■>:•:,., A. February 13, 1975: Innovative Land Use Planning

"^ii'V,^' and Regulatory Activities in Other States

, r; B. February 27, 1975: Wetmore Commission Meeting with

t W-- Governor Dukakis

I '. C. March 13, 1975: Land Use Planning: Agriculture,

\ Forestry and Open Space

s

D. March 27, 1975: Analysis of Land Use Legislation
j/ '■'; submitted to the 1975 General Court

E. April 10, 1975: Re-use and Revitalization of Central
City Land

F. April 24, 1975: Analysis of Working Draft of
Proposed Legislation

G. June 19, 1975: Findings of the SENS Study and
Announcenient of the Governor's RecomTnendations
Concerning the Proposed Legislation

H. June 25, 1975: Subcommittee Consideration of
OSP and the Governor's Recommendations; and
Discussion of RPA Role in Implementing the
Proposed Process

IV. Appendix: Statements Submitted to the Subcommittee

A. DCA, State Land Use Project: Status of State Land
Use Policy in the 50 States: A Matrix

B. Statement before the Subcommittee by Warren Colley,
Department of Agriculture, February 13, 1975

C. List of Bills to be discussed in Hearings of the
Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee,
February 25 and 27, 1975

D. Statement before the Subcommittee by John Barrus ,
Massachiasetts Farm Bureau Federation, March 13, 1975

E. Statement on Massachusetts Forest Facts, John Noyes,
March 13, 1975

F. Memorandum from Constantine Constantinides , Chief
Planner, Office of State Planning: An Intergovern-
mental System for Land Use Planning and Land Manage-
ment, March 27, 1975

iii

PREFACE

This report summarizes the second half of the proceedings of the Land Use
Subcommittee of the Special Commission on the Effects of Growth Patterns on the
Quality of Life in the Commonwealth. Volume I (February 1, 1975) recorded the
Subcommittee's 1974 proceedings.

The first half of the Subcommittee's work focused on developing a consen-
sus concerning the nature and causes of land use guidance and growth manageuKnt
problems in Massachusetts. In 1975, the Subcommittee shifted its attention to
potential solutions to these problems, focusing the majority of its work on legis-
lative analysis and drafting. The result of this effort was the preparation of
a working draft of a bill relating to "Local and Regional Participation in the
Formulation of a Growth Management and Land Use Policy for the Commonwealth."
Different drafts of this bill were discussed in detail and revised at both the
March 27th and April 24th Subcommittee meetings.

On April 29th, a steering committee of the Wetmore Commission, consisting
of Rep. Wetmore, Sen. McKinnon , Rep. Demers (Chairman, Growth Policy Sijb commit tee) ,
Larry Branch (Chairman, Demographic Information Subcommittee), Sen. Saltonstall
(Chairman, Land Use Subcommittee), and Adriana Gianturco (acting Director of the
Office of State Planning (OSP)) met to consider the April 27th Working Draft of
the bill. The steering committee expressed an interest in the legislation and
decided to have Frank Keefe (newly appointed Director of OSP) review it, particu-
larly in terms of its consistency with the goals of OSP.

On May 22nd, the steering committee of the W^etmore Commission met with
Frank Keefe. Mr. Keefe indicated support for a joint legislative-administrative
approach in the formulation of growth and development policies for the Common-
wealth. He requested two weeks to review the bill and to make recommendations
to the Governor.

On June 18th, Mr. Keefe, Rep. Wetmore, Sen. McKinnon, and Sen. Saltonstall
met with Governor Dukakis to discuss the legislation and OSP's proposed revisions.

iv

The Governor endorsed the legislation contingent upon the revisions suggested
by OSP.

On June 25th, the Land Use Subcommittee met to consider the changes proposed
by OSP. Several revisions were made and the bill was sent to the Commission for
approval.

On July 2nd, the Wetmore Commission approved the legislation and submitted
it with an interim report to the General Court.

This bill, entitled "An Act Providing for the Formulation of a Massachusetts
Growth and Development Policy," and the Subcommittee's April 27th working draft
are included as the first section of this report. The bill initiates a step-by-
step process that allows cities, towns, and regional planning agencies to partici-
pate in a one-year effort to formulate a state growth management and land use
policy .

Over the next few months, the Land Use Subcommittee hopes to circulate the
results of its deliberations and the draft of this bill to a wider audience of
state and local officials, and citizens' organizations around the Commonwealth.
Hopefully, this report will serve as a first step in this process. The report
consists of four parts:

I. The working drafts of the bills that have resulted from
the Subcommittee's discussions.
II. A series of background papers designed to bring citizens
and public officials up to date on the latest thinking
and research in the land use planning field.
III. The minutes of the 1975 Subcommittee meetings.
IV. An appendix including statements and memoranda submitted
to the Subcommittee by its members and state and local
officials.

The Land Use Subcommittee considers the issues discussed in this report to
be of critical importance to the future of the Commonwealth. For this reason,
both this report and its predecessor (issued in February of 1975) are designed

V

to inform the public of the process that the Subcommittee has been engaged in
over the past year, and the manner in which it has reached its current initial
recommendations. These recommendations are, indeed, only a first step, and it
is hoped that this report and the work of the Subcommittee will stimulate greater
interest and public participation in land use decision -making.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The background research for this report was funded by a grant from
PACE (Planning Approaches for Community Environments, Inc.) at MIT. Kate
Gardner prepared the background paper on State Land Use Control in Selected
States. Joel Brenner prepared the background paper on Legislative Issues
in Land Use and Development Planning. Ellen Wade prepared the background
paper on the ALI Model Land Development Code. Charles Perry prepared the
background paper on Re-Use and Revitalization of Central City Land. The
staff would like to thank all of the members of the Land Use Subcommittee
for their conscientious participation and input into the Subcommittee meet-
ings throughout the winter and spring of 1975.

The Subcommittee Staff

Lawrence Susskind

Staff Director

Associate Professor

Department of Urban Studies and Planning

MIT

Charles Perry

Associate Staff Director

Department of Urban Studies and Planning

MIT

Joel Brenner

Legal Staff

Hairvard University Law School

Kate Gardner

Legal Staff

Boston University Law School

Ellen Wade
Legal Staff
Suffolk Law School

VI 1

4A20

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

/// the Year One TJwusaud Nuic IliiiiJrcd and ScvcfUy' u.reo

Rl:

SO[.\'n rkovmiNG }"0R AX iN'XT.sricATin^ a';d study by a spkciai. ro;ciTssio;;!
ri:laiivl to uit effect of I'RESh::;! gko',:ui i'AiTER.\'s o:; tup: quality of life i;j the

COWiONlTEALTIl.

1vl:;SOLV LL), That a special corjnlsslon , ro consist of three nvnibcrs of
the senate, seven nombers of the house of represcnl nC 1 vc s , and five persons to
be appointed by the governor, Is hereby established for the purpose of ir.aking an
investigation and study relative to the effect of pre?:ent growth patte'ms on the
quality of life in the coirmonuval th. Said coriTiission sh.Tll specifically, but
without limiting the generality of the foregoing,, consider nethcds to align
resource-use patterns with the lir.ati. d siijiply of natural rcscairces in the corr.ron-
wcalth, including a broad t ransfonnal ion of current valui>s which lead Co unrelieved
consiu;;eris::i; csCahll'ihing a st.ite der.jgraphic info mac ion center v;ich the duty of
collecting, interpreting, and dist ribut i'lg populalic;: infomaticn to aid cities
and touiis in pl.-umlng for the future; establishing a secclcr.onc policy for Che
com.-nonwealth based on Its economic and natural resources and safeguarding the
rights and needs of traditionally disenfranchised groups in Che common'vcalth
including t.^e urban poor of all races and naC ional it io:; , the elderly, and the
young; Che desirability of specific n;etli"ds of comunitv, regional, and state
planning, including specific growtii lirr,it at ion , sliared land-use responr. ibi lie y ,
relocation possibilities, tax incentives, use of rural romri'.unities Co a'vsorb
population growth or preservation of rural areas and open spaces; and Che
possi bi 1 icies lor cooporacion wich adjacenc states witli che inLenc of acliieving
thie best growth paccems for Che New England region.

Said co^.■^i:^sion may travel witliout the coninon'.eal Ch , and shall reporC Co
the gene^ral courC noc lacer Chan SopCcr.bor first, nineteen Hundred and seventy-
five .

Passed

House of Representative;-, August J^ , 1973.

^ / . /'if^^ ,n -, Acting

. ^ A>:^^_, Oy. ^ { -^^l-i- . SpoaK.er.

VI 11

MEMBERS OF THE LAIID USE. SUBCOMI-IITTEE

Sen. Chet Atkins, c/o Linda Hac!-anan, 413F State House, Boston, Mass.

Mr. Robert August, 673 Bedford St., Concord > Mass.

Ms. Laura K. Bailey, 11 Highwood Rd., Manchester, Mass. 01944

Mr. John D. Barrus , 85 Central St., Boston, Mass.

Mr. Francis L. Barten, Duxbury Conservation Conm. , Box 251, Duxbury, Mass.

Mr. John Bok., Nessen & Csapler, 84 State St., Boston, Mass.

Mr. Garen Bresnick, Mass. Horp.ebuilders Assoc, 93 Purchase St., Boston, Mass.

Mr. George Brown, Governor's Office, State House, Boston, Mass.

Mr, David Carter, DCA, 141 Milk St., Boston, Mass.

Mr. Nathan Chandler, Commissioner, Dept. of Agricul., 100 Cambridge St.,

(F-21) Boston, Mass.
Antonia Chayes, Nessen & Csapler, 1 V/inthrop Sq. , Boston, Mass. 02110
Mr. Vin Cia.-npa, Gov. Resource Mangmt. PI. Coul., 100 Cambridge St. (Pjn 909)

Boston, Mass.
Mr. V/illiam Cleary, Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of Metropolital District

161 Mass. Ave. (Rm 407) Boston, Mass. 02115
Ms. Margaret Concannon, Merrimack Valley Planning Assn., 87 Winter St.,

Haverhill, Mass. 01830
Mr. Donald Conners, Tyler & Reynolds, 1 Boston PI., Boston, Mass.
Pat Corcoran, DPW-BTPSED, 190 Portland St., Boston, Mass.

Mr. John Robert Cartin, Environ. Interpretation, 39 Chestnut St., Boston, Mass,
Mr. Rudolph G. DiLuzio, 8 Rhuland Rd., Stoneham, Mass.
f-Ir. Paul Doan, Cape Cod Plan. S Econ. Dept., 1st Dist. Courthouse,

Barnstable, Mass. 02630
Mr. Robert Dobbins, BU Press/Media Liaison, 34A Fayette St., Cambridge, Masis.
Ms. Mary Schmidt Doebele , Consultant, 80 Backingha^m St., Cainbridge, Mass.
Mr. Richard M. Doherty, Ex. Dir., MACP , 44 School St., Boston, Mass. 02103
Prof. Charles Elliot, 83 Reservoir, Cambridge, Mass.
Ms. Mary English, DMR State Office Bldg. (19th fl.) 100 Cambridge St.,

Boston, Mass.
Ms. Barbara Fegan, Box 545, So. V.'ellf lott;, Mass. 0,^.663
Mr. Joseph Fitzpatrick, Greater Boston Chariber of Commerce, 125 High bt.,

Boston, Mass.
Mr. Matthew Gaddis, Dept. of Agricul., 100 Cambridge St., Boston, Mass.

Ix

Ms. Kate Gardner, 902 VJestgate, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. ■ '■:

Terry Geoghegan, 44 School St., MACP, Boston, Mass. 02108 '•

Ms. Adriana Gianturco, 65 India St. (Apt. 9G) Boston, Mass.

Mr. Chester Gibbs, P. O. Box 3621, Springfield, Mass. 01101

Ms. Ann Gluck, 1 Court St., Boston, Mass.

Mr. Philip Good, Mass. Farm Bureau Federation, 85 Center St., Waltham, Mass.

Mr. Ken Gordon, 55 Deerfield St., #9, Boston, Mass. 02215

Rep. Barbara Gray, State House, Boston, Mass.

Mr. John Harrington, MJ\CP, 44 School St., Boston, Mass. 02108

Mr. Carl Heckla, Berkshire County Reg. Plan. Coram., 10 Fenn St.,

Pittsfield, Mass. 01201
Ms. Dorothy Hunnewell, 866 Washington St., Wellesley, Mass.

Mr. Steve Karp, State Properties of New England, 1 Wells PI., Newton, Mass.
Mr. Robert Komives , Dukes County Plann. S Econ . Dept . , Oak Bluffs, 02557
Mr. Christopher Lane, Urban Affairs Committee, State House, Boston, Mass.
Rep. David Lane, State House, Boston, Mass.

Mr. Barry Lawson , NE River Basin Coram., 55 Court St., Boston, Mass.
Ms. Roberta Leary, L'.-TV, 95 Elm St., Cohasset, Mass.
Mr. Frank Lee, Boston Edison Co., 800 Boylston St., Boston, Mass.
Ms. Susan D. Lutwak , 44 School St., M/^.PC , Boston, Mass. 02108

Mr. William J. McCarthy, Assoc. Industries of Mass., 4005 Prudential Ctr. , 02199
Kelly McClintock, Con. Law Foundation, 506 Statler Off. Bldg . , Boston, .Mass.
Sen. Alan McKinnon, State House, Boston, Mass.
Mr. Gerard F. McNeil, 59 School St., Northboro, Mass.

Mr. Fred Meuhle, Franklin County Plann. Comm. Courthouse, Greenfield, Mass.
Mr. James A. Miller, Deputy. Ex. Dir., MACP, 44 School St., Boston, Mass.
.Mr. George Morrison, Roxbury Action Program, 10 Linwood St., Roxbury , Mass.
Mr. K. M. Munnich, Lower Pioneer Valley Reg. Plann. Comm., 26 Central St.,

W. Springfield, Mass.
Ms. June Murphy, (Rm 138) State House, Boston, Mass.
Prof. Norton Nickerson, Biology Dept., Barnum Museum, Tufts University,

Medford, Mass. (Old Bass River Rd. , South Dennis, Mass.)
Mr. Thomas J. O'Leary, Essex County Planning Dept., 32 Federal St., .

Salem, Mass.
Mr. Scott I. Paradise, Boston Industrial Mission, 56 Boylston St.,

Cambridge, Mass. 02138

X

Ms. Mary Reardon, DCA, State Office Bldg. (14th fl) 100 Cambridge, St.,

"Boston, Mass.
Mr. Robert R. Ruddock, Greater Boston Chamber of Comm. , 125 High St.,

Boston, Mass.
Mr. Charles M. Savage, (Rm 43) State House, Boston, Mass.
Mr. Eric Savolainen, SRPEDD, 68 Winthrop St., Taunton, Mass.

Mr. Edward Shav/, VP, Union Federal Savings S Loan, 48 North St., Pittsfield, Mas;
Mrs. Sheila Silverberg, 10 Birchmeadow Circle, Framingham, Mass., 01701
Mr. David Smith, AIP Legislative Comm., 334 Boylston St., Boston, Mass.
Mr. Josiah A. Spaulding, Gales Point, Manchester, Mass. 01944
Prof. Lawrence Susskind, Mass. Institute of Tech., Ca-mbridge, Mass.
Mr. Norman E. Thidemann, Mass. League of Cities S Town, 6 Beacon St.,

Boston, Mass. 02108
Mr. Michael Ventresca, Mass. Forest & Park Assoc, 1 Court St., Boston, Mass.
Ms. Terry Ann Vigil, DPW, 190 Portland St., Boston, Mass.
E. M. VJade, 15 Coolidge St., Brookline, Mass.
Mr. John VJilbur, 415 Marlborough St. (14) Boston, Mass.
Ms. Susan K. VJilkes, 120 Moffatt Rd. , VJaban, Mass.
Rep. Robert V7etmore , State House, Boston, Mass.

XI

AGENDA OF 1975 SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS

February 13:
February 27:

March 13:

March 27:

April 10:
April 24:

June 19:
June 25 :

Innovative Land Use Planning and Regulatory Activities
in Other States

Meeting of the Special Commission with Governor Dukakis
to discuss State Growth and Land Use Policy and the
creation of the Office of State Planning
Land Use Planning from the Standpoint of Those Who Use
Land in the Production of Natural Resources — Agriculture,
Forestry, Open Space

Analysis of Major Land Use Legislation Submitted to the
1975 Session of the General Court
Re-use and Revitalization of Central City Land
Working Session to Analyze Initial Draft of Proposed Land
Use Legislation Prepared by the Subcommittee Staff
Presentation of the Findings of the SENE Study and Announce-
ment of the Governor's Recommendations on the Working Draft
of the Proposed Legislation

Subcommittee Consideration of OSP and the Governor's Recom-
mendations and Discussion of RPA's Role in Implementing the
Proposed Process

xii

I. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE FORMULATION OF A
MASSACHUSETTS GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY

A. COPY: nRATT ONLY . ■ . _ •

THIi C0MM0NT7EALTH 07 MASSACHUSETTC ■

IN THE YEAT. ONE THOUSAND NIHZ HUNDRED AND SSVZNTY-I7IV2

tU ACT PROVIDING FO?. IKI FOrJ-iULATION OF A MSS ACTUS STTS GROOTH AITO DEVELOPIENT
POLICY

Be It enacted by the Sencte and House of R3presentatives in Ganoral Court
assecbled, and by the authority o£ the same, as follows:

SECTION 1.

The provisions of this bill are such that any c'eiay in their irrplccentatiou Tjould
cause irr^cdiate hardship and v;aste of financial resources. The provisions of this
bill, therefore, take elfect upon passage. This act nay be referred to as the
"Massachusetts Growth Policy r)evelopment Actv,

V711EREA3 uncoordinated growth and development patterns in the conirr.onv.'oalth in the
past have often: --

» detracted from a healthy statev/ide economy by allowing nev? developraent to
corcpcte \.'ith an^' to un-'orrr.inc rather than to co'i'plc-snt exlot-nj ccovitcric
' centers in existing population and erployccnt ccn'ccrc;

squandered scarce Ian-:' and energy resources through location choices and
construction desin;ns that encoura.^^ed lo'..' density sp:ca'..'i at great dicuarzcc-s
from e:;isting residential, ccrx-.srcial and industrial devclopr.ent :

m Increased social and economic fragmentation by separating urban \:orl:ers

from convenient, productive and rsv.'arding job opportunities and by increasing
the necessity for e::pensive automotive transportation to distant job cc'^i'crs;
permitted some cities and towns to ta!ce unfair advantage of ;'j.her r.mnici-
pallties by placing development near municipal bounciaries such that ill
revenues accrne to the hosr. ccr-r.unity while significant icpacts must be
borne by neighboring con-.nunitieG • and

resulted in ever increasing amcunts of public investment for roadways,
• schools, sewer and water facilities, etc. to seccn-iuodate a sprrwl develop-
ment pattern, v;hich manifested itself in more burdensome Icenl, state, ^ni
federal taxes, vjhile prior e::pcnditures on public improvements in existing
employment and population centers have been underutilized in many cc;r:r.unil;icSf.

This act has the fellov;ing purposes:

1« the initiation of a locally-oriented, participat0J*y planning process to enable
representatives from various Interest groups in each municipality in the cor- on-
^?ealth to evaluate the effects of unplaned and uncoordinated grovjth and developniont
patterns: formulate future grc.'th and devciopnicnt goals v^'iich meet the needs of tr.a
diversity of residents in each municipality; coordinate local growth and deveiopiriinK
goals v;ith the goals of neighboring municipalities and \;ith regional needs* end to
contribute substantially in the formulation of state growth and devclcpriens policies
and objectives.

3

2. the involvement of citizens and officials, regional planning agencies, the
office of state planning and various additional state agencies and members of the
general court in the development of recommendations to alleviate past problcas
caused by unplanned and uncoordinated growth and development.

3. the development of policies and objectives and possible appropriate tools for
implementation to encourage, to facilitate, and to ei'cpedite eccnosic aad industrial
development and to balance such c'evelopmant with the preservation of the comcion-
v;ealth's unique environmental resources.

SECTION 2

As used in this act the following terms shall have the following definitions: --

■'Agency'' -- the office of state planning in the executive office for administration

and finance:

"Statement" — statement of growth problems and priorities prepared by a city or

tOTjn:

"regional planning agency" -- one of the thirteen commssicns or counoils created

pursuant to chapter forty B of the general laws or by special act;

"Tvegional Report" -- a report on growth managemc^nt problems and priorities prepared

by a regional planning agency, <

"areas of critical planning concern" —

a, areas suitable for comTiorcial and industrial development, or irr'^verFibl-*

b, an area where uncontrollable development could result in irrevcrRiblc d-Jir^age
to. important historical, enviroru-aantal, natural or archeological resources,
or

c, an area possessing inland or coastal v;etlands, marshes or tidal lands, or

d, beaches and dunes, or

e, significant estuaries, shorelands, and flood plains 'f rivers, lnl:e3, and
streams, or

f, significant agricultural, grazing, and watershed lands, or

g, forests and related lands which require long stability for continuing re-
newal , or

h, areas with unstable soil or high seismicity, or

i. an area significantly affected by or having a significant effect upon an
existing or proposed major public facility, or other area of major public
investment r
"development of regional impact" -- any proposed development which, because of its
character, magnitude, or location Xv'ould have a substantial effect vipon chc health,
safety, welfare of citizens outside the jurisdiction of a single municipality;
''Committee'' -- a Local Growth Policy Committee.

SECTION 3

Within one month of the effective date r-f this act there shall be created in every
municipality of the commonwealth a Local Grov/th Policy Committee composed of:

a. the chief elected official of the municipality, except in the case of a city
with a Plan E form of government, in wliich case it shall be the city m-n.agoi.'.'i
the chairmen of the planning board and conservation connaission, if fine t-rcisssj
the directors of the housing authority, if one ejcists, redevelopment sMdio^-
ity, if one exists, and the department of public health; the city or to'^ra
planner, if one exists:

b. five residents of the municipality, representative of disparate social,

economic and environmental interests, to be appointed by the moderator, in
the case of a town, or the chief e::ecutive officer, in the case of a city.

The planning board of each municipality shall be the lead group in administering the
activities of the Local Growth Policy Corjuittce. The chairman of the planning board
will call the first meeting of the Comn^ittee, at which meeting a chairman of the
Couunittee shall be selected, who in turn will have the responsibility to see that the
CoJTimittee fulfills all of its functions as described in section five and submits its
completed statement to the designated agencies. Upon submission of the Stateracni. to
the regional planning agency the committee shall be dissolved.

SECTION 4

Within one month of the effective date of this act the Agency shall send to the
moderator of every tovm and to the chief executive officer of every city a request
for a Statement of Growth Management Problems and Priorities which shall be in a
standardized format. Tjje format for the Statem.ent will be prepared -by the Agency
and should include questions and requests for proposed p5licies relatiiig to the
follo\7ing:

a. a description of local grovjth management problems of highest priority, with
particular reference to --

1. the most significant changes, both recent and anticipated, in population
density, economic base, and intensity and direction of developc'^nt •

2. conflicts involving land needed and suitable for: recreation, parks ai^.d
open space; scientific and educational purposes; industry and conjaerce:
the generation and transmission of energy solid waste management and
resource recovery cransportation- urban --evelopment , including the
revitali-:ation of cxisCing comv.-.unities and the economic bases of those
communities health, education and other state and local goveriuaental
services, and nultiple-use siting of facilities and activities:

3. identification of prim.e forest and agricultural lands and areas of
significant mineral deposits, and steps taken to conserve them antici-
pated demands for scarce natural products; and threats to agricultural
and forest production, mining and forestry -- including changing land
values, the tax structure and ecological factors;

4. conflicts or significant changes regarding water supply and sewerage;

5. the most significant chang.es, ' both recent and anticipated, in environ-
mental, geological ar.d physical conditions which influence the desir-
ability of various uses of landr

6. the most significant -oning variances and special permits granted or
refused, and all -oning bylaw changes m.ake, during the three years prior
to the effective date of this act-

7. changes in the b.ousing needs and in the housing opportunities for all
income groups in the city or tovm, and reasons therefor and changes m
the amount, type and location of land available for housing coastruction
in the city or to'.jn-

G. requirements 'for building and other permits that have impeded desirable

grov;th and development;
9. needs for new job developm.ent and kinds of commercial and industrial
') developm.ent that tjill best satisfy those needs.

b, identification of specific developments of regional impact and of areas of

critical planning concern in or near the responding municipality, and proposed
criteria for the identification thereof;

c. reactions to brief oescriptions of alternative administrative models for
implementing land use and growth management policy within the commonwealth,
which descriptions shall be prepared by the Agency

d, comments on the ways in which the activities of state agencies involved in
the allocation of state and federal funds for economic development, capital
improvements, open space preservation, and other activities related to land
use can be coordinated to prevent waste and inefficiency:

e. a description of the community's goals for growth and/or conservation and
an assessment as to v?hether existing laws are adequate for achieving these
goals:

f, an assissment of the type and costs of public improvements-- sewers, water-
lines, trash disposal facilities, roadways, etc. --now needed to accommodate
the existing population and emplo>Tnent of the community and likely to be
needed if population continues to increase and if economic growth is to be
made possible.

SECTION 5

Ulthin four months following receipt of the request for a Statement from the Agency,
the Committee shall as soon as possible after its formation, publicise its existence
and activities by announcement at town or city council meetings and by other
reasonable means* conduct whatever inquiries required to prepare the Statem.ent-
make reasonable efforts to meet with and ascertain the vie'.^s of all interested
persons and groups regarding local growth management and land use policy co:nplete
a tenative Statement in accordance with the terns of the request made pursuant to
section four above. The CorrjTiittee shall, insofar as possible, rely on existing
information in preparing its tentative Statement.

Uithin three months ^^f receipt of the request for a statement from the Agency, the
Committee shall hold a public hearing at which interested persons and groups shall
be afforded an opportunity to present data, views or arguments in regard to the ■•
tentative ntatem.ent orally or in writing. Elected municipal officials as well as
State representatives and senators shall be especially invited to review and
formally to comment upon the tentative Statement. However, no person or group shall
be required to make presentations or arguments in v;riting.

At least fourteen days prior to the hearing required in this section, notice there-
of fchall be published in a newspaper of general circulation published in the city
or town and shall be psoted in at least five pliblic places in the city or to;m. I
there is no such newspaper in the city or town, then notice shall be published in a
ne\7spaper of general circulation m the area. The notice shall refer to this act:
give the date, time and place of the hearing: state that the subject of the hearing
shall be the tentative Statem.ent in response to the request from the Agency- and
that copies of same shall be available from the clerk of the city or tovjn. A copy
of said notice shall be sent upon publication to the appropriate regional planning
agency and to the Agency. The cost of newspaper publication shall be borne by the
municipality for which the Ctatem.ent was prepared.

The Committee shall revise its tentative Statement on the basis of testimony from

jr

the public hearing and within 3 months of receipt of the request for a Statement
from the Agency shall submit the Statement in final form through the offices of the
municipal clerk to the appropriate regional planning agency- all special purpose
governmental units of vhich the municipality may be a part- the Agoucy; and all
contiguous municipalities and the county in which the municipality is !• cated. Any
county, special purpose governncntal unit, private citi::en, organized group, or
local board coinaission or cocmittee that may choose to ccrnnent on a Statement
received from a municipality pursuant to section five of this statute, shall submit
such corunents to the Agency, the relevant regional planning agency or agencies and
the relevant municipality or municipalities.

CECTION 6

Uithin seven months of the effective date of this act, each regional planning agency
in the cotrurom/ealth shall prepare, revise m accord \.'ith citizen coiroients and concern,
endorse, and forward to the Agency and to its constituent municipalities a P.egional
P.cport. Each Hggional Report shall

a, make a preliminary determination that each city and tovm in the planning
disttict is or is not in substantial compliance with sections three through
five of this act-

b, summarize the major fin.'ings and recommendations of the local Statements

c, provide, based upon consi-'eration of the statements received pursuant to
section five of this statute

\t an assissment of inter-municipal conflicts within the region: local-
regional conflicts, including but not necessarily limited to conflicts
between m.unicipalities and tne regional planning agency and conflicts
betvjoen municipalities and counties: conflicts betv,'cen special purpose
governmental units and any other units of government; and conflicts
involving counties and regional planning commissions with one another:

2, a statement of steps taken if any, to resolve said conflicts, such as
but not limited to bilaterial meetings betv;een parties in conflict,
mediation by the regional planning agency or legal action; and obstacles^
if any, vrhich may prevent the resolution of such conflicts, such as but
not limited to inadequate technology or information or funding, or the
lack of an adequate forum for resolving --isputes.

The Agency shall review all Statements prepared pursuant to sections
four through si::, inclusive, of this act, to determine whether they are
in substantial compliance vjith the terms of those sections.

d, define regional growth management problems of highest priority, xjith partic-
ular reference to

1, the most significant changes, both recent and anticipated, in populations
economic base, and intensity and direction of development:

2. conflicts involving land needed and suitable for industry and commerce;
urban development, including the rovitalization of existing comumunities
V7ithilimited economic basei ; recreation parks and open space; scientific
and educational purposes; the generation and transmission of energy;
soli'', v.'aste management and resource recovery; transportation; health,
education, and other state and local governmental ser'v'ices; and multipla-^
use siting of facilities;

3. identification of prime forest and agricultural lands and areas of sig-
nific.=-nt mineral deposits, and steps taken to conserve th'm; anticipated
demands f'^r scarce natural products; '.nd threa s to agricultural and
forest production, mining and forestry--including changing land values,
the iax structure, and eco'ogical factors;

4. conflicts 0-' significant changes regarding water supply and sewerage:

5. the m st significant changes, ';':-th recenc and anticipated, in environ-
mental, geol'^gical, and physical conditions which influence the de'sir-
ability of various uses of land,

6. changes m i;he housing needs and in the housing opportunities for all
income groups in the region and in adjacent comnunities, and changes in
the amount, type and location of land available for housing construction
in the region;

7. requirements for building and other permits that have impeded desi"able
grov^.h and deve'opment;

8. descriptions of the character and 1' cation of major commercial and indus-
trial development that should be encouraged and facilitated by local,
regional, and state agencies.

c. Identify, tak'ng into account the S :atements received pursuant to section
five of this s ,atute, specific 'developments of regional impact and areas of
critical p].anning c nee n m the region, and shall pr.pose criteria for che
future identification thereof;

f , reacti' ns ■ o brief descriptions of alte -native administrative m- dels for
implementing land use and growth management policy within the commonweal''h,
which descriptions shal' be prepared by the Agency;

g, comment on the v;ays in which governmental activities may be better coordin-
ated .o prevent delays and inefficiency in the ■ m.plemen lation of vital
development proje-.ts; and

h, evaluate the importance of prospective property tax revenues asaa factov Tn
the local decision making .rocess regarding p oposed development and assess
the role the property tax p ays in attempting to view development from a
regional perspective.

SECTION 7

Within eight months of the effec ;ive date of this act, there shall be created ai
Massachusetts Grov^th Policy Commissi-jn craposed -^f three memibers of the house of
representatives , to be appoin.eH by the speaker of the house; three members of the
senate, to be appointed by the president "f 'he senate; and ex ■ fficio, the
secreta ies '..f corrmunities and -development, environmcn;.al affairs transportation
and construction, ac'-.r.mistration anH finan c o and nanpov;cr affairs , or their
designa .ed representatives.

VJi hin nine month of the effective date f this act, the Ag ncy shall p epare and
SUjimlt t^ the Corcra\ssinn a report containing but not necessarily limited to: --
a. a summary f significant local and reginal growth management problemSj

priorities and conflicts-
'■:. a sun-unary of criteria proposed locally and reg"'.onally for the designation of

areas f critical p.'anning concern and developments of regional impact;
c. a s: irmary of local and regional reac ions to alternative admin'st ative
models fo implementing land use and g w'.h raanagem.en - ,'olicy within the
comraonwealth;

8

d. strategies for coordinating the activities of state agencies involved in
the allocation of state and federal funds for economic developiaent, capital
improvements, pen space preservation and other activities elated to land
use;

e. a description of the roles local and state taxes play in the pattern of
growth and developrr.ent ;

f. approaches to minimizing the time and cost of obtaining all permits and
licenses and of crmpleting all review procedures in order to expedite the
private development process for projects consistent with sound growth policies
and objec'ives: and

g. a recommended grov^th policy for the coramora/ealth, v;hich shall - efledt both
local and regional preferences and capabilities, as manifes "ed in the State-
ments and ".egional Reports prepared pursuant to this act, and issues of
statewide concern.

V/ithin eleven mon
md shall wTT

ths of the effective ''ate of this act, the Commission shall prepare

and shall with the concurrence of a majority of its members submit to the general
court an-i to the governor a report which shall mclu'-'e but need not be limited to
the following elements: —

a. standards and, where appropriate, new mechanisms, instrumentalities and
processes to guide growth and development int those areas v.'here they V7i 1
be most desirable to facilitate community revitalization, to generate new
economic vita i y, t minirai-'.e adverse environmenta effects and t'' conserve
open land and natural resources-

b. criteria for identifying areas f cri ical planning concern and develormentc
of regional ir._iact-

c. approaches to minimi-^ing the tim.e and cos of o tainlng all permits and
licenses and of completing all review procedures required for deveirpment ;
and

ci, strategies for coordinating the activities of state agencies involved in the
allocation of state and federal funds for economic deve opment, capital
improvements, open space cnservation an-' other activities related to land usg»

Er.ch element shal incorporate locally and regionally proposed standards insofar as
they m.ay be internally consistent. Upon submission of this report to the general
court, the Coirjnission shall be dissolved.

"ectlon 8

The Agency is hereby authori-'.ed to provide technical assistance to any regional
planning agency which may request such assistance for the purpose of com.pliancG with
this act. Regional planning agencies are hereby auchori-:cd to provide technical
assistance to any m.unicipality which may request such assis ance for the purj-!©se
of compliance v.>ith this act.

SECTION 9

The provisions of this act shall be deemed severable. If any of i.s pr -visions r.hnll
be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remaining pr visions shall continue in ful force and effect.

This is a temporary act and, as such, all of its provisions must be carried ^ut no
later than July 1, 1977.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASGACHU3ETTG

IN THE YEAR ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY- :■■ I VE

RESOLVE

TO DIRECT THE "^rECTAL COMlillSGION ON TIIE Ej'ECT" OF GROWTH PATTERNS
SPECIFICALLY TO INVESTIGATE THE MEANS TO EVALUATE THE GROWTH IMPACTS
OF CERTAIN LEGISLATION UNDER CONSIDEPvATICN BY THE GENERAL COURT

RESOLVED, That the scope ef study of the special cemmissicn, created accorr'ing
to chapter ninety-eight of the resolves of nineteen seventy three, be specifically
broadened to include the investigation of a procedure by which certain legislative
petitions, filed with the general court, might be systematically evaluated for their
impacts on the growth patterns of the ccrrjnom/ealth, and further, that said
commission shall recon-uT.end to the general court means by which such evaluation of
legislation might be established in behalf of the general court, including the
establishmdnt of a legislative c.mmittee. '

Said commission may travel without the ccmmomjealth, and shall report to the
general court not later than December first, nineteen hundred and seventy-six.

Frnr.V. T'. Koefe

DIRECTOR

B. Letter from Frank Keefe

if
'/CO bcfmlru/ac- ^l/-ccl, ^yjoJiofi 02202

10

■iAl<M.

AREA CCDi: S17
7Z7-!iO£.6

June 19, 1975

The Honorable Robert D. Wetmore

Chairtiidn

Special Coiranissioii on the Effects of Growth

Patterns on the Quality of Life in the

Commonwealth
State House, Rcon 473F
Boston, Massachusetts

Dear Representative Uetraore:

I have reco:r,nierided to the Governor that the Office, of State Planuii'ig support the
early sub".is:-;ion and eventual approval of the Comr.ission ' s legislation, "An Act
to Promote Local and Regional Participation in the Develoiinient of State Growth
and Dcvelopr.ient Po]icifts". As you know, the Governor endorsed this recommendation
at our meeting with him yesterday.

My, reasons for this recor.unendation are as follows:

a) The Commission and its Land Use Sub-ComT.lttee have worked long and hard on this
legislation and believe that a "bottom-up" participatory approach is essential to
the credibility and acceptability of any State initiated ("top down") growth policy
and management program.

b) It is the view of the Commission that all of this work will go for naught if the
support of the Governor through the Office of State Planning does not emerge.

c) The local and regional participation necessary for the proper functioning of
DSP' s' planning efforts could be enhanced and extended substantially by the enactment
of special legislation which form.ally encourages such participation.

d) The legislation would tend to attract public attention to and eventually increase
public understanding of growth aiid developiucnt issues m.uch more successfully than
administrative efforts alone.

e) The legislation, if passed, would put the General Court on record as concerned
about the reconciliation of econom.ic development ar.d environr.-.ental protection as

v;ell as in the position of collaborators in the effort to improve the State's policies
and programs for growth management.

11

f) The legislation is laudable in so far as it extends to the 351 coinriunities and
13 regions the opportunity to participate in the development of growth policy and
program evaluation at the State level. As such, it v;ould serve the purpose of pro-
viding an effective response to any possible complaint that people at the local level
were not involved in the process.

Our support, however, is contingent upon the following revisions to the legislation:

1) Remove all sanctions for coirjnunities that either choose not to take advantage of
the opportunity to participate in the process or fail to comply with the schedule for '
completing the statement on growth problems and priorities.

2) Delete the requirement .that the end result of the deliberations of the Office of
State Planning and the Special .Commission would be "growth management and land use
policy legislation". It would be better if the subaissicp of legislation were simply
an option and not a requirement.

3) Adjust the proposed time frames so that the local statements would be prepared
in three months, the regional reviews in one month, and the State's reviev; by OSP
(with a sumiTiary and recomr.iendations) within two months. This would not only convey
a needed sense of urgency but conform better with the v7ork schedule of the Office of
State Planning, making this legislatively provided participatory process supportive
of the State's administrative leadership in improving grov;th management.*

A) Drop all mention of small grants from the State to communities to finance the
preparation of the local statem.ents. Instead, mention sliould be made of the opportuni-
ties for free technical assistance fror.i the regional planning agencies and the Division
of Local Assistance in the Executive Office of Communities and Development.

5) Replace the provision for endorsement of all local statements by town meetings
v;ith a requirement that Boards of Selectmien be given an opportunity to submit a formal
review and comm.ent on the local statements.

6) Insert a preamble to the legislation which describes the economic, environmental
and social issues and concerns of poorly planned and mis-managed growth and develop-
ment.

I am certain that together we can initiate a joint legislative-administrative process
which will result in a clearer sense of growth and development policies and in an
improved growth management program, for the Commonwealth. The Comjnission must be com-
mended for its excellent efforts toward this end.

Sincerely

Director of State Planning

Frank T. Keefe

FTKiejs

* The time schedule was later adjustei^ to provide for eleven months for the completion
of the process. See times allotted in the draft preceding this letter.

12

C. Summary of the Bill

AN ACT RELATING TO LOCAL AND REGIONAL PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMULATION OF
A GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE POLICY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

This act initiates a step-by-step process that allows cities, to^^ms , and
regional planning agencies to participate in a fwo-year"^f fort, to formulate
a state growth management and land use policy.

Each municipality is asked to establish a Local Growth Management Committee
with responsibility for preparing a Statement of Growth Management Problems
and Priorities. Small Grants are available to support the work of these
committees. These Statements will identify local developments with regional
impact and local areas of critical planning concern. Localities will be asked
to react to specific intergovernmental models for land management (such as
the Martha's Vineyard Bill). Cities and towns will also be encouraged to
comment on the ways in which land use related activities of state agencies can
be coordinated more effectively. Finally, communities are asked to describe
ways of minimizing the time and cost involved in obtaining permits and licen-
ses needed to proceed with development.

A municipality is free not to supply this statement, but communities that do
comply will receive first priority in the allocation of federal aids to plan-
ning such as HUD 701 funds and other grants administered by the state govern-
ment. Failure to comply will result in unfavorable state and area-wide A-95
reviews for most subsequent federal grant applications.

Regional planning commissions (RPA's) are asked to review local statements
and prepare composite Regional Reports describing regional growth management
problems and priorities. These Reports should also identify/ developments of
regional impact and areas of critical planning concern from a regional point
of view .

Within eighteen months of enactment of the Bill the Office of State Planning
will prepare a Summary Report containing a review of the most pressing local
and regional growth management problems and priorities. This Summary Report
will also include guidelines and standards for designating areas of critical
planning concern and developments of regional impact as well as strategies
for more effective coordination of the land use related activities of state
agencies. The Summary Report will also contain an analysis of alternative
intergovernmental models for land management.

Based on the local Statements and Regional Reports, the Office of State Plan-
ning will summarize recommended growth policies reflecting both local and
regional preferences as well as statewide concerns.

The Report of the Office of State Planning will be submitted to a temporary
Commission composed of three members of the House of Representatives, three
members of the Senate, and five secretaries designated by the Governor. With-
in twenty-four months of the effective date of this Act the Commission will

13

submit Growth Management and Land Use Policy Legislation to the General Court.
This legislation will be based on the Summary Report of the Office of State
Planning and on the Commission's review of the material submitted by communi-
ties and regional planning agencies.

Th:

is Act

will ensure that

Ic

ica

lities and

re

giona

1 planning

agencies

are

fully

invo Ive d

in

the form.ulation

of

statewide

sr

ov;th

management

and land

use

policy.

It

will also

guarantee that

th'

e criteria

fo

r def

ining devel

opments i

Dt

more than

loi

:al impact

and areas of

crit

ical planning

ccnc

em reflect

. local and

rf

2gional

preferences. The Act will encourage extensive public participation in the
setting of development and conservation priorities. The preparation of local
Statements and Regional Reports should help to eliminate some of the obstacles
and delays that presently hinder development activities in areas in which re-
sidents desire additional growth.

The Act entails the expenditure of only a very small amount of state money
over the next two years. These funds will be used to cover the costs of pro-
viding for local and regional participation. The Bill ensures that a statev7ide
growth management and land use policy will be formulated from the "bottom up",
but that strong legislation protecting critical environmental resources, en-
couraging economic development where it is most desirable, and pulling together
fragmented state planning and management activities will, indeed, be forthcoming
within twenty-four months .

14

D. Working Draft, 27 April, 1975
For Purposes of Discussion

AN ACT RELATING TO LOCAL AND REGIONAL PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMULATION OF
A GROWTH MANAGEiMENT AND LAND USE POLICY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

SECTION 1. The development of a statewide growth policy is a matter

of urgent public concern, and it is imperative that such a
policy reflect the problems of managing growth at local and
regional levels of government , and it is essential that pub-
lic and private development and conservation preferences be
reflected in such a state growth policy:-

(1) to identify critical problems attributable to
the pace and scope of development, and strategies
for responding to them;

(2) to identify developments which, because of their
character, magnitude, or location would have a sub-
stantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare
of citizens outside the jurisdiction of a single
municipality;

(3) to identify areas of critical planning concern;

(4) to devise ways of minimizing the time and cost of
obtaining all permits and licenses and of completing
all review procedures required for development; and

■(5) to prevent waste and inefficiency by encouraging
more effective coordination of the activities of state
agencies involved in the allocation of state and fed-
eral funds for capital improve m.ents , open-space develop-
ment, and other activities related to land use.

15

(6) to establish statewide economic development
and land use goals, objectives, and policies in
accordance with the priorities of the people of
the Commonwealth .

SECTION 2. The following words shall, for the purpose of this act, have
the following meanings unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) "Agency," the office of state planning in

the executive office of administration and finance.

(2) "Statement," a statement of growth management
problems and priorities prepared by a city or a
town.

(3) "Regional planning commission," one of the
twelve commissions established by chapter forty b
of the General Laws or by special act.

(4) "Regional Report," a report on growth manage-
ment problems and priorities prepared by a re-
gional planning commission.

(5) "Area of critical planning concern,"

(a) an area where uncontrollable development
could result in irreversible damage to impor-
tant historical, environmental, natural, or
archeological resources, or

(b) an area possessing inland or coastal wet-
lands, marshes, or tidal lands, or

(c) beaches and dunes , or

(d) significant estuaries, shorelands, and
floodplains of rivers, lakes and streams, or

(e) significant agricultural, grazing and
watershed lands , or

16

(f) forests and related lands which require
long stability for continuing renewal, or

(g) areas with unstable soil or high seismicity,
or

(h) an area significantly affected by or having
a significant effect upon an existing or proposed
major public facility, or other area of major
public investment.

(6) "Development of regional impact," any proposed
development which, because of its character, magnitude
or location would have a substantial effect upon the
health, safety and welfare of citizens outside the
jurisdiction of a single municipality.

(7) "Municipality," a town, city or county.

(8) "Committee," a local growth policy committee.

SECTION 3. There is hereby created in every city and to\^m a local growth
policy committee composed of ex officio , the chief elected
official of the city or town, the (heads) of the local planning
board and conservation commission, the building inspector, and
the (head) of the local housing authority, if there is one, the
(head) of the redevelopment authority, if there is one, and the
(head) of the public health department, and five residents of
the city or town, who shall be representative of disparate
social, economic and environmental interests, and who shall be
appointed by the (moderator of the town) or the mayor of the
city by ( ) 1, 1976.

The clerk of the city or town shall forthwith send the names
of the members of the committee to the agency.

The planning board, if one exists, shall constitute staff to
the committee.

17

SECTION 4. By ( ) 1, 1976, the agency shall prepare and send

to the moderator of every town and the mayor of every city
a request for a statement of growth management problems and

priorities, which shall be in a standardized format. The
request for a statement shall require :-

(a) a description of local growth management problems of
highest local priority, with particular reference to

(1) significant changes, both recent and antici-
pated, in population density, economic base, and
intensity and direction of development;

(2) conflicts involving land needed and suitable
for: recreation, parks and open space; scientific
and education purposes; industry and commerce; the
generation and transmission of energy; solid waste
management and resource recovery; transportation;
xorban development, including the revitalization of
existing communities and the economic bases; health,
education, and other state and local government ser-
vices; and multiple-use siting of facilities and
activities ;

(3) identification of prime forest and agricultural
lands and areas of significant mineral deposits, and
steps taken to conserve them; anticipated demands for
scarce natural products; and threats to agricultural
and forest production, mining, and forestry — including
(a) changing land values, (b) the tax structure, and
(c) ecological factors;

(4) conflicts or significant changes regarding water
supply and sewerage;

18

(5) significant changes, both recent and anticipated,
in environmental, geological and physical conditions
which influence the desirability of various uses of
land;

(6) significant zoning variances and special permits
granted or refused, and all zoning by-law changes
made, during the three years prior to the effective
date of this act, or in the case of cities with a
population greater than one hundred thousand, during
the one year prior to the effective date of this act.

(7) changes in the housing needs and in the housing
opportunities for all income groups in the city or
town, and reasons therefore; and changes in the
amount, type and location of land available for
housing construction in the city or town;

(8) requirements for building and other permits that
have impeded desirable growth and development;

(b) identification of specific developments of regional impact
and of areas of critical planning concern in or near the re-
sponding municipality, and proposed criteria for the identifi-
cation thereof;

(c) reactions to brief descriptions of alternative administra-
tive models for implementing land use and growth management
policy, which descriptions shall be prepared by the agency;

(d) comments on the ways in which the activities of state
agencies involved in the allocation of state and federal
funds for economic development, capital improvements, open-
space preservation and other activities related to land use
can be coordinated to prevent waste and inefficiency.

19

SECTION 5,

Within the

_months following receipt of the request

for a statement from the agency, the committee shall :-

(a) publicize its existence and activities by announcement
at town or city council meetings and by other reasonable
means ;

(b) conduct whatever inquiries and studies it deems neces-
sary to collect information solicited by the request;

(c) make reasonable efforts to meet with and ascertain the
views of all interested persons and groups regarding local
growth management and land use policy;

(d) prepare a tentative statement in accordance with the
terms of the request made pursuant to section four. The
committee shall, insofar as possible, rely on existing
information in preparing its tentative statement.

SECTION 6. Within months of receipt of the request for a statement

from the agency, the committee shall hold a public hearing

■ . at which interested persons and groups shall be afforded an

opportunity to present data, views, or arguments in regard
to the tentative statement orally or in writing; except that
no person or group shall be required to make presentations
or arguments in writing.

At least f-ourteen days prior to the hearing required by this
section, the committee shall publish notice thereof in a news-
paper of general circulation published in the city or town, and
shall be posted in at least five public places in the city or
town. If there is no such newspaper in the city or town, then
the committee shall publish notice in a newspaper of general
circulation published in the county. The notice shall (1) re-
fer to this act; (2) give the date, time, and place of the

20

hearing; (3) state that the subject of the hearing shall
be the tentative statement in response to the request for
a statement from the agency, and that copies of same shall
be available at the office of the clerk of the city or
town.

The committee shall, upon publication, send a copy of said
notice to the regional planning commission and to the agency.

SECTION 7. Within sixty days following the hearing required by section
six of this act, the planning board of the city or town, or
where there is no planning board, the board of selectmen or
town council, shall forward to the city council, the board
of selectmen, or the to^^m council its tentative statement,
or its tentative statement as amended following public hear-
ings pursuant to section six of this act.

SECTION 8. The tentative statement or the same as amended shall be sub-
mitted to the next to^^m meeting or to the next meeting of the
city council following its receipt from the planning board,
or where there is no planning board, from the board of select-
men, at which time it may be approved or amended and approved.
Amendments and approval shall be by a majority vote of members
present and voting.

Any minority proposal for a statement that shall have the
approval of twenty-five percent of the members present and
voting shall be incorporated into the statement as an appendix
thereof.

A copy of the statement approved by a town meeting or city
council shall be submitted forthwith by the city or town clerk
to (1) the regional planning commission; (2) all district com-
missions or political subdivisions of which the city or town
may be a part; (3) the agency; and (4) all contiguous munici-
palities, including the county in which the city or town is

21

located. If the town meeting or city council shall not
approve a statement in compliance with this act notice of
that fact shall be sent forthwith by the city or town clerk
to the regional planning commission and to the agency.

SECTION 9. Any county, district commission, or other political subdivision
of which the city or town may be a part may choose to comment
on a statement received from any city or town pursuant to section
eight of this act, shall submit such comments to (1) the
agency, (2) any regional planning commission, and (3) any
municipality .

SECTION 10. Each regional planning commission shall prepare and forward

to the agency a regional report by ( ) 1, 1976. Each

regional report shall

(a) make a preliminary determination that each city and
town in the region is or is not in substantial compliance
with this act;

(b) define regional growth management problems of highest
regional priority, with particular reference to

(1) significant changes, both recent and anticipated,
in population, economic base, and intensity and direc-
tion of development ;

(2) conflicts involving land needed and suitable for:
recreation, parks and open space; scientific and educa-
tion purposes; industry and commerce; the generation
and transmission of energy; solid waste manageinent and
resource recovery; transportation; urban development,
including the revitalization of existing communities
and the economic diversification of existing communities
with narrow economic bases; health, education, and other

22

state and local government services; and multiple-use
siting of facilities and activities;

(3) identification of prime forest and agricultural
lands and areas of significant mineral deposits, and
steps taken to conserve them; anticipated demands for
scarce natural products; and threats to agricultural
and forest production, mining, and forestry — including
(a) changing land values, (b) the tax structure, and
(c) ecological factors;

(4) conflicts or significant changes regarding water
supply and sewerage;

(5) significant changes, both recent and anticipated,
in environmental, geological and physical conditions
which influence the desirability of various uses of
land;

(6) changes in the housing needs and in the housing
opportunities for all income groups in the region and
in adjacent communities; and changes in the amount,
type, and location of land available for housing con-
struction in the region;

(7) requirements for building and other permits that
have impeded desirable growth and development.

(c) identify, taking into account the statements received
pursuant to section eight of this act, specific developments
of regional impact and areas of critical planning concern in
the region, and shall propose criteria for the future identi-
fication thereof;

23

(d) reactions to brief descriptions of alternative adminis-
trative models for implementing land use and growth manage-
ment policy, which descriptions shall be prepared by the
agency;

(e) comment on the ways in which governmental activities may
be better coordinated to prevent waste and inefficiency; and

(f) provide, based on consideration of the statements received
pursuant to section eight of this act

(1) an assessment of

(a) inter-municlpal conflicts within the region;

(b) local-regional conflicts, including but not
necessarily limited to conflicts between munici-
palities and the regional planning commission and
conflicts between municipalities and counties;

(c) conflicts between district commissions or other
special purpose governmental units and any other
units of government; and

(d) conflicts involving counties and regional
planning commissions with one another.

(2) a statement of

(a) steps taken, if any, to resolve such conflicts,
including but not limited to bilateral meetings be-
tween parties in conflict, mediation by the regional
planning commission, or legal action; and

(b) obstacles, if any, which may prevent the resolu-
tion of such conflicts, such as but not limited to
inadequate technology or information or money, or the
lack of an adequate forum for resolving disputes.

24

SECTION 11. The agency shall review all statements and regional
reports to detemine whether they are in substantial
compliance with the terms of those sections.

A statement shall be deemed to be in substantial compli-
ance with this act unless within sixty days after the
receipt by the agency of the regional report prepared
pursuant to section ten, the agency shall notify the board
of selectmen, town council, or city council of its decision
of noncompliance.

SECTION 12. Within eighteen months of the effective date of this act,
there shall be created by operation of this act a Massa-
chusetts growth policy commission composed of three members
of the House of Representatives to be appointed by the
Speaker of the House; three members of the Senate to be
appointed by the President of the Senate; and ex officio,
the secretaries of the following executive offices: com-
munities and development, environmental affairs, transpor-
tation and construction, administration and finance and
manpower affairs or their designated representatives.

SECTION 13. Within eighteen months of the effective date of this act,
the agency shall prepare and submit to the commission a
report containing but not necessarily limited to

(a) a summary of significant local and regional growth
management problems, priorities, and conflicts;

(b) a summary of criteria proposed locally and regionally
for the designation of areas of critical planning concern
and developments of regional impact;

(c) a summary of local and regional reactions to alterna-
tive administrative models for implementing land use and
growth management policy within the Commonwealth;

25

(d) strategies for coordinating the activities of state
agencies involved in the allocation of state and federal
funds for economic development, capital improvements,
open-space development, and other activities related to
land use;

(e) approaches to minimizing the time and cost of obtain-
ing all permits and licenses and of completing all review
procedures required for development; and

(f) a recommended growth policy for the Commonwealth,
which shall reflect (1) both local and regional prefer-
ences and capabilities, as manifested in the statements
and regional reports prepared pursuant to this act, and
(2) issues of statewide concern,

SECTION 14. Within twenty-four months after the effective date of this
act, the commission shall prepare and shall with the con-
currence of a majority of its members, submit to the General
Court and to the governor legislation which shall include
but need not be limited to the following elements:

(a) standards and, where appropriate, new mechanisms, instru-
mentalities, and processes to guide growth and development
into those areas where it will be most desirable, to facili-
tate community revitalization, to minimize adverse environ-
mental effects, and to conserve prime open lands and natural
resources ;

(b) criteria for identifying areas of critical planning con-
cern and of developments of regional impact;

(c) approaches to minimizing the time and cost of obtaining
all permits and licenses and of completing all review pro-
cedures required for development; and

26

(d) strategies for coordinating the activities of state
agencies involved in the allocation of state and federal
funds for economic development , capital improvements , open
space development, and other activities related to land use.

Each element shall incorporate locally and regionally pro-
posed standards insofar as they may be internally consistent.

SECTION 15. Judicial review of any decision made under this act is hereby
expressly precluded.

SECTIO;^' 16. Any city, town, or regional planning commission which fails
substantially to comply with this act shall be conclusively
deemed to be in nonconformity with the policies of the Common-
wealth to establish a framework for coordinating intergovern-
mental planning and development activities , and to achieve
the coordinated development of entire areas.

The state and all area-wide clearinghouses established pur-
suant to circular number A-95 of the office of management and
budget, promulgated under section 401(a) of the Intergovern-
mental Cooperation Act of 1968, shall comment unfavorably on
any application for, and shall recommend denial of, federal
assistance by any city or to\-m found to be in substantial
nonconpliance with this act.

Any city or town which submits a statement in substantial com-
pliance with this act and any regional planning commission
that submits a report in substantial compliance with this act
shall be given priority, insofar as it may lie in the compe-
tence of the state agency to do so , to receive funds under any
of the following federal laws:-

(1) The Housing and Community Development Act of 1954,
s. 701, 40 U.S. C. s. 461 (as amended);

27

(2) The Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act of
197 , s. 208, 33 U.S.C.A. s. 1288 (1975 SuppJ;

(3) The Coastal Zone Management Act of 19 , s. ,

16 U.S.C.A, ss. 1451 etseq;

(4) The Urban Mass Transit Act of 1970, ss ,
49 U.S.C. ss. 1601-1612 ;

(5) Farm Credit Act of 1971, 12 U.S.C. ss .

(6) Public Works and Economic Development Act Amendments
of 1971, 42 U.S.C.A. ss . 3131-3135, 3141, 3152, 3161,
3162, 3171, and 3188a;

(7) Federal Clean Air Acts, 42 U.S.C. ss . 1857 et seq ;

(8) The Rural Development Act of 1972; 7 U.S.C.A. ss . 2661-
2668; 16 U.S.C.A. ss . 590h, 5900, 1001-1005;

(9) Federal-Aid Highway Acts of 1956, 1970, and 1973.

SECTION 17. The agency is hereby authorized to provide technical assistance
to any city, town or regional planning agency which may request
such assistance for the purpose of compliance with this act.

The agency and the department of commionity affairs shall make
small grants available to cities and towns to enable them to
comply with section five of this act. Funds appropriated under
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1954, 701, 40
U.S.C. ss . 461 (as amended), shall be used for this purpose.

SECTION 18. The provision of this act shall be deemed to be severable,
and if any of its provisions shall be held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the re-
maining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

SECTION 19. This act shall take effect

1, 1976.

II. SUBCOMMITTEE BACKGROUND PAPERS

A. STATE LAND USE CONTROL IN SELECTED STATES

Prepared by: 30

Katherlne Gardner
2/3/15

STATE LAND USE CONTROL IN SELECTED STATES

I. Introduction

Throughout the United States, land use control traditionally has
been exercised through local zoning ordinances and subdivision regula-
tions. For the most part, these controls have been self -executing,
non-Compensatory restrictions intended to prohibit inappropriate devel-
opment rather than to achieve beneficial development. Although it has
become increasingly apparent that these controls are inadequate, they
continue to be the primary regulatory mechanisms in most states. A
number of states, however, have moved to replace local and private
decisionHBaking on important land use questions with some degree of
state or regional control.

Some of the states were moved to action because of unique situations.
In Florida, a severe two-year drought in a populous portion of the state
preceded passage of the 1972 land use controls package. State activity
has been motivated in part in response to prospective federal legisla-
tion. More generally, states have exercised control over land use where

«

valuable natural resources have been threatened and development pressures
are strong. Not surprisingly, legislation has reflected this environ-
mental protection motivation. Short of adopting comprehensive controls,
many states have focused on specific land uses of importance — e.g.,
shoreland and wetland development (California, Washington) or power plant
siting (Washington) . Legislation has generally failed to carry an eco-

31

nomic development component. The California legislation establishing
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission is per-
haps an exception.

The case studies illustrate a logical progression of activities
leading to the formulation of a state land use program. Problems are
identified by state leaders or by the public through a specific emer-
gency, a court decision, or through more general analysis of existing
situations. Expression of interest in the problem is followed by a pat-
tern of administrative study by a specifically appointed legislative or
executive commission (e.g., the Vermont Commission on Environmental
Control); a number of years of legislative scrutiny, perhaps with interim
legislation to perceive the status quo; concurrent public education and
input; legislation creating planning and administrative entities; devel-
opment of a state plan; and initiation of a regulatory process. Local
and regional bodies are, in some cases, given key roles in the planning
and discriminating processes. Courts have proved an important arena for
legitimizing state action.

The programs envisioned by the states are to greater or lesser de-
grees tailored to existing state structures and procedures, but tend to
have common characteristics. The lead agencies tend to be part of state
planning offices, but location of state planning offices within the gov-
ernmental structure varies considerably. Regulatory activities which
significantly affect land use are widely scattered and lead agencies are
often charged with responsibility for coordinating these efforts. States

32

have assigned varying roles in the planning and regulating processes
to their sub-state units. For example, Oregon and Colorado place primary
responsibility for land use planning at the local level. Florida and ~'
Vermont make use of local governments and regional agencies in regulating
land use, but place somewhat greater emphasis on state planning. All
states call for citizen participation, but vary in the mechanisms used and
stage at which citizen involvement is elicited. Citizen input may occur
only at public hearings held by the planning commission or may be a direct
part of the regulatory process as in Vermont. Consideration of land use
legislation has not caused major organizational changes within legislatures,
but some states have created special committees to insure legislative ovarT^
sight and monitoring. (See, e.g., Oregon and Colorado)

Legislation on the books has not guaranteed administrative
success. Legislative designs have not always placed decision -making at a
level appropriate for consideration of the interests affected. In some
instances, inter-govemmental coordination in the planning process has been
lacking. Substantively, the programs are not always consistent with stated
goals. Political realities have occasionally necessitated exempting from
regulation industries which threaten significant environmental harm. Regu-
latory standards enunciated have not always proved adequate. Initial years
of administration have highlighted a greater need for land use information.

Below are case studies of eight states — California, Colorado, Florida,
Maine, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington — which have made noteworthy
efforts in land use control. It is hoped that Massachusetts will be able

33

to learn the successes and failures of these programs. Information for
these studies was taken from the following sources, with efforts being
made to update where possible.

-Bosselman and Callies , The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control,
(1971) (report prepared for the President's Council on
Environmental Quality) .

-Staff Background Reports, Task Force on Natural Resources and
Land Use Inforraation and Technology (sponsored by the
Council of State Governments.

-Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, State
Land Use Programs (with summaries prepared by the Environ-
mental Quality Committee of the Young Lawyers' Section of
the American Bar Association and Land Use Planning Reports) .

-Massachusetts State Land Use Project, DCA, Reference Guide on
Key Land Use and Resource Management Practices in other
states (January, 1974) (renort prepared for the Governor's
Resource Management Policy Council) .

-Massachusetts State Land Use Project, DCA, A Review and Analysis
of Selected Key Land Use Regulatory Mechanisms (April, 1974)
(report prepared for the Governor's Resource Management Policy
Council) .

-Thomas P. Salmen. "Land Use and Development — A Position Paper,"
National Capital Realtor (July, 1973).

-Colorado's new state land use control bill is workable solution
based on all concepts, AIP Newsletter (October, 1974).

-Robert M. Rhodes. Florida's environmental land and water manage-
ment act implements Article 7 of the proposed American Law
Institute model code, AIP Newsletter (January, 1974).

-Richard G. RuBino. Florida's new land use law is among most
comprehensive in nation, AIP Newsletter (April, 1973).

34

II. Case Studies— Eight States ...

California

Land use controls in California have been subjected to significant
but unsystematic reform as voters, courts, and legislators have responded
to specific environmental problems generated by uncontrolled growth. Note-
worthy developments include the creation of the San Francisco Bay Conserva-
tion and Development Commission, efforts to preserve open space through tax
relief and other measures and passage of a comprehensive coastal zone manage-
ment act. In addition, there is pending legislation which, if passed, would
create a state land use commission. The commission would designate critical
environmental areas, developments of regional Impact, and key facilities,
and would review local plans for compliance with state plans.

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission was
created by the legislature in 1965 and authorized to prepare and plan for

the future development of the Bay; the plan was completed in 1969 and

*
adopted by the legislature. The Commission was authorized to Implement

the plan by requiring permits from anyone (including state and local govern-
ment agencies) seeking to develop the Bay or Its shorelines. The Commission
may grant a permit if it finds that a proposed project is necessary to the
health, welfare or safety of the public in the entire Bay area or that it
is consistent with the plan and enabling legislature. Predictably, devel-
opers complain that the Commission Is excessively conservationist in its

*Successful passage of the legislation resulted from the determined
efforts of an informal coalition of existing conservation groups and citi-
zens organized to "Save the Bay" from being reduced to the "San Francisco
River". The completed plan, Itself, attracted broad support by offering
a program which balanced both development and conservation.

«•'

35

application of these standards and conservationists argue that it is too
acconimodating to developers. Undoubtedly, the Commission has been success-
ful in forestalling development of the Bay, but an interesting question
raised is whether this merely increased developmental pressure and envi-
ronmental damage elsewhere. One author has suggested that while, ideally
a more comprehensive approach might be desirable, the focus on one sped-/
fie area probably contributed substantially to the Commission's success
in accomplishing its goals.

Expressed concern for preserving open space in California goes back
as far as 1959 , when the legislature authorized cities and counties to
acquire lands with public funds for preservation as open space. The for-
mation of special assessment districts to finance maintenance of open
space was authorized in 1965 and in 1970, zoning for open space purposes
was expressly authorized. However, perhaps most significant for preser-
vation of open space were the passage of the "Breathing Space Amendment"
(Article XXVIII) to the California Constitution and the Williamson Act
tax relief measure. Article XXVIII created an exception for open space
lands subject to enforceable restrictions to the state constitutional re-
quirements that property taxes be assessed at "full cash value," "actual
value," or "true value." The Williamson Act authorizes cities and counties
to enter contracts with agricultural landowners restricting the use of
their land to open space uses, sets forth certain minimum requirements
for contract terms , and authorizes compensation to landowners primarily
in the form of tax relief. The Act has been criticized on all fronts.

36

Landowners argue that tax savings are not adequate, penalties for cancellation
too severe, and risks of taxation for technical failure to comply too hijjh.
Local governments continue to fear reduction in tax revenues and environ- i
mentalists feel that too much discretion is left to local governments and
that speculators have received undue benefits from the Act. Further, it is
said that the Act has not been successful in preserving open space near
cities.

The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 created a state
commission and six regional commissions (appointed by the Governor, the
Senate Rules Committee, the Speaker of the Assembly and local governments)
to prepare a 1976 comprehensive plan for the conservation and management of
the California Coastal Zone — an extensive land and water area stretching
from Oregon to Mexico. The plan is to be consistent with goals of preserving,
restoring, and enhancing the coastal environment and balanced utilization of
coastal resources. The Act provides for strict controls on development
while the plan is being prepared. No development can take place along the
coast without a permit from the regional commission and no permit can be
issued unless a regional commission determines that the project will not have
substantial adverse environmental effects and will be consistent with the
goals to be fulfilled by the Coastal Zone Plan.

37

Colorado

Colorado land use planning activities began in 1967 with the passage
of the State Planning Act. The Act established an Office of State Planning
within the Governor's office and authorized the planning office to develop
a Colorado land use plan, to coordinate the planning activities of other
state agencies, and to provide local and regional agencies with technical
assistance. The following year, the state undertook a reorganization effort
which eventually led to the abolition of the Office of State Planning and
the creation of the Division of State Planning in the Department of Local
Affairs (the state's 701 agency). The Division was given responsibility
for maintaining demographic information, making an inventory of natural
resources, collecting other information of planning importance, and pro-
viding local and regional planning assistance. The planning responsibili-
ties formerly assigned the Office of State Planning devolved upon the
Colorado Land Use Commission (LUC) , an ostensibly temporary creation of
the 1970 General Assembly. Thus, LUC was assigned the task of devising
a state land use plan and recommending a program of implementation by Decem-
ber, 1973. In addition, LUC was given certain regulatory, financial, and

*
technical assistance responsibilities. LUC is authorized to establish

criteria by which land uses will be classified as "matters of State con-
cern, matters of regional concern, matters of local concern, or some other

*For example, in 1971, the Colorado Planning Aid Fund Act authorized
LUC to make available planning funds for up to two thirds of the estimated
total cost of any approved work program to municipalities, counties, and
regional agencies with critical planning needs.

38

classifications." LUC has produced a plan and has established a land use
information system. It has also developed model subdivision regulations.
In developing its plans, LUC has held public hearings and has conducted
meetings and workshops with local official^.

Other legislation recently adopted includes mandatory county planning
commissions and subdivision control, mined land reclamation requirements,
air and water pollution controls, authorization for planned unit development.
Perhaps most significant, is 1974 legislation (House Bill 1041) providing
for regulation of "matters of state interest" by local jurisdictions.

House Bill 1041 sets up a system whereby local jurisdictions are re-
quired to identify "matters of state interest", either geographic areas or
activities. Jurisdictions are required to establish criteria for designa-
ting such areas, hold hearings, and set up their own systems of land use
control for those designated areas. The Bill lists certain criteria and
recommends the establishment of state guidelines, but localities are not
required to designate everything encompassed by the Bill's criteria as r-
matters of state interest. What the Bill seems to emphasize is local con-
sideration and thought as to the importance of such varied things as rapid
transit systems, archeological resources, power transmission lines and high-
way interchanges and their impact on land use. LUC has responsibility for
monitoring local governments and if it feels that a locality has failed to
designate a matter of state interest, it can formally request designation.
This calls for public hearings on the matter and then a local decision. If
the locality again rejects the designation, LUC may seek judicial review.
The significance of designation is that development within such an area

39

must go through a locally controlled process .which includes public hearings,
to receive a special permit. Moreover, development in areas which might be
subject to designation also require a special permit . This requirement, to-
gether with immediate development pressures, has been successful in stimu-
lating the planning process and rapidly bringing it into action.

Colorado's new land use legislation is notable in several other re-
spects. First, the Bill authorized and the state has already funded $25,000
to every county to hire a planner and gear up to implement the Bill and
establish liaison with relevant state agencies. Second, while the Bill
contains elements of the ALI's Model Land Developm.ent Code, there is much
that is unique to Colorado, Very strong local responsibility for imple-
mentation with only latent state power to intervene if necessary, repre-
sents an outcome responsive to strong local interests in a state which is
still predominantly rural. Third, the Bill is acknowledged to be experi-
mental, in many ways, a 2-year test for local jurisdictions. There may be
great changes in the procedures and funding by 1976 if existing mechanisms
do not work. Thus, the final institutionalization of state planning and
coordinating functions in Colorado is not settled. In the interim, how-
ever, the state has been able to act within the context of a potentially
feasible program to regulate growth , perhaps the major stimulus to land
use control activity in Colorado.

*This is not, of course, the only possible stimulus. Federal

program requirements, existing and anticipated, and confusion resulting

from the diffusion of land use responsibilities among numerous state

agencies, have also been cited as precipitating state land use activity.

40

Florida

During the early 1970 's, the coincidence of several issues and
events led to the enactment of a comprehensive state land use bill,
the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972, and
several related pieces of legislation: the Land Conservation Act, the
Water Resources Act, and the Comprehensive Planning Act. Substantial
growth in the two preceding decades had resulted in serious land use
problems. An environmental crisis, a severe drought in southeastern
Florida highlighted the need for basic changes in state land use manage-
ment. Reapportionment of the state legislature and the election of a
governor with strong environmental interests provided a responsive poli-
tical climate.

The thrust of the Florida legislation is an attempt to protect the
environment and its natural resources by coordinating state determined
policy with local administration of land use regulations. In this design,
the Florida legislation closely parallels the ALI code. The Act focuses
on land development projects of a nature or in an area where regional or
state goals would be affected. Thus, the state is empowered to designate
specific geographic areas as areas of critical state concern and to es-
tablish principles to guide the development of those areas. An area of
critical concera must meet one of three statutory standards: significant
impact upon environmental, historical, natural or archeological resources
of regional or statewide importance, impact upon major public facilities,
or proposed site for a new community. Local governments may recommend
areas of critical concern, and once an area is so designated, are given

^

41

six months to write land development regulations which would implement
state principles. If local governments fail to act, the state must,
itself, produce the regulations. The state is also empowered to adopt
guidelines to be used in deciding whether land developments are devel-
opments of regional impact, in general, having a substantial effect on
more than one county. As in the designation of areas of critical state
concern, regional planning agencies and local governments may recommend
types of development for designation as of regional impact. Permits
issued by local governments are required for any development within an
area of critical state concern or developments of regional impact.

Florida's Land and Water Management Act does not, itself, create
new land use planning or regulatory organizations. The Governor and
his cabinet are given responsibility for designating critical areas and
adopting guidelines for developments of regional impact. The Division of
State Planning (DOSP) , an executive planning agency created by the 1972
Comprehensive Planning Act, makes recommendations to the Governor and his
cabinet regarding this matter and has general responsibility for adminis-
tering state responsibilities under the Act, for developing a state plan,
approving local development regulations in areas of critical concern, and
for giving technical assistance to local governmental agencies. A tempor-
ary citizens' group, the Environmental Land Management Study Committee,
serves as an advisory body to the DOSP. The Act also designates a Land
and Water Adjudicatory Commission, composed of the Governor and the cabi-
net, with responsibility to hear and rule on appeals relative to areas
of critical state concern and developments of regional impact. Its

42

rulings are subject to judicial review.

The Florida Act grew out of a process which identified Florida's
major land use problems, reviewed alternative approaches to problem solving,
recognized existing legal constraints, and provided for political ac-
ceptability. Thus, the Act attempts to form a strong state-local partner-"
ship and yet provides a means whereby the State may interpose its inter-
est in development issues. Elements of the Act should placate local
officials, who fear loss of power, and Individuals concerned with property
rights. In its statement of purpose, the Act provides that land use
policies should be implemented to the maximum extent possible by local
governments through existing processes. Further, legislative concern with
property rights was evidenced in a provision of the Act which stipulated
that no critical areas could be designated prior to the passage of a bond
issue with proceeds earmarked for land acquisition within designated cri-
tical areas (the funding authority — the Land Conservation Act of 1972 —
passed overwhelmingly). Perhaps even more important, the Land and Water -■
Management Act placed a five percent limitation on the amount of land within
the state which may at any time be designated of critical concern. Thus,
the majority of land use decisions are still left to private individuals
and localities. Kow well tlie partnership straddling these provisions will
work remains to be determined. The partnership will require a strong local
administrative base with existing or potentially operational local regula-
tory framework. It will require genuine cooperation. It has been suggested
that the process by which the first critical area. Big Cypress, was desig-
nated—the by-pass of localities by legislative fiat — Indicates that Florida

43

has a ways to go in establishing that cooperation.

An additional point worth noting is the potentially political nature
of the state administrative and adjudicatory processes. Vesting these
functions in the Governor and the cabinet offers the potential benefit of
a process which is policy oriented and more responsive to the desires of
the electorate. It presents the danger, however, of a lack of continuitv,
resulting from election turnarounds and the potential sacrifice of princi-
ple to policy or political pressure. In this respect also, the Florida
strategy will bear observation before emulation.

Maine

In recent years, Maine has been confronted with two maior environ-
mental threats — oil and tourists. New interstate highways had placed Maine
within a day's drive of populous New York, and New Jersey. Affluence enabled
many to enter Maine's second-home market. Concurrently, - particularly with
its deepwater porta - Maine had become the target for a number of lar^e
oil-oriented industrial proposals spurred bv expanding energy needs and the
development of the super-tanker. Conservation groups began to highlight
the need for protective measures. The legislature responded by adopting
not one comprehensive land use management law, but rather a series of meas-
ures covering large-scale development, shorelands and wetlands, unzoned
areas and specific endangered areas. Two major components of the state
package are the Site Location of Development Law and the Land Use Regula-
tion Commission Law. There are four companion statutes — the Wetlands Law,
Mandatory Zoning and Subdivision of Shoreland Areas Law, and Solid Waste

44

Disposal Areas Law.

The Site Location Law gave to the Environmental Improvement Commission,

*

an independent entity with ten members appointed for three year terms by

the Governor, the power to control the location and development "substan-
tially affecting local environment in order to insure that such develop-
ments will be located in a manner which will have a minimal adverse im-
pact." This mandate is carried out by a permit system which requires large

commercial and industrial developments unless exempted specifically or bv

**
a grandfather clause to obtain approval of the Environmental Improvement

Commi.ssion. The Commission has authority to place conditions on the use
of particular sites by developers and to deny the use of sites entirely
if the environiTiental effect is sufficiently detrimental. After hearing,
decisions of the Commission may be appealed directly to the Maine Supreme
Judicial Court, where review is confined to a determination that the Com-
mission acted within its authority and that the record contains substan-
tial evidence to support the Commission's order.

The Land Use Regulation Commission Law empowers the Regulation Com-
mission, an entity whose members are appointed by the Governor to establish
land use guidelines for areas of the state without zoning and subdivision
controls. Under this authority, the Commission classifies land within

*The membership of the Commission is to represent the interests of
manufacturing, conservationist, municipal, air pollution and public groups
within the state.

**Generally, developments covered by the Act are those which require
a state pollution control license , occupy a land area greater than 200 acres
or involve structures with floor areas exceeding 60,000 feet, and mining and
dwelling operations. The neutrality of the powerful forest products and
electrical industries was assured by way of exemptions, making passage of
the bill more likely.

45

its jurisdiction — approximately 50 percent of the state's land use dis-
tricts, issues guidelines for those districts and receives applications
for development permits within these areas. Under its mandate, the Com-
mission is also expected to develop a comprehensive land use plan for the
areas within its jurisdiction. The Regulation Commission differs, then,
from the Environmental Improvement Commission not only in its jurisdic-
tion, but also in its planning function.

Despite inadequate staffing and budget allocations, administration of
the Maine land use control program is said to have been relatively effec-
tive in overseeing development. In part, this is due to the fact that
the legislation has aroused public interest and support, particularly in
reporting proposed developments. In addition, the regulatory bodies may
have been assisted by general economic conditions which have not encour-
aged development. Major criticism leveled against the state program has
focused on a failure implicit in the legislation itself to give adequate
consideration to economic factors of development. It has been emphasized
that while tourism and oil-related industries pose environmental threats,
they also represent potential sources of funds to economically depressed
areas. Further concern has been expressed that Commission actions are
aggravating the state's housing shortage, forcing developers out and
driving poor people into mobile homes. A major question for the future,
then, is whether the state should expand existing programs into a more
comprehensive system, dealing with major development programs in a broader
conceptual planning framework.

46

New York (Adirondack Park area only)

The New York state constitution provides that the 2.6 million acres
In New York's Forest Preserve "shall be forever kept as wild forest lands.
They shall not be leased, sold, or exchanged, or be taken by any corpora-
tion, public or private, nor shall the timber therein be sold, removed,
or destroyed." In 1971, the state legislature took advantage of this con-
stitutionally mandated conservation zoning and established the Adirondack

Park Agency and authorized it to prepare plans for all state and private

*
lands with the Park. Until the private land use and development plan

was prepared, private development was to be controlled by a permit system.

The state land master plan became effective in 1"?72, the land use
and development plan for private land, a year later. Each plan divides
the relevant land into use categories and sets forth guidelines for the
management of the land in each category. State lands are managed by the
State Departmient of Environmental Conservation. The permit agency for
private lands is the Adirondack Park Agency. Permits are required for all
substantial development and in municipalities without approved local land
use programs, for smaller developments as well. (The Plan is noteworthy
in its emphasis on local planning. The Park Agency has authority to ap-
prove a local land use program and once approved, local review of certain
projects is permitted; Agency permits are no longer needed.)

A second noteworthy aspect of the private land use plan is its use of
intensity guidelines; that is, a standard of principal buildings per sq.uare

*Forest preserve lands and private lands are interspersed, in a
checkerboard pattern so that, in order to fully protect the integrity of the
preserve, it was felt necessary to regulate private lands.

47

mile. The guidelines are capable of being very flexibly by both the
Park Agency and local governments. Thus, the guidelines provide for
sparse development in portions of the Park. Used in conjunction with
the transfer of development rights*, the guidelines can be used to en-
courage cluster development resulting in highly developed pockets of land
and large tracts of open lands.

Oregon

In 1973, the Oregon legislature passed a land use package which in-
cluded Senate Bill 100 (the Oregon Land Use bill) as well as a subdivision
review bill, a land development consumer protection bill (subsequently
repealed), a bill aimed at retaining land in farm and open space uses
(through tax deferrals and tax disincentives), two bills designed to im-
prove local planning and a uniform building code. (Earlier Oregon had
also passed several other bills dealing with specific environmental con-
cerns). Developments leading up to the passage of the package included
the organization by a freshman senator with the backing of the governor
of a Land Use Policy Action Group composed of planners and governmental
and private representatives, extensive public education and a three day
land use planning conference convened by the governor. Two factors are
cited as of particular importance in passage of the bill: a strong public
commitment to environmental concerns and the governor's strong leadership.

Senate Bill 100 created a Land (Conservation and Development Commission
composed of seven members appointed by the governor. The Commission is re-

*Development rights might be transferred as a condition of receiving
an Agency permit or in local zoning.

48

sponsible for establishing statewide planning goals and guidelines consis-
tent with local and regional concerns, reviewing permit applications for
activities of statewide significance, preparing land use inventories;
reviewing plans of localities and state agencies for consistency with
state goals; insuring citizen participation in the planning process;*
preparing model zoning and subdivision ordinances; recommending to the
state legislature areas of critical state concern. The Commission also
has the power to appoint the director of the Land Conservation and De-
velopment Department and may use the staff of that agency to fulfill
its responsibilities. A Joint Legislative Committee oversees both the
Department and the Commission. Although the Commission exercises some
planning functions, primary responsibility for state land use planning is
placed at the local level. By a requirement that they coordinate all
planning activities within their jurisdiction, county governments are
in essence made regional planning bodies. Counties and cites are re-
quired to adopt comprehensive plans and to enact zoning, subdivision
and other ordinances to implement their comprehensive plans. The Subdi-
vision Review Act (Senate Bill 487) extends these requirements. It assures
that land divisions will be consistent with the comprehensive plans developed
under statewide goals. Similarly, the City and County Planning Commission
Acts (House Bills 2965 and 2548) are extensions of S.B. 100, redefining
the composition and duties of planning commissions, modifying the qual-
ifications of planning commissions, and requiring compliance of proposed

*The legislature mandated the creation by the Commission of a State
Citizens Involvement Advisory Committee. The Committee is expected to develop
a program to achieve wide public participation in the formation of plans and
guidelines.

49

developments with the comprehensive plan. If a county or municipality
fails to meet its planning requirements under the land use bill, the Land
Conservation and Development Department may assume the function and bill
the local governments with its costs.

Vermont >

During the sixties Vermont was subjected to increasing pressures
from the second home market and ski resort booms. Rural areas felt
significant inroads from new development, land prices soared, and farmers
began to sell out in greater numbers than ever before. Existing communi-
ties had difficulty keeping up with increased service demands. The
legislature responded in 1967 by broadening local authority to control
land use and increasing the flexibility of zoning and planning cotmnissions ;
state agencies also received broader powers. These measures did not prove
adequate, however, and in 1969 the Governor established a Commission on
Environmental Control. The Commission's recommendations provided the
foundation for the Vermont Land Use and Development Plans Law (Act 250).
Act 250 was accompanied by legislation dealing with such specific concerns
as shoreland and flood plain zoning, dedication of open space, water
pollution and mobile home park controls.

Act 250 recognizes two major functions, regulation and planning.
The regulatory function is exercised by seven three-member district
commissions which receive and decide on applications for development
permits and by a nine-member Environmental Board which hears appeals from

50

district commission decisions.* The Board^ is also responsible tor adopting
state plans prepared by the State planning Office within the governor's
office: first an interim capability plan which is a catalogue of current
land uses and capabilities; then a capability and development plan; and
finally, a land use plan. A plan must be approved by the Governor and
by the state legislature. The capability and development plan v;ns approved
in 1973. It built on the interim plan, attempting to refine guidelines
to be used by state, regional and local agencies for planning and regula-
tory purposes; criteria outlined in the plan were incorporated into the
amended version of Act 250 (June 1973). The final plan was sub:Ditted to
the legislature in the spring of 1974. The proposed plan divided the state
into five districts - urban, rural residential, agricultural conservation
(prime agricultural land), resource and agricultural conservation (secondary
agricultural and forest lands) and reserve - and establishes goals for each
area consistent with the designated use as set forth in the capability plan.

The relationship between planning and regulation as envisioned in
Act 250 is roughly as follows. In towns without permanent zoning and sub-
division regulation, all commercial and industrial developments of more
than one acre must be submitted to a district commission for approval. In
towns with zoning and subdivision codes all developments involving more

* Review functions are exercised by two additional bodies. The Agency
250 Review Committee, a committee composed of representatives of state de-
partments prepares position papers for the district commissions regarding
regulatory decisions the commissions must make. The Protection Division ot
the State Agency of Environmental Conservation notifies interested agencies
of permit applications and passes on to the district commissions any signi
ficant responses.

51

than ten acres require comi lission approval. To receive a permit, a developer
must demonstrate that his iToJect conforms with the state plan and tliat tlic
development will not have m undue adverse effect on air, water or sii i 1
quality, scenic beauty, or historical sites and that it will not place an
undue burden on the community's ability to provide services.

How well the planning and regulating functions mesh, in fact, is
in question. Act 250 reli'-s on citizen administration rather than
professional management; each district commission is composed of lay
members. This arrangement appears consistent with Vermont's rural, town
meeting, local government tradition. Planning under the Act is, on the
other hand, a professional activity which takes place primarily at the
state level. Regional administrative and planning bodies have relatively
little opportunity for input into the state plan. There are no explicit
provisions assuring local and regional planning agencies opportunities
for planning assistance. Coordination guidelines are vague. Opportunities
for political and policy onflict thus appear substantial.

52

An additional criticism which may be leveled at Act 250
is the lack of correlation between stated envirommental goals and
the classifications of development made subject to the act. Classi-
fication of developments is based merely on acreage, not on type of
development. It is not difficult to imagine projects smaller than
one or ten acres which have a significant regional or environmental
impact or large projects without Such an impact. Further, exemptions
under the act, while politically attractive, bear little relation-
to potential environment harm. Farming and forestry, for example,
do not require permits while even the most primitive recreational
development is subject to the Act. The state has at least for the
moment stopped short of becoming the "environmental fortress" which
its govenor envisioned.

One final point worth noting is that the permit system increases
developer's costs. This is not, of course, unique to Vermont, but
is inherent in any complex permit system. These costs appear to be
substantial, however, and Vermont administrators have sought ways
of simplifying application procedures.

Washington

Washington has passed several important pieces of legislature
to control land use. Two of these - the Shoreline flanagement Act
and the Termal Power Plant Siting Act deal with specific environmental
problems, a third is more general. In 1971 the Washington legislature

53

established a state land planning commission to study the state's
land use problems and to recommend to the legislature possible
solutions. The commission produced House Bill 791, the Washington
Land Use Bill which is expected to pass soon.

Under the Act, planning, zoning and subdivision control would
be vested in local go\'ernments (except in those areas governed by the
Shoreline Management, the thermal Power Plant Sigint Act or some other
statute), provided that administrative actions and plans conform to
criteria established by the Land Use Act and any state land use plan.
The state land use plan is to evolve out of a planning process
mandated by the Act. The Act would establish a state land use planning
agency within the governor's office to carry out state planning and
to operate a land use information service. The state agency would
also propose criteria for designating areas of statewide significance
and developments of greater than local significance.
Provisions are made for citizen involvement in this process. Upon
the governor's approval of the criteria, they would be incorporated
into the state plan and specific areas of the state could be designa-
ted of critical concern or of greater than local impact. Once the
state plan is adopted, the state agency would be required to review
local and regional plans and order inconsistences with the state
plan remedied. The state agency would have authority to review
local regulation of areas of state wide significance and

54

developments of greater than local impact. In addition, the state
agency would be authorized to participate in interstate planning
activities. A five member state land appeals board would be
authorized to review orders of the state agency, permits for
development in specially designated areas and orders of regional
planning officer. A standardized system of judicial review is
also called for. To streamline the permit application and review
process before regulatory agencies, the act calls for the establishment
of a one-stop permit coordination system. To provide for immediate
regulation of certain land uses prior to the adoption of state and
local plans, interim land policies could be declared for plans and
agricultural lands. The state also would be given emergency authority
to regulate areas of statewide significance a greater than local
Impact.

Ill Implications for Massachusetts

Analysis of the experience of the states discussed indicates
that state land use programs can be organized successfully in a
number of different ways. Viewed as a whole, however, they suggest
a number of common themes. States have concluded that they are
unique and that no one program will work for all of them. Choices
which a state makes in structuring a land use program reflect the
history, traditions and special needs of each state, the way it is

55

organized to perform other functions, and the relationship of land
use planning to other activities within the structure. Several
states have used the ALT Model Code, but each has modified it to
fill specific needs. Whatever the ultimate structure, areas of
responsibility should be clearly delineated so as to avoid conflict.
Specific provisions for inter-governmental cooperation are needed.
The Colorado and Oregon experiments are still relatively new
and have a number of problems to work out. They suggest however,
that land use control need not be a centralized, top down process.
Where there is an existing or potentially operational local
planning and regulatory framework, local governments offer significant
contributions to state land use control. Perhaps the most important
problem is one of accountability - that interests affected by land
use decisions are accurately represented in one decision-making
process. Placing responsibility for decision making at the local
level is likely to encourage more substantial citizen participation
since visibility will be heightened and issues highlighted. A
comparison of the state programs, together with the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission experience suggests that
programs operate effectively which profess specified, limited ob-
jectives. Issues may be clarified and visibility enhanced. Further,
enactment of a land use legislation package need not be the final
statement on the matter. "Comprehensive" legislation may later be

56

supplemented by statutes dealing with specific development or en-
vironmental problems. In several states, legislation has been passed
in steps. The Colorado program is avowedly experimental.

Few states have explicitly sought to balance environmental
protection with a positive program for growth and development.
As its name might suggest, the San Francisco Say Area Conservation
and Development Commission made some efforts in this direction.
However, should Massachusetts include an economic component in its
legislation, it would be the first state to do so.

A matter little discussed in the individual case studies, but
one deserving mention is the need for an improved land use data base.
Land use planning at any level requires a wide range of information
both quantitative end qualitative. Natural resource endowment,
population statistics, economic activities and employment trends,
environmental and social conditions, transportation, housing, and
utility systems are areas in which up-to-data information is essential. ,
A number of states have included data collection as part of the planning
process, but few have pursued the goal of information management to
the extent desirable. Indeed, a lack of adequate funding has forced
officials in some states to rely on word-of-raouth estimates which
have been far from accurate.

Massachusetts will have to come to grips with each of these
issues for itself. But the experience in other states is definitely
worth considering.

B. REVIEW OF LEGISLATI\^ ISSUES IN LAND USE
AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

SUMMARY
Of Staff Paper on
Legislative Issues in Land Use
and Development Planning

Planning is a means of shaping and not halting economic growth.
This paper focuses on the various factors that ought to be taken into
account in deciding what land use planning powers to delegate to what
levels of government. Different views on the issue of delegation are
considered, li/hile the most appropriate strategy depends on the spe-
cific issues involved, the paper cautions against the delegation of
pov/ers that are so vague that they result in agency policies that
are impossible to predict. l\rhenever possible, meaningful standards
should be promulgated in whatever legislation is passed. In this
paper, we also examine the administrative and financial capacities
of the various levels of government to see whether or not they would
be able to carry out the assignments that would be given to them
under various land use planning strategies. Issues of economic ex-
ternalities and citizen participation are also considered. Finally,
there are remarks about the reform of middle-level government in
the state.

59

REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE ISSUES IN LAND USE
AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

Comments on Legislation
Pending Before the General Court

By Joel F. Brenner
March 1975

It is impossible to produce useful legislation unless
its sponsors and drafters ask themselves precisely what it
is that they want to accomplish. What sort of government
intervention is wanted? What will it achieve? Why do it at
all? Unless these questions are raised, and unless a fairly
concrete consensus about the answers is reached within the
General Court itself, then it is safe to predict that even
if legislation is passed it is unlikely to accomplish much
except to increase the size of the budget and the bureau-
cracy. A survey of the current crop of bills relating to
land and development planning suggests that this sort of
hard thinking has yet to go on in more than a few heads.

One issue must be cleared up at the outset. Planning
means planning for development. Conservation is but one of
the planner's concerns; and in fact conservation does not

60

necessarily imply planning. There may be irrational con-
servation just as there may be irrational development. The
point is vital. For if in a time of economic slump the
opponents of rational planning are able to portray the enter-
prise as inimical to economic development, then planning
legislation will never get out of committee. Already the
misconception has spread too far. ' At hearings recently on
various bills whose purpose was ■ to _promot_e economic growth
in Massachusetts, one gentleman was heard to mutter, "I
don't knov/ why they need a development bank; they've already
got all these conservation laws." The advocates of planning
must not allow themselves to be tarred with this brush.
Society is not an electrical appliance whose growth can be
stopped by pulling out the plug. A society through its
institutions can regulate, condition, and control its
growth, but a society cannot stop or start growth by passing
a law. It is precisely because there will be growth that
planning is needed. The legislator's task is to ensure
that it takes place in a rational fashion.

I^ THE_DELEGATiqN_ISSUE

A . K 1 n d s _o f _P 1 a nn 1 n g

The "planning" rubric covers two related but different
ideas. On the one hand it includes substantive decision-

61

making to regulate the location of activities and the use of
land. Planning In this sense Implies affirmative decisions,
embodied in a "master" or "comprehensive" plan, that certain
uses (such as roads, schools, subway stations) shall be
located according to plan. And it also implies negative,
restrictive decisions that certain uses may not locate in
specified areas, indicated on a zoning map for example. On
the other hand, "planning" also Includes the organization of
the decision-making process and procedures, as opposed to
substantive decisions about what shall or shall not be
located in various places. The state's zoning enabling act,
for instance, has nothing whatever to say about the location
of gasoline stations or funeral parlors in Worcester or
Acton or anyplace else. Rather, it authorizes that local
boards be constituted which are granted the power, within
the rather broad limits, to make these and other decisions.
Planners refer to this distinction as the difference
between plan and process. By plan is meant substance. By
process is meant procedure, or governmental structure. The
distinction is an essential one, but it also obscures an

important truth. I£_it _aims__t_o _accomplish_any^ any

l?.S.i?_l.§Lt 1 V e _s c h e m e _mu 3_t _a t _3 o m e _1 e v e 1 _e mb q d y _s,u b s t a n 1 1 v e
criteria. The issue for the statutory draftsman, therefore,
is whether and to what extent the legislature shall deter-
mine the criteria; whether and to what extent that power
shall be delegated.

62

Failure to grapple with this issue is one of the
evident and lamentable characteristics of much of the
planning and development legislation presently in committee.
The structure of many of these bills may be fairly carica-
tured as follows: (1) establishlish a commission; (2) give
it plenty of money; (3) confer on it all power necessary to
accomplish its goals (which are tod vague to mean anything) ;
(4) kiss it good-bye. This is a prescription for little more
than misspent dollars and governmental arterial sclerosis.

B ^ _ _Wh a t _P o w e r s _t o _D e 1 e g a t e ?

How, then, should a legislator decide what powers to
delegate?

It Is sometimes said that the press of legislative
business, the lure of administrative expertise and flexibil-
ity, and the inability to achieve legislative consensus make
precise delegation impossible. The conclusion is that the
natures of the legislative and administrative processes
preclude anything but broad, sweeping delegations from legis-
lature to agency.

The need for flexibility of administration is Indeed
a primary rationale for the creation of administrative
agencies. If we need the agency at all, it is pretty clear
that it must have considerable discretion in deciding how
to go about its business. Failure to delegate this kind of

*

63

flexibility would only guarantee administrative rigor
mortis right from the start. But it is one thing to argue
that an agency requires flexibility to decide what day-to-
day means of operation are best calculated to achieve
prescribed goals, and quite another thing to argue that
the agency itself ought to remain free to prescribe its
own goals. That is a prerogative that the legislature
should jealously refuse to part with. It is the prerogative
to make political decisions - decisions regarding the
direction of the government and the society, decisions
drawing a balance among competing interest groups in the
electorate. Only by keeping a tight fist on this level of
decision-making power does the legislature vindicate the
principle that political decisions should be made by
elected officials accountable to a constituency.

The argument from "expertise" is a similar mixture
of sense and confusion. If what is meant is that the agency
personnel will create a terrible muddle if they don't know
a great deal about the market or industry to be regulated,
then that is of course true. But if what is meant is that
political decisions can be reduced to technical issues that
are amenable to "scientific" solutions by value-free
"experts," then this is foolishness. Perhaps it will help
to put the "expertise" argument in perspective by recalling
that it was strongly advanced in favor of creating both the

64

Interstate Commerce Commission and the Civil Aeronautics
Board — two agencies that currently bask in ignominious
disrepute. To police an industry, to regulate a land
market, to inject capital into depressed areas: these
decisions benefit some groups and are detrimental to others,
One does or does not take these decisions according to an
impressionistic sense of the relative weight of the costs
and the benefits, and against a' background of social con-
sensus and constitutional values. But one way or another,
such decisions are unavoidably political, and they belong
with the legislature.

The final argument In favor of sweeping delegations
Is that the legislature cannot achieve a policy consensus,
whereas an agency can and will. Therefore, the agency must
have power to formulate goals. But "It does not make
sense," as Professor Jaffe says in the federal context,

to say that the burdens of the congressional
workload and the pressure exerted by opposing ■
political forces preclude a detailed legisla-
tive solution to a given' problem, so that
vague, general delegation is the better or
the only alternative. The monumental detail
of the tax code suggests that Congress can,
and does, legislate with great specificity
when it regards a matter as sufficiently
important. Nor can a political conflict be
avoided by relegating a problem to the care
of an agency and Invoking the talisman of
" exp ert 1 s e . " The _e f f e c t _of _s_uc h _a _t rans f er
o f _f un c 1 1 o n _i s _s i mp 1 y _t o _s_h 1 f t _t h e _1 e g 1 s 1 a 1 1 ve
P£°5.?-^§:_'^2._§:_'^i££§.^?-Q.t_levelj.aQ.d_there_ls_no

t o _r 1 s e _ab o V e _D0 w e r _c o^nf 1 i c_t s__t_o _a c h 1 e ve _s o 1 u-
^2. ^.^.-^'S.'t _5.^1° 9.5.?. _t2. _2.^° "^i-9:?. ■ [emphasis added]

65

The common symptom of bureaucratic Inef fectuality is not
the result of agency failure to carry out broad mandates
imaginatively. Rather, it is the result of agencies'
carrying out vague mandates precisely and thus producing
vague policies.

C ^ How _B i 1 1 s _Me a s_ur e _Up_

Here is how some of the important bills now in
committee measure up to the clarity of delegation standard.

There are three schemes for statewide, regionally
supervised controls over critical and/or regional land use
developments that make impressive efforts in this direction,
but which have little or no chance of enactment.

There are two schemes that would give the state a
substantive planning role, but they avoid substantive judg-
ments and standards."^

There are four schemes for development or land banks.
Their authors prefer broad mandates and imprecise criteria.

4

D^ Draft l_ng_Procedure^ Essential Questions

There are certain issues that no one should fail to
put to himself in the course of drafting a bill:

(1) Define as precisely as possible - define
concretely - the outcomes that the legislation should

66

prevent or encourage. Point to them. Describe them. In-
ab 1 1 i t Y_ _t o _d o _t h i s _s h o u 1 d _s u g^
be _a _w a s t e _o f _t i m e .

(2) Sketch the structure and key points of a bill
that might attain the desired ends.

(3) Imagine how the scheme might go haywire. What
kind of maladministration might lead to bad results? What
usurpations could occur? What wrong judgments may be made
that are within the agency's powers? One can never foresee
them all, but an imaginative draftsman should be able to
devise a pretty long list. This_ls _a_cruclal_and_dif f i

s t age _o f _t h e _d r a f 1 1 n g . It _w a s _o m 1 1 1 e d _b y _t h e _d r a f t s m e n _a n d

§:£.°Q.soils _of JiI^^iL_°£_'t^§._^iiil§._y.^^er_dl^ AQ.^_i't_?.tl°^§

(4) Redraft the bill to preclude as many bad results
as possible.

At this point tough judgments must be made. Many
bad results can never be precluded by the legislature:
Agency personnel or a governor who are hostile to the scheme,
for example, can always scuttle it. And specificity of
delegation may in some cases be achieved only by limiting
the agency's discretion to an intolerable degree. Or it
may be that legislative maneuvering necessitates leaving a
matter vague. In that event one must decide either that
the "right" sort of agency personnel will produce the
desired results anyway (or not). Or that litigation will

«i»

67

achieve the same thing (or not). Or else that the scheme
as it could be passed would be so muddled that it would
not be worthwhile.

Broad delegations may indeed be necessary. The
mistake is to assume that they are necessary without in
every case having thought the matter through.

- II; DELEGATI0N_TOJj;HAT_LEVEL_OF_GqVEm^^^

This is a key issue in land use planning, and one
that is still wide open in Massachusetts. At present the
limited controls that exist are grouped at the local level
in the form of zoning boards, boards of health, and planning
boards. Some planning capacity exists in the regional plan-
ning authorities, but the plans produced are honored more
in the breach than the observance. There is no general
planning capacity at the state level. It is a safe bet
that the localities will hang on to a substantial amount
of their power. But what happens when local policies conflict?
Should there be a forum to resolve such conflicts at the re-
gional or state level? Some proposed legislation suggests that
certain powers, while remaining at the local level, may never-
theless be subjected to stricter standards and perhaps to re-
gional supervislon( which could in turn be subjected to a statewide

68

comprehensive plan). Proponents of reforms in this area
will clearly have to buck strong local resistance to any
change, and that resistance will condition any legislative
bargain that may be made. But legislators in reaching
their bargains will still want to ask themselves: What
outcome would be ideal? These are the three issues to
consider:

(1) citizen participation (tending to keep
government at a low level)

(2) externalities (tending to push govern-
ment to higher levels)

(3) governmental capacity (which depends
on the specific case)

A. Citizen_Particlpatlon

Planning, as we noted, is a loose term that covers
various kinds of governmental intervention and direction.
The nature of this intervention will vary according to the
philosophies of and the economic and political restraints
upon the policy-maker. Some plans will merely establish
basic frameworks within which a range of free-market deci-
sions may occur, while others will be far more detailed.
But the essential feature of any planning is that it limits
future decision-making. Even if it is merely a "boundary"
within which relatively free decisions are permitted, the
nature of a boundary is that it excludes as well as includes.
There is therefore an inherent conflict between the principle

69

of planning and the principle that citizens should be left
free to control their own lives.

Few persons would hold that a society cannot exercise
some control over the actions of its individual members
where the good of the whole demands it. Indeed, the criminal
lav/ itself depends on a society's ability to do so. Non-
criminal restraints rest on the same justification: citizens
must use their property only in ways that do not do injury
to their neighbors and to wider social interests. Reluctance
to impose restraints on individual choice nevertheless
remains great, and this is rightly so. The balance to be
drawn is thus a delicate one. If the politician takes the
principles seriously, then before he creates another govern-
ment job, before he gives another bureaucrat another ounce
of power, before he subjects another citizen to another
form in triplicate, he must scrutinize every proposal - and
not merely in a casual way - and determine that it justi-
fies itself and is more likely to work than not. If the
intervention does justify itself, then control of the
decision-making machinery should be left with the govern-
mental level to which citizens have the greatest access,

5.°0.§.i?.^ent_with_feasiblllty . And the decisions should be

7
made openly. '

B ; ^Externalities

"Externalities" is the economist's word for the costs

70

that are not borne and the benefits that are not recouped
by the activity that creates them. A new factory, for
example, creates external benefits for local merchants by
raising the level of disposable income among the working
population who patronize the merchants' stores. The same
factory creates external costs (or "diseconom.ies" ) in the
form of pollution which it does not clean up, and in the form
of any municipal services such as sewerage and roads for
which it may not pay its full share. Similarly, if the work-
ing population drawn to the factory is young and includes
school-age children, new schools may have to be built and
staffed by the city or town. This, too, is an external
diseconomy created by the factory.

Note that the externality is not the effect itself,
but the fact that the creator of the effect does not get
to keep it, or does not have to pay for it. The cost or
benefit, in other words, is external to the activity that
creates it. Governments as well as firms create externali-
ties .

A classic instance of government-created externalities
is the pollution of the Delaware River. This river has its
headwaters in southern New York and forms the eastern
boundary of New Jersey. By the time it reaches Trenton in
southern Nev; Jersey it is not exactly pristine. Trenton
then dumps its sewage into the river (below the town, of

71

course), so that when the water has reached Philadelphia a
few miles farther south it is pretty foul. Philadelphia
then dumps its sewage into the Delaware, so that by the
time the river reaches Wilmington it is in a truly wretched
state. And when Wilmington and DuPont have finished dumping
their mess into the river, it is no small wonder that even
the ocean will have anything to do with it. Now if the
citizens of Trenton had to pay what Philadelphians have to
pay in order to use the water after the citizens of Trenton
have done with it; and if Philadelphians had to pay what
the people in Wilmington have to pay in order to be able
to use the water after it passes Philadelphia; and if the
citizens of Wilmington had to pay the cost to us all of
having a fouled ocean, then the chances are that they would
all behave differently. This is an externality. It would
be eliminated if the sev/erage systems of all three cities
were controlled by a single jurisdiction.

tions_is_t_hat _the_unlt _of _g^overa

within its borders .

Clearly this is not always possible or even desirable
Rather than redraw the maps of three states, Trenton,
Philadelphia, and Wilmington may reach some kind of accord
about dumping sewage. Or the federal government - the only
unit large enough to encompass most of the costs - may step

72

into the picture. If externalities were our only concern,
all jurisdictions would become very large very fast.
Moreover, they would be unstable because different activi-
ties would dictate differing jurisdictional limits. Obviously
we have not got hold of a principle that will solve all our
problems. But we do have an important guideline to help us
in the rational administration of government.

C ^^ Capacity

The unit of government to which power is delegated must
have the financial and administrative capacity to perform
the task assigned. As between two or more units that have
adequate capacity, the delegation should go to the one that
can perform most efficiently.

The state government, of course, has the greatest
financial capacity, and it also has the legal capacity to
administer most any scheme. Efficiency is another matter.
The state bureaucracy is cumbersome and is characterized by
continuing jurisdictional disputes among the various depart-
ments. Possibly the bickering would be reduced if there
were a cabinet level agency with planning capability, but
such an office does not now exist (though the governor has
declared his intention to create one).

If general policy decisions about land use and develop-

73

ment planning are to be made, the state seems the right level

at which to make them (though policy may be administered at
a lower level). It may also be the right level at which to
coordinate certain specific, macro-economic decisions such as
the optimal siting of new industry that may be induced to come
to the state. But the state is clearly the wrong level at
which to make decisions about the proper location of funeral
parlors in Chlcopee. Such decisions should continue to be
made at the municipal level. But municipalities also have far
less administrative capacity and planning expertise, especially
the smaller ones. And v;hile they are optimal from the points
of view of citizen participation and availability of information
about local conditions} their very closeness to the persons
and land to be regulated makes them subject to political pres-
sures that are often very great. The widespread, improper
granting of zoning variances and special permits, for example,
is notorious. (This situation would be eliminated by the pro-
posed revision of G.L. c. 40A, H. 5^57.)

The county is an ancient unit of government, but the
institution has long been in ill health and last rites have
indeed been proposed (H. 3072 would abolish county government).
The fourteen counties - perhaps Franklin County Is an exception-
perform few functions that could not be handled as well if
divided betv/een the state and municipalities, and their abolition

74

would not require constitutional amendment. At pres-
ent, however, county reform legislation has no chance of
enactment.

The weakened state of county government poses a
serious obstacle to planning legislation. For, while
the counties are but a shadow of a government, the re-
gional (i.e. , county size) unit would be ideal for the
administration of many policies. It is large enough
to contain most externalities. It is small enough to
be accessible to citizens. And regional government
could be used to far better advantage than state gov-
ernment for the supervision of policies that are best
carried out locally. For example, regional government
could be vested with power to settle disputes and pol-
icy inconsistencies between municipalities; to ensure
that local codes comport with general state guidelines;

and perhaps to grant zoning exemptions if it is feared

9
that municlDalities cannot be trusted.

Logically, nothing prevents the establishment of
regional governmental units alongside the county system
and some moves in this direction can be expected. Region-
al planning authorities suggest themselves as a focus of
attention. However, the State's twelve RPA's have almost
no political or financial povier. And as a practical matter
a set of parallel governments could become an organizational

75

nightmare. It is difficult to imagine effective middle-
level government apart from either the abolition or overhaul
of the county system.

III^ GOYl,RMENTAL_REFqRM

Modern government is frequently likened to a great
behemoth. But the metaphor contains only half a truth; for
below the state level one leaves the behemoth behind and
enters, like Gulliver, the land of the Lilliputians, where
all the local governments live. The little bodies are
everywhere. They v/ill tie you down, v\ralk all over your
good ideas, and make speeches from the end of your nose.

Counties are only part of the problem. In Massachu-
setts today there are over 300 special-purpose governmental
units apart from municipalities.

Most of these special districts
perform really essential functions. The problem is that
they are usually politically unaccountable; that their
jurisdictions are bewildering; and that they frequently
follow uncoordinated and sometimes contradictory policies.

Special districts became popular in the 'thirties
because they offered a way to evade constitutional debt
limits. They also seemed to offer a way to take "politics"
out of government, which could then be run by experts. And

76

in those few areas where general purpose units were willing
to relinquish jurisdiction, special districts could achieve
orderly coordination of services among cities and towns in
a way that the municipalities alone could not do. Many of
them proved to be useful, fruitful experiments, and for a
long time they looked like the epitome of rational govern-
ment. Yet precisely because they were successful, they
multiplied until now they represent balkanlzed administration,
and the difficulty of coordinating these units is very great.

Ironically, planners and environmentalists have them-
selves been a source of pressure for the further prolifera-
tion of special-purpose units. Every new act, however
desirable its program may be, creates a new bureaucracy that
is probably "within" the department of something or other
but without being subject to it. Every such program has a
cost. At present a developer - in addition to a multitude

of local utility permit standards - has a substantial com-

12
pliance problem in the form of the subdivision law, the

1^
Wetlands Act, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy

IH 15

Act. Also he may have certain federal laws to worry about.

And he may in addition have a zoning problem. On top of

these are novi proposed a number of regional land control

schemes that each has its notice, hearing, and compliance

requirements. Now I am not challenging the substance of

any of these regulations. What I am saying is that the cost

of regulation is reaching the point where even the best

77

regulation may become counter-productive. The_wis_est_plan,

?:!i^horlzed_by__the_mqst _enlig^hte^ %'lnii.D.i:§.'t&^ed

^^_'the_most_skillful_g_lann^ers^j §:^d_t.'G.ioY-iO.S_wide spread

negligible results If It Is merely nailed to the top of the

E?l?.§.?.^'t_tl.y:?!.?.§:y.S.£§:5.y • "^^s Anti-Snob Zoning Act Is a case
In point. Less than a hundred dwelling units have been built
as a result of this lav;. And the explanation has nothing
whatever to do with the substance of the law itself. Rather,
it is simply too costly for a low-income housing developer -
whose costs are already heavily front-loaded - to jump
through all the procedural and judicial hoops.

There is frankly little or nothing that can be done
to short-circuit the appeal process under this or other acts.
To do so would violate parties' rights to constitutional due
process of law. But there is much that can be done to stream-
line the permit-granting process and thereby to consolidate
all or most appeals. This v;ould save time and money, and
would raise little if any opposition. Accordingly, a bill
to devise a "one stop shopping" or "all-in-one" development
permit should be a high priority item. '

Governmental reform in general should also receive
more attention. Though few subjects inspire stauncher
resistance among the ranks of the government Itself, the
present time is unusually propitious for organizing around
the issue, because the economic and social costs of ineffi-

78

ciency are especially intolerable during a recession. In
prosperous times, ineffectual a.nd_costly county government
may be a pain in the neck; when the human services budget is
being cut, it is a scandal. When there is no housing shortage
construction delays are of no special interest. But when
there is a shortage, the further bureaucratization of the
permit process is perverse. Thus it seems to me impossible
to evaluate legislation for land and development planning
apart from considerations of governmental reform. Indeed,
such reform could be the very issue around which to organize.
And I hardly need add that reform of the permit review
process is the most promising political bargain area for
dealing with the opposition of the development industry to
regional planning.

79

NOTES TO TEXT

"*■ G.L. c. 40A.

2

This view is advocated by K. Davis, Administrative Lav;

Treatise at 93-99 (1958), 46-50 (Supp. 1970).

L. Jaffe, "The Illusion of the Ideal Administration," 86
Harvard L. Rev. 1183, 1189,90.

^ House Bills 644, 3907, 808, 2553 (the last two are identical)

^ House Bills 647, 1734.

^ Senate Bills 1008, 1604; House Bills 2797, 3795.

"^ See House Bill 2799.

® See House Bills 460, 814.

9

The proposed revision of G.L. 40A, H. 5457, takes a step

in this direction. See s. 14(2); zoning boards of appeals v/ould

hear and df^termine aoolications for soecial Dermits. By s . 10,

use variances would be eliminated altogether.

See A. Aylv;ard, "The Role of Regional Planning Agencies
and Middle-Level Government in Land Use Decision Making in Massa-
chusetts," 1973 (unpublished paper, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Department of Urban Studies and Planning).

Ibid. , p. 2.

^^ G.L. c. 41, ss. 81K-81GG.

■^^ G.L. c. 130, s. 105; c. 131, ss. 40, 40A.

G.L. c. 30, ss. 61-62.

15

National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. ss. 4331-35,

4341-47 (1970).

^^ G.L. c. 40B, ss. 20-23.
■'•'^ See Senate Bill 1616.

80

APPENDIX A
BILLS BY CATEGORY

Proposed legislation dealing directly or in-
directly with land use and development plan-
ning is divided into the following categories:

1) state and regional planning P_er_se;

2) regarding economic development;

3) regulation of local authorities and
their planning powers;

4) conservation and local improvements;

5) publicly held real estate and easements;

6) governmental organization; and

7) taxation.

STATE AND LOCAL PLANNING

A . St ate wide _s c h e m e s _f o r _P 1 a nn 1 n g _o r _r e ^1 o n s^l _r e £ y^l a t i o n

H, 6^4 Wetmore. Regulating developments of re-

gional impact. Nat. Res. & Ag.

One of several bills to create a land use
regulatory system above the local level. All
these bills are the conceptual off-spring of the
American Law Institute's model and the Martha's
Vineyard Act (Laws of 197^, c. 637), though they
vary in substantial as well as in technical
aspects. This one regulates developments of
regional impact but not areas of critical plan-
ning concern.

A "development of regional impact" as use-
in these bills is one that will affect more than
one municipality in substantial ways. An "area
of critical planning concern" is one whose uncon-
trolled development would have serious and irre-
versible adverse affects on certain resources,
as defined in the bills.

81

H. 64A is particularly noteworthy for
its tough procedures (ss. E.-K.), which
deserve careful consideration.

The bill ostensibly leaves much power
at the local level, but various built-in incen-
tives as well as the appeal structure would in
fact result in power's being transfered to state
and region. An executive commission is created
to devise guidelines for regional impact develop-
ment within which regional planning authorities
must promulgate regulations. Developments of
regional impact submitted to local authorities
for approval must comply with these regulations.
Appeals from local decisions to the commission
are allowed.

H. 647 Wetmore. Directing secretary of environ-

mental affairs to prepare a comprehensive land
use plan for the Commonwealth. Nat. Res. & Ag.

The only such legislation proposed. But
see also H. 173^.

H. 1967 Flaherty. Amending the environmental

impact law. Nat. Res. & Ag.

H. 3907 Hatch, Ames, Gannett, Gray, Healy, Robin-

son, Gillette, Sprague , Saltonstall. To protect
water and land in areas of the Commonwealth.
Nat. Res. & Ag.

Another of the progeny of the Martha's
Vineyard Act, this bill would regulate areas of
critical planning concern and developments of
regional impact. The key government level is
regional, but county government is nowhere
concerned, and regional planning agencies have
a policy input, at least indirectly. Great
power would be left at the local level, however
(s. 5(3)), and development guidelines may vary
among regions.

82

H. 808 Dwlnell. To establish a state land use

program.
H. 2553 Walker. Same bill. Nat. Res. & Ag.

This bill would also regulate districts
of critical planning concern and developments
of regional impact. It is essentially an appli-
cation of the Vineyard Act to the entire state,
with two differences: (1) there would be no
moratorium on development pending organization
of the legislative machinery, and (2) instead
of a statewide commission, there would be a
regional commission within each county.

Like the Vineyard Act, this bill suffers
from a serious procedural ambiguity. By ss. 13
and 16 (ss. l4 and 17 of the Vineyard Act), it
may be argued that the commission's power to
determine whether a development is one of re-
gional impact can be triggered only by the
municipality of site, and not by neighboring
'municipalities or the commission. This is odd,
since local and regional interests may differ.
Such a procedure could render pointless the
guidelines governing developments of regional
impact .

H. 1734 Landry, Bresnick. Comprehensive land use

planning. Nat. Res. & Ag.

Would create a system of state, regional,
and local land use and planning agencies whose
powers, procedures, and regional definition are
not perfectly clear.

83

B • ^^^lands _and _c oast al _ar eas

S. 1018 Atkins, McKinnon. Protection of coastal

wetlands .
S. 1043 Locke. Same bill. Nat. Res, & Ag.

Forbids "construction in coastal wetlands
of access driveways to unrestricted land, except
upon an elevated structure bridging the wetland,
permitting the unobstructed flow of the tide
and preserving the natural contour of the
wetland."

S. 1051 MacKenzie, Howe. Enforcement of laws

regulating wetlands. Nat. Res. & Ag.

■ "Boards of health in cities and towns
may, in the case of violations of this section
[re removal, fill, dredging, or altering of
land bordering waters, G.L. c. 131, s. 'JO],
attach or place a lien on any property subject
to the provisions of this section, may require
the correction or alteration of any filling or
other activity done in violation of this section,
and may require payment for damage done by any
such violation."

S. 1053 McCarthy. Protection of wetlands. Nat.

Res. & Ag.

S. 1071 Saltonstall, Bulger, Aylmer. Re the use,

protection, and development of coastal zone
resources.

Would establish an executive office with
jurisdiction over these resources.

H. 815 Walker. To establish a division of coastal

zone management.
H. 959 Lane, Silva. Same bill. Nat. Res. & Ag.

Abolishes the division of mineral re-
sources and creates a division of coastal zone

84

management, which would have great powers in
the area "seaward for 200 miles and inland to
the point where significant marine influences
exist." A comprehensive, enforceable plan for
this area is to be prepared. There are no
statutory criteria that the plan must meet.

The bill raises many unanswered questions.
To what extent is local authority infringed?
Is zoning override implied? How is the plan to
be enforced? Is it binding on local government,
or is it a separate system of rules that may or
may not coincide with local ones? Territorial
jurisdiction is extremely vague.

1 1 ^ _ _E C ON OM I C _D EVE LOP ME NT

). 1008 Parker. Revising enabling legislation of

SE Regional Planning and Economic Development
District. Local Affairs.

S. 1604 McKinnon, Tully, Olver. Creating Mass.

Community Development Finance Corp. Urban
Affairs.

Aiming to alleviate economic depression,
the bill erects a two-tiered structure: a state
community development finance corporation (CDFC)
in the executive branch, and a series of self-
organizing community development corporations.
The latter are to be popularly created and
define their own geographical boundaries. Their
duties, powers, and relationship to the CDFC

are rather unclear. The CDFC is to have great
financial resources and broad discretionary

authority unguided or limited by any legisla-
tively imposed standards.

H. I6l6 Tlmilty. Re comprehensive development

permits. Urban Affairs.

85

H. 2797 King, Goode. Establishing development

corporation for Boston's SW corridor. Urban
Affairs.

H. 3795 Bartley, Lapointe, Bulger, Scalli,

Bernashe, Demers, Goode, Kendall, Lappin,
Newman, Quigley, Coffey. Establishing a base
conversion land bank. Commerce & Labor.

V/ould create a development and land bank
with jurisdiction (only) over federal installa-
tions now being abandoned, such as the Boston
Navy Yard. The bank would plan development in
these depressed areas (and is in this respect
unique among these four bills) and would provide
seed-money investment capital where necessary
from funds raised by bond sales. Like other
pro-development legislation, this bill (s. 6)
makes a broad delegation of great power.

III^ ^LqCAL_AUTHqRITIES_AND_THEIR_PLA^

^ i0.5.1.y:li.0.£_h2.iis.i n£_and _mo r t gages )

A. Zoning

H. 5^57 Zeiser, Brett, Gray, Harrington. Revis-

ing zoning enabling act. Urban Affairs.
(Formerly H. 525)

Among the bills likely to pass, this one
is most important. It entirely rewrites the
zoning enabling act, G.L. c. 40A. In addition
to technical changes of varying importance, it
expands the purposes of zoning to include the
encouragement of "housing for persons of all
income levels," and it directs that local auth-
orities at least consider any master or compre-
hensive plan applying to their area (s. 2). The
importance of these clauses will depend on the
interpretation they receive by the courts. The

86

bill would also eliminate all use variances
(s. 10) and would reduce the freeze on laws re-
lating to subdivision plans from 7 to 5 years
(s, 6). But section 6 would not alter the

result of Bellows _Farms_5 Inc. v, Building_In-

spector_of _Acton (1973), 303 N.E. 2d 728. By
section 14(2), special permit applications would
be heard by boards of appeals.

S. 1571 Hall. Allowing use of land for purpose

for v/hich zoned. Urban Affairs.

The effect of this bill would seem to be
the elimination of all restrictions except use
restrictions created by the zoning laws. It
would probably also result in less effective
policing of zoning laws .

H. 1836 Sprague. Re zoning of lands subject to

flood. Urban Affairs.

Would make certain changes in the zoning
enabling act's provision on flooding, G.L. c. 40A,
s. 2. The Supreme Judicial Court has probably
already accomplished these changes . See Turnp_ike
Realty _Co^j._Inc. v. Dedham, 72 Mass. I303 (1972).

S. 15^6 Aylmer. Requiring on-site inspection

before hearings by zoning boards of appeal.
Urban Affairs.

"No hearing shall be scheduled on a peti-
tion for a variance until the board of appeals
has conducted an on-site inspection of the proper-
ty for which a variance is petitioned and all the
members of said board have signed an affidavit
thereto . "

If adopted, this language could easily be
construed to allow inspection by an agent of the

87

board, or by one of its members.

S. 15^7 Aylmer. Eliminating notice to abutters

for certain zoning hearings. Urban Affairs.

Would eliminate special notice to abut-
ters of proposed zoning changes and variances.

If this bill is designed to solve the
onerous notice problems created where a highway
or railway right of way is involved, narrower
language would suffice.

H. 1029 Wilber. Defining zoning procedures.

Urban Affairs.

Would stay certain zoning exemptions pend-
ing litigation. Would construe municipal failure
to act on applications for variances or special
permits as grants thereof.

B . Planning. _D i s t r 1 c t s

S. 60 Olver. Relative to Franklin County

Regional Housing Authority. Counties.

S. 1^0 Foley. Re definition of planning dis-

tricts. Local Affairs.

. ^ Power to define regional planning regions

removed from the division of planning of the
department of commerce and development, and
placed in the bureau of regional planning,
department of community affairs.

S. 1^1 Kelly. Authority of district planning

commissions to undertake to plan solid waste
acilities. Nat. Res. & Ag.

S. 1011 Schlosstein. Changes in financial section

of regional planning law. Local Affairs.

C^ Solid_waste_disp_osal

S. 144 Foley. Authorizing and funding central

Mass. regional planning comm'n to plan solid

waste facilities. Nat. Res. & Ag.

S. 103^ DiCarlo. Establishing Commonwealth re-

gional solid waste comm'n. Nat. Res. & Ag.

S. 1035 DiCarlo. Establishing regional solid

waste disposal districts. Nat. Res. & Ag.

S. 1035 authorizes cities and towns to
Join together in regional solid waste disposal
districts, with power to run appropriate facili-
ties. S. 103^ creates another special purpose
executive commission to encourage solid v;aste
disposal planning and having broad power to make
grants to regional solid waste disposal dis-
tricts. Funds for grants would come from bond
sales .

D . ^I^is ce llaneous _(_including _su

S. 1561 Burke, Sprague . Regulating approval of

definitive subdivision plans. Urban Affairs.

Re subdivision control law.

Tairs Committee. Revision of
subdivision control law. Urban Affairs.

Chances of favorable action in this
session on any revisions of the subdivision
control law are poor, primarily because the
Urban Affairs Committee has been preoccupied
with its revision of G.L. 40A. See H. 5^57.
The outlook for next session is better.

H. 1021 Scaccia. Withholding school assistance

from certain cities and towns (re housing).
Urban Affairs.

H. 1022 Scaccia. Withholding aid from cities and

towns that exclude low or moderate income
housing. Urban Affairs.

H. 2799 King, Fortes. Re citizen participation.

Urban Affairs.

Would direct the Department of Community

H.

722

Chmura
Urban Affairs

H.

5378

Urban

89

Affairs to issue mandatory regulations governing
citizen participation and availability of public
information when municipalities apply for certain
federal grants.

H. 2831 Fantasia. Permitting MHFA to guarantee

agricultural loans. Urban Affairs.

IV^ CONSERVATiqN_AND_LqCAL_IMPROVE^

A^^ Conservatlon_and_£^reserv^ati^

S. 1025 Backman, Cusack, McGrath, Businger, Segal,

Harrington. To create Charles R. Conservancy
District, Nat. Res. & Ag.

To create a conservancy district and com-
mission for the Charles R. watershed. The
powers of the commission are educational and
investigatory, and include a mandate to draft
legislation.

S. 1039 Hall. Wildlife sanctuary at Shirley

Industrial School. Nat. Res. & Ag.

H. 1622 Brett, Timilty. Neponset R. Recreation;

acquiring land for. Urban Affairs.

H. 3905 Ames. Clarifying the conservation re-

striction law. Nat. Res. & Ag.

B ^ Local _i niP.^o V e m e n t s

S. 1029 Bulger. Making irrevocable certain licenses

relating to tidelands in South Bay, Boston. Nat.
Res. & Ag.

S, 1045 LoPresti. Making Irrevocable certain

licenses relating to tidelands in East Boston.
Nat. Res. & Ag.

V^__PUBLICLY_HELD_REAL_ES^TATE_AND_E^

H. 460 Dwinell. Directing inventories of public

rights of way to shore.

90

H. 814 Walker. Same bill. Nat. Res. & Ag,

Municipalities directed to prepare a list
of public rights of way leading to the shore line
within their boundaries, and to indicate same
by signs. The state would compile the lists.

H. 3909 McGee, Quinn. Requiring a review of

public lands held for natural resource purposes.
Nat. Res. & Ag.

S. 1311 Atkins. To provide for disposal of Common-

wealth's surplus real property. State administra-
tion.

VI ^ GOYERNMENTAL_qRGANIZATiqN

H. 3046 Frank. To establish a Metropolitan

Council. Urban Affairs.

Transforms the MAPC into a Metro Council
that would be a limited form of regional govern-
ment .

H. 3072 Frank. Establishing regional government,

abolishing county government, and redefining
. local government functions. Counties.

VII^ TAXATION

(All bills in the taxation committee)

A . C o n s 1 1 1 u 1 1 o na 1 _ame ndme n t s__a _o f

real_estate_according^_to_use

S. 42 Timilty

S. 1443 Saltonstall

S. 1476 Tobln

H. 1597 Brownell, Cerasoll

H. 3766 Kearney, Connolly

H. 3950 Howe, Chisholm

K. 4328 Pines

91

B^ Other_constitutlq^nal_amend^

S. 1381 Boverini. Requiring General Court to

fix a maximum tax rate for owner-occupied resi-
dential real property.

S. I4l8 ■ MacKenzle. Affecting wetlands valuation.

H, 3951 McGee, Walker, Young. Re taxation of wild

or forest lands, open spaces, natural resources,
and property devoted to recreational uses.

C^ Legislation to affect uniform real estate taxation

H. 5398 Mella. To allow assessors to employ

different methods in determining full fair cash
value of property.

S. 1440 Olver. Amending the agricultural and

horticultural assessment act.

S. l46l Schlosstein, McCarthy. Amending the agri-

cultural and horticultural assessment act.

S. 1490 Zarod. Limiting the value limitation on

classified forest land.

D^ Other_taxatlon_legl3latlon

S. 194 Foley. To repeal property tax exemption

of public housing, and to have such taxes assumed
by the state and federal government.

S. 1373 Aylmer, O'Neill, Wilbur. Further defin-

ing assessment of land under conservation re-
striction.

H. 509 Rourke. Exempting from property tax

property no longer used for parking under EPA
order.

H. 999 Lappin. Providing for income tax deduc-

tion to corporations located in high unemploy-
ment areas.

H. 1225 Buglione. Providing for taxation of

certain solid waste disposal facilities and
resource recovery facilities.

92

H. S'^OS Scaccia. For partial reimbursement of

cities and tovms for revenue lost due to pro-
perty tax exemptions.

H. 4l60 Lappln. Revaluation of property owned

or leased by urban development corporations.

H. 4310 Buell, Rockwell. Re taxation of solid

waste treatment facilities.

93

APPENDIX B
BILLS BY NUMBER*

Senat e _Bi 1 1 _Ho . §.2.O0.^2.^1s).2 ^"5.^?l^viat ed _Tlt_le ^ C omml 1 1 e e

60 Olver. Re Franklin County Regional Housing

Authority. Counties.

l40 Foley. Re definition of planning districts.

Local Affairs.

1^1 Kelly. Authority of district planning comm'ns

to undertake technical planning assistance.
Local Affairs.

144 Foley. Authorizing and funding the central Mass

regional planning comm'n to provide solid waste
facilities for Worcester and 39 adjacent towns.
Nat. Res. & Ag.

1008 Parker. Revising enabling legislation of SE
regional planning and economic development
district. Local Affairs.

1011 Schlosstein. Changes in financial section of
the regional planning law. Local Affairs.

1018 Atkins, McKlnnon. Protection of coastal
wetlands. Nat. Res. & Ag. Same as 1043.

1025 Backman, Cusack, McGrath, Businger, Segal,

Harrington. To create Charles R. conservancy
district. Nat. Res. & Ag.

1029 Bulger. Making irrevocable certain licenses
relating to tidelands in South Bay, Boston.
Nat. Res. & Ag.

1034 DiCarlo. Establishing Commonwealth regional
solid v/aste comm'n. Nat. Res. & Ag.

1035 DiCarlo. Establishing regional solid waste
disposal districts. Nat. Res. & Ag.

1039 Hall. Wildlife sanctuary at Shirley Industrial
School. Nat. Res. & Ag.

«

Excepting bills relating to taxation, which v;ill be found in
Appendix A, part 7.

94

Se nate _B 1 1 1 _No . Sponsor(s), Abbreviated Tltle^ ^°™i 1 1 e e

1043 Locke. Protection of coastal wetlands. Nat.
Res. & Ag. Same as 1018.

1045 LoPrestl. Making irrevocable certain licenses
relating to tidelands in East Boston. Nat.
Res. & Ag.

1051 MacKenzie, Howe. Enforcement of laws regulat-
ing wetlands. Nat. Res. & Ag.

1053 McCarthy. Protection of wetlands. Nat. Res.
& Ag.

1071 Saltonstall, Bulger. Aylmer. Re the use, pro-
tection, and development of coastal zone re-
sources. Nat. Res. & Ag.

1311 Atkins. To provide for disposal of Common-
wealth's surplus real property. State Admini-
stration.

1443 Saltonstall. Constitutional am.endment re taxa-
tion of wild or forest lands, open spaces, etc.
Taxation. Same as K. 3961.

1546 Aylmer. Requiring on-site inspection before
hearings by zoning boards of appeal. Urban
Affairs.

1547 Aylmer. Eliminating notice to abutters for
certain zoning hearings. Urban Affairs.

1550 ^ Aylmer. Authorizing moratoria by local authori-
■ ties on subdivision approval. Urban Affairs.

1561 Burke, Sprague. Regulating approval of defini-
tive subdivision plans. Urban Affairs.

1571 Hall. Allowing use of land for purpose for
which zoned. Urban Affairs.

1589 LoPresti. Authorizing renewal agencies re

architectural, historical preservation. Urban
Affairs.

l604 McKinnon, Tully, Olver. Creating Mass. Commun-
ity Development Finance Corp. Urban Affairs.

1616 Timilty. Re comprehensive development permits.
Urban Affairs.

95

Hous_e _Bi 1 1 _Nq . Spo.0.?.°?li§.l2-_^^^?l?.Y^i §L'^§.'l_1.i '^le ^ Commit tee

460 Dwlnnell. Directing inventories of public

rights of way to short. Nat. Res. & Ag. Same
as H. 8l4.

644 Wetmore . Regulating developments of regional

impact. Nat. Res. & Ag.

647 Wetmore. Directing secretary of environmental

affairs to prepare a comprehensive land use plan
for the Commonwealth. Nat. Res. & Ag.

722 Chmura. Re subdivision control law. Urban

Affairs.

808 Dwinell. Establishing state land use program.

Nat. Res. & Ag. Same as H. 2553-

814 Walker. Directing inventories of public rights
of way to shore. Nat. Res. & Ag. Same as

H. 460.

815 Walker. To establish division of coastal zone
management. Nat. Res. & Ag. Same as H. 959.

959 Lane, Silva. Establishing division of coastal

zone management. Nat. Res. & Ag. Same as H. 815

1021 Scaccia. Withholding school assistance from
certain cities and towns (re housing). Urban
Affairs.

1022 Scaccia. Withholding aid from cities and towns
that exclude low or moderate income housing.
Urban Affairs.

1029 Wilber. Defining zoning procedures. Urban
Affairs.

1622 Brett, Timilty. Neponset R. Recreation; acquir-
ing land for. Urban Affairs.

1734 Landry, Bresnick. Comprehensive land use plan-
ning. Nat. Res. & Ag.

1836 Sprague. Re zoning of lands subject to flood.
Urban Affairs.

1967 Flaherty. Amending the environmental impact
law. Nat. Res. & Ag.

96

House Bill No . §.POQ.s or (_s )_j__Abbre viat ed _Ti 1 1 e Commi 1 1 ee

2553 Walker. Establishing state land use program.
Nat. Res. & Ag. Same as H. 808.

2797 King, Goode. Establishing development corpora-
tion for Boston's SW corridor. Urban Affairs.

2799 King, Fortes. Re citizen participation. Urban
Affairs.

2831 Fantasia. Permitting MHFA to guarantee agri-
cultural loans. Urban Affairs.

3046 Frank. To establish a Metropolitan Council.
Urban Affairs.

30^7 Frank. Clarifying status of historical and
architectural districts. Urban Affairs.

3072 Frank. Establishing regional government,

abolishing county government, redefining local
government functions. Counties.

3795 Bartley, Lapointe, Bulger, Scalli, Bernashe,

Demers, Goode, Kendall, Lappin, Newman, Quigley,
Coffey. Establishing base conversion land bank.
Commerce & Labor.

3905 Ames. Clarifying the conservation restriction
law. Nat. Res. & Ag.

3907 ' Hatch, Ames, Gannett, Gray, Healy , Robinson,
Gillette, Sprague , Saltonstall, To protect
water and land in areas of the Commonwealth.
Nat. Res. & Ag.

3909 McGee, Quinn. Requiring review of public lands
held for natural resource purposes. Nat. Res.
& Ag.

3951 McGee, Walker, Young. Constitutional amendment
re taxation of wild or forest lands, open
spaces, etc. Taxation. Same as S. 1443.

4908 Norton. Requiring certain builders to obtain
abutters' approval for zoning changes. Urban
Affairs.

5378 Urban Affairs Comm. Revision of subdivision
control law. Urban Affairs.

5457 Zeiser, Brett, Gray, Harrington. To revise the
zoning enabling act. (Formerly H. 525). Urban
Affairs.

C. ALI MODEL LA.\D DEVELOPMENT CODE; AN OVERVIEW

Prepared by
E.M. Wade

98

The Jimerican Lav/ Institute (;,LI) v;as founded by the forer.ost rnera-
bers of the legal profession in 1923. Its purpose is to "prcHioto
the cl£\rif ication and simplification of the law and its better adap-
tation to social needs, to secure the better administration of jus-
tice and to encourage... scientific legal v/ork." One \of the things
that the 7-LI has to do is draft nodel legislation tliat v/ould r.cet
the goals of the Institute v/hen enacted by state legislatures.-"- T'ne

authority of the 7.LI is based on the individual and aggregate pres-

o/
tige ai.nd expertise of its merLbers.—

The suggestion that a Model Code on Land-Uso bo prepared v.'as

first broached in 1960; three years later, v;ith a grant fron the

3/

Ford Foundation, v.'ork v;as begun.— ;.lison Dunhan of tlic University

of Chicago Law School v.'as named as Pceporter , arid a Cor.riittec of /ad-
visors v;as selected. After a series of provisional diafts v.'oro pre-
pared and comments solicited fron and given by planners, public ofi-
ficials and lav.-yors. Tentative Draft No. 1 v;as i-eceived by t};o In-
stitute menbership in 1968;. Further tentative drafts \;e.re prepared
and in 7-.pril of 1974 the Proposed Official Draft ITo.l was presented
That D.raft contained six Articles:

I. General Provisions

II. Pov/er to Regulate Dovolop::>cnt

III. Local Land Dcvelopiricnt Planning

IV. Discontinuance of E::isting Land Uses

Ve Acquisiation c-Xtd Disposition of Land

VII. State Land Developrient Regulation

/irticle VI, Land Banl'.ing is in Tentative draft fori?., v;hil-e the rer.ain-
ing Articles VIII-XII, covering state lar.d planning, cnf orcei-^.cnt , ju-
dicial review and fi.narjcir-g are awiting co!:-.;?.entary .

99
This paper r.tt.empts to present, in abbreviated form, the gen-
eral institutional orrangciaents and administrative rnechanicns typ-
ically referred to as the 7\LI Kodel Land DcvelciDracnt Code.

The drafters of the 7-iLI Model Code recogni^'.ed that an all en-
corapassing Code is beyond the endeavors of tlie project.. The nass
of federal legislation concerning the environnental regulation cf
land use alone narrov.'s the influence of state lav/ in this area.
Therefore the drafters have limited the scope of the I'.odel Code to
the coordination of physical development. Social, and economic fac-
tors are considered in the planning process and the determinations
of tJie ir.plenenting bodies, but only insofar as they relate to
physiceil planning and dovelopracnt .

The main objective of the Code is coordination on a local level,
and betv.'cen state and local govex-nncnts. Thus, the reguircr.ent of a
developnent ordinance sccjCS to combine zoning lav.'s and subdivision
controls. The provision of joint hearings for developers rer^aired
to obtain multiple perrits, and the subjection of all governmental
agency devolopnient to the provisions of the local development ordi-
nance seek to coordinate multiple agency action. The local govern-
ment is further encouraged by the Code to take an active part in
land development, rather than merely exercising restrictive control;
The individual rights of property ov.'ners to maintain uses existing
prior to controls is considered by the Code v/hich reflects the di-
rection of recent court decisions in its treatment of defined local
policies and the disconti.nuance of existing uses. The drafters,
hov7Gvor , do rely on trafitional concepts of nuisaxiice lav; to control
sorae types of development, existing and proposed.

100

The redefinition of governmental roles in land use regulation

and development is the basic vehicle upon v;hich the drafters rely.
In re-aligning the instAtutional arrangeiiients and redesigning the .
concepts of enforccnent and iinplenentation, the Code seehs to rep-
resent the best interest of the toatal population of the adopting
state and tlio load conmunity.

Inst itut ionn 1 .".rr an';; cincn b s

The I^and Developnent Agency (LD7.) is an instrument of local
government -exercising the pov;er to deny or grant doveloprrient per-
mits... The LD7i can be any local official or agency that the local
governncnt designates. The local governmental unit may adopt the
functions of the LDA for its own, or may dej.egate to the designated
LD7i any additional pov.'ers or functions. Under the latter action,
the LDy. could achieve the status of an independent commission. It
is the intent of the drcafters that the LDA remain distinct from the
local legislative body, thereby avoiding the influence of political
pressures \;hen making its decisions.

The Code seeks to create impartiality in tlie LD7i by cstal)lishing
detailed procedures by which the LDA must adruinistcr its diities. In
the past, model codes have sought to achieve this end by designatiiig.
the internal structure of the administrative body, e.g. the SZE)\ and
the SPE?u To facilitate organization and function in the LDA ho:;ever,
the Code leaves the internal structure of the LDA to the /.gency itself

The State Land Planning regency (SLP7i) is the office of land jolan-
ning in the office of the Governor. This Agency woxild be rectuired
to establish standards for local devslopincnt ordinances; to limit
tlio cpplication of local development ordiriances in specific are-vis;

In Massachusetts , the Power Facilities Siting Council exercises
those duties that v;ould be conferred upon an LDA with regard to
development of regioral ir.ipact aa iRposed by n pov/er production
facility. The Departraent of ITntural Resources ard local conser-
vation coramissions are authorized to e::ercir>o the pov;crs of pro-
tection over \;etlands, areas that might, in v;hole or in part, be
designated areas of critical state concern. Thus, tho Model Cede
would necessitate either an abandonnent of a state siting racchan-
isra for pov.'er plants, or a transferral of the pov;er of the Dl-TR in
one area to the SLP?,. One possible i-odif ication of the Model Code
would be the deletion of .SLPTi-LD/i povjcrs concerning po'..'er plants
or wetlands.

The Model Code provides for institutional modifications of its
own tripartite thenes by allowing tlie SLPA to c::enpt specific
areas or regions fron particular lirr.itations or control, vjhile
enabling otlicr cohesive dcvlopiacnts to be designated as integral
regional developments,

E n f o r c on e n t P r o c c d u r o s

The Model Code design to enforce state policies rcccgniEos tv.'o
entities that require regulation: activities and sensitive areas.
The SLPA designates those activities subject to regulation by the
tern Activities -of Regional Impact. Activities v;hich, by the nature
or r.agnitude of the develcpr;ient or its effects, present issues of
state or regional significance nay be :-.o designated. In exorcis-
ing its discretion in iliis area, the SLPA must consider si:c fators:

1, environrAontal pollution

2, incree;se iri traffic

3, nuriber of pci'sons to be served

102

4, sisG of the site . • .

5, gencretioji of sii.bsidiairy dovelopment

6, character of th.e area

The rules applied by the SI A" A, including those by which an acti-
vity is designated one of regional iiTipact, iriL^.y vary from ones area
of the state to another. Thus, development may be limited in oi.o
area, encouraged in another.

Developments that do not qvalify as those of regional impact,
but v.'hich dc create a regional benefit may be afforded tlie statu.c
of the classification upon the elcctioii of the developer. Such
developments incl^ide lev.' and moderate income housing, public u.til-
itics, charitable institutions, ard projects of governmental agen-
cies otlier than those of the local government. Under this classi-
fication developm.ents must still be licensed by the I.DA, but under
criteria that reflect regional or state interests rat'ir than local
ones. i.ppeals from decisions of the LDA may be made to the SL<"J3.
The periiiit for any development of regional impact luust be issued
as a special development permit, subject to the provisions of Ar-
ticle II governing tliat classification. Further standards are ap-
plicable to developments of regional impact under consideration bv
and hDh to insure supportive development, and to assist local
governments in meeting the increased demands on, and needs for,
municipal services gencx-ated by the development.

J\ second regulatory desigr.ation v;ithin the auth^ority of the SLPA
is that of Areas of Critical State Concern. The procedures governing
that action are designed to achieve full disclosure of tlxe possi];le
effcts of any development. Activites that v;ill be allov.'cd in any
area so designated during the intoriia period of notice and adoption
of the regulations, must be approved by the State. This designation is limited to

103
areas reserved for nev? community dovclopraont in a Stj^te DcvelopnenL •

Plan; those areas v;ithout a deYolopirisnt ordinance throe years after
adoption of the iloclel Code; areaf-' of regional or state \7icie environ-
mental importance; and those areas that v.'ould be significantly af-
fected by a facility of major public investment. The latter con-
cept is termed a facility of major publJ.c ir.portance. E::empted
fi-om this classification are local governmental facilities, certain
highv.'ays and anrports, and local educational facilities. The; LD'v
may submit its own regulations for an Area of Critical State Concern
to the SLPA for consideration and adoption. If the LDA elects not
to submit regulations, the SLPA may impose its ov;n regulations on
the LDA 'which is then required to enforce them.

/\d m i n i s t r c ^ t i v e I. c t i o n s

All administrative actions required in tlie j:)roces.'-.ing of ^-ppDica-
tions for developmental pormits are originally functior.s of the LDA.
The Code does not require a local governm.ent to adopt a development
ordinance, but provides for state imposition of such an ordinance
by the SLPA in the absence of local government action. The devel-
opment ordinance itself may classify activities into foxir catrgorieG:
1) general development, 2) sT^ecial development, 3) development ex-
empt from permit requir orients, but governed by the ordinance, and
4) development exempt from regulation.

The Code abandons t}ie cor.prehensive plan concept of the S1'T;,A and
allows development ordinances to be applicable to less than all of
a local govorr;ment ' s jurisdiction. Also abandoned is the SZC/i ro-
quirer.iont that regulation be uniform in each district. The drafters
leave cjuestions of equal protection and discriminatory ar^nlicario?-.

104
of regulations to the protection afforded by general constitution-
al provisions.

In granting -^developnent permitc the LDA may, in Its discretion,
impose on general d eve 1 opine nt, restrictions relative to compliance
with plans submitted to the I^BA, a maxinun tine within \;hich tlie
project must be completed, and measures necessarry to araoliorate
adverse effects on neigliboring land. Also as an exercise of its
discretion, the Lr7v may impose stricter standards on special devel-
opments including siting stipulations, future maintenance require-
ments, the sequence the development v;ill fcllov;, and the duration
of its use. If author-ized by the development ordin:;,nce, the LDA
may charge reasonable fees for filing api^lications, and may reauiire
fees or land dedications to provide adequate means for the local
government to meet increased demcinds on its services.

The LDA may ?;llov.' exemptions to the royulatious of the develop-
ment ordinance under specific procedures. Other instances appro-
priate for considertaion of special development permits m^ly be al-
lowed by the development ordinance. h special development perrait
may be denied only if the proposal does not qualify as a special
development under tlie grants of authority to the LDA:> 7i.ll modi-
fications in applicable regulations govorn^ing a permitted or exis-
ting use, sub-division of land, economy of use, revision of dis-
trict bovuidary lines, community service facilities, PUD's, or
areas under speci.?! plans, mny be granted by procedures and undcr
criteria governing special development permits.

The LDA in considerincj an application for a development of re-
gional impact tJiat is c-.uthorized by the development ordinance, nust
balance the net benefits and net detriments. This balance may not

105
be limited to economic con^iclorations only, but must include intab-

giblec not reducible to dollar vdIucs. Similarly, LDA considercit.io;:
of effects nay encoiripass are£;s not under the Jurisdiction of the lo-
cal government . The SLP7-i may submit a report expressing its viov.'s
on a matter befors the LDA thr:t requires a balancing of dctriner.ts
and benefits. If the LD7i requests the viev;s of the SLPJi., then that
Agency is required to sul'imit a report. The SLPA may by rule exempt
any region, or include any single region, under the regulations of
the state if it determines that the impact of development in the
region v.'ould, or v.'ould not, have significant effects in that or in
adjacent regions.

The Code see'cs to avoid conflict and confrontation bet^.;een st;ite
development and loca] interests by subjecting all govcrnmau'cal devel-
opment to local regulation. 7m administrative appeal procedure is
available to determine if local regulations arc too restrictive of
state activity. Thus, any decision effecting local development by
a governmental agency (other than a local government) may be appealed
to the SLAB and the decision of the Board v;ill be bindj.ng on the
local government and the LDA. To avod.d separate actions locing m.ain-
tained before the SL7\B and in the courts, the same requiremients for
standing to appeal apply to eith-er forum, P. court may stay its o\;n
proceedings if t];e same question is }:iefore an LDIi for declaratory
judgement, or before the SLAB, and disposition of the question there
would render court action unnecessary.

Substantive Rights and Dutie^

The balance of rights and duties of individuals and governm.c-ntal
agencies under tlio Model Code ii-s been shjftad. ^:o discretionarv

106
issuance of a development permit v.'ithout the rcquir-ite .pub.lic hcr.r-

ing will be set aside on the basis of that p.rocodural failure unless
a request for a h.earing on the permit is submitted to the LDA v;ithin
four v;eeks of its issuance. The required publication of all LD2\
actions is considered adequate notice to interested parties and to
the general public. The full disclosure of into3.-nal IDA organisa-
tion and functioiis, and public£;tion of actions is considered a sat-
isfiictory safeguard of jxiblic interests. The formalized procedures
of all LDA actions and tlie required record of all proceedings, p-.rn--
date that parties to the hearings be limited. The Code specifics
who the parties admitted as of right to the hearings should be, and
provides for additional parties to be admitted by the rule-irialcing
povjc^rs of the SLPA or at the discretion of the hearing officer. To
ensure irapartiality , the Code reauircs tliat the I'ioarin.g officer co::!-
municate v;ith no party to the proceeding cxcci^t on t'ne record, cmd
that no reliance be placed on any matter that does not c.-.ppear in tJ-ie
record.

The LDA may specify by declaratory order \/hat forms of d.i^velovj-
inent it will allow on a particular site or parcel of land. This ■•:.
action may be taken at the rccruest of the land owner of the parti-- i
cular site or parcel, or on the motion of the LDA itself. Such a -.^
declaratory order is in effect for one year. ' '

The developer to whom a permit is issued acquires no vested |
rights in the development ordinance as it stood at. t!ie tine of ao-
plication or issuance. The LDA or a court may grant a dispensation |
to a holder of a permit if the interests of justice require it.
This provision is considered hy the drafters a sufficient safeguard
against abusive delay by an LDA, and prof err able to a requireracnt
of LDA action within a spccrj.ficd Lime of receiii^t of an ap-:)licatiei-

J

107
to designate and specify the boundaries of geographic areas of

critica3. state concern, and to establish guidelines for" dcvelopr.^.ent
in those areas. In the absence of regulation of development by the
local govorniaent, the SLVL coii.ld act in its stead. The SLP?, is re-
quired to define those activities that have an impact of state ox-
regional significance. /acquisition of land for large scale develop-
ments of a public purpose is also within the powers of the SLPA.
The drafters of the Code have i-ojectod the alternative establishnoit
of a state regulatory agency issuing permits duplicative of those
requix-ed at a local level. A parallel state procedure v.'ould inten-
sify friction between local and state governments, and add to the
burdens of cost and tine imposed on tlic developer.

The State Land 7.d judicatory Board (SLAB) would receive appeals
from orders or rule,<> of any LD;:. The jurisdiction of the Board is
not exclusive: access to the courts for declaratory relief would
still be available. The procedure for apply ir>g to the Board rorruirc£
timely action. The Code is silent on the finality of t^e Boai'd's
decisj.ons, but it may be resonably imputed that recourse to a court
of propel- jurisdiction is not precluded v.'hen a decision of the Eo^ord
is challenged.

The SL.\B could be established v.'ithin the same dcpartmenl: as the
SLP?», but the independence of tlie Board in its determinations is
clearly reserved by the Code provisions. In this regard, the .Code
is specific and its procedures established for rendering the Board's
decisions stresses its autonomy. IJhile seeking to prevent discourse
between the Board and the original investigato;.:y body, the Cods re-
q"uires that the Board rely on the record of the proceedings belo;;,
reo-uired in all matters before the LDA or the SLPa,

108
Similarly, once a developer has received a permit, no rights

vest unless timely conmenccnent of the project and substnivcive
expenditures h^ive been made in reliance on the permit.

The SLPA is required to maintain and publish in a permanent
register, a list of permits required by govornmsntal agencies
prior to development. The developer v;ho must accraire multiple
permits may reqriest a joint hearing on all applications from the
SLPA. The standards for issuance of the itiernits are not changed
but the procedures are coordinated to e::pedito administration
thereof. The development ordinance of a local government may re-
qi.iire the discontijuiance of a particular land use by districts cr
throughout the jurisdiction. These orders must be made in con-
junction v.'ith a. state or local land development plan, or cxercisa
of ShVh regulations over activities or critical arc;as. An LD7i
may exempt particular sites from such discon.tinuance orders, also.

The process by v.'hich the Model Code is proparc;d invites debate
and comment, but the comx^romise proposals tliat a3:e then developed
are not received v.'ithout criticism. A most imr.-'ortant caveat is
given by the Reporters in presenting Tentative Draft ITo. 2. They
pointed out tliat the draft v.'CiS intended as "... a laodol code aiid
not a uniform enactutent . , . " The Code states that it is concerned
only v;ith the physical develorjment of land use^ and tliat its scope
necessitates that economic and social considerations be omitted.
But the very assumptions made and institutional arrangoLients chosen
belie this narrov; self --restraint „— Tiie basic concept m.otivatiag
the Code seems to be that local governments regulating developments

effect issues and interests larger than those protected by tjie

109
locality, suggesting thot ultincitely. most local controlc^ .'should bs

eliniir>atcdc —

The very flexibility that the Code seeks tc achieve through its
attitude tov;ard niuxiicipal planning could militate again^rt that in-
formed and deliberate process envisioned by tlie Code as the bed-
rock of responsible, responsive government. The fine balance that
tlie M.I tried to achieve through its oi.'n process of comrnont ai:d
revisioji could be completely unhinged by the i^iecemeal adoption
and local modification of the basic elements of the suggested Code,
Great confusion inight result frora the supcrinposition of the IloJoJ.
Code upon e::isting state lav/s.

The Alil Iicdel Code should not be viov.'od as a panacea for th;^
Hand use concer;is of the Con;nonv:ealth. That v;as not the intent
of the drafters. As the product of many years of compromise it
is hardly the distillation of the best thoughts on land use cc^n-
trol, but it does provide the necessary source material for im-
proving and re-thiiV'Cing prevailing legisli\tion. If, us the Code
assumes, local land use decisions are best made on the scene, tiien
the citizens of the Commonwealth should not abrogate thoir respon-
sibility to the distant merribers of the Am.crican I,av; Institute.

110
FOOTITOTES

1. Good3:ich, ThG_ Story of the l\^.rtrxc.nn La\/ T-rKStil'Ute , I7J-.SH. U.
L.Q. 283 (1951).

2. Hart and Sacks, TIiE LEG?J. PROCESS, 757-771 (1958).

3. Jiiuerican Law Institute, Model Land Development Code, Tenta-
tive Draft l>o. 1, For^.'ard.

4. Dunham, ALT Model Land Development Code, LAND USE CONTROL
ANNUAL (1972).

5. "Presuraably , lawyers sj-^ould confine theiaselves to the lav?...

the hhl has gone much further: the drafts a reorcjanization
of certain land use Do^vers aniong different levels of govern-
ment, a 3-basically political cfuestion, and maker, a signifj.-
cant determination concernir.g allocation of the land.,, thia
involves economic and social i.'jsues,"

B.H. Seigan, hld'.D USE.'iJITHOUT ZONING, 167-lGS (1972).

6. Ibid.

D. THE RE -USE AND REVITALIZATION OF CENTRAL CITY LAND

112

The Re-Use and Revitall nation of the Central City-^
Introduction

Any attempt to formulate a state land use policy must take into
account the linkage bet^jeen the problems and potentials of the central
cities, suburbs, and rural areas. As both Gerald McNeil and Representa-
tive David Lane have pointed out during the October 21st meeting of the
Land Use Subcommittee:

Economic pressure on so-called vacant land being used
for farms is really caused by the high price of land
in the cities and suburbs. V,'e cannot separate the needs
or abilities of the city from the tovn or rural area.
V.'e need a more economical way to re-use outmoded areas
of the central city in order to lessen development pres-
sures on the rural areas. (Gerald McNeil)

If we do not make it possible for people to remain in
the city, we are going to have a cont3.nuing demand to
use outlying open space for development. We must make
it possible and desirable for people to stay in the
cities. (David Lane)

Even as recently as November 26, 1974, Governor-elect Michael Dukakis
announced that his administration would concentrate its job developnient
efforts "'in the older urban cities rather than in the suburban industrial
areas." Dukakis said that seven out of every ten uneniployed persons in
the state live in the cities and if they could be put to v;ork, the unem-
ployment rate would go down to three percent. Ke cited the efforts by
Boston in developing an industrial park in Dorchester as an exam.ple of

*This paper is based upon a five-volui?.e report entitled, Central
City Modernization: I'he New-Tovm-Into'.Jn Approach . Harvey S. Perloff,
et. al , (School of Architecture and Planning, U.C.L.A.), December, 1973.
Citations throughout the paper are indicated by a volume and page nui;:ber,
i.e., (1-7).

113

bringing jobs back to the city.

The concerns of Dukakis, Lane, and McNeil all focus on the goal
of making the central city a more viable place to live and work. Federal
housing and urban development programs over the past generation have pur-
sued this goal by attempting to re-use and revitalize various parts of
the central city. Many lessons have been learned from these programs.
Any attempt to formulate new policies for central city revitalization
should take these lessons into account. This paper vjill reviev; current
research and opinion on the issue of central city re-use and revitaliza-
tion. We will begin by looking at the characteristics of large cities
and urban areas in Massachusetts. We will then examine the general les-
sons learned from the federal experience with the Urban Renewal and Model
Cities programs. From these experiences we will attempt to identify the
key objectives and most pressing revitalization issues that ought to be
taken into account in formulating a state land use policy or in consider-
ing new land use planning mechanisms. We will then examine the New-Tovm-
Intown (NTIT) program and techniques for financing central city redevelop-
ii«nt efforts. Finally, we will address the question, "I-Jhat can the state
do to help residents and officials of the central city in solving their
economic, social, and environmental problems?"

114

Characteristics of Massachusetts Cities

Cities all across the nation are plagued with the problems of blight,
congestion, inadequate funds, an increasing concentration of low-incorae,
racial and minority groups, declining middle and upper income populations,
loss of employment opportunities in less skilled manufacturing jobs, in-
adequate housing, crime, etc. To state that these problems are of nation-
al rather than simply local significance is only to reiterate a well ac-
cepted fact. For example, in 1970, 54.4 percent of the population of
the U.S. lived in SMSAs , and 30.7 percent of the population lived in ci-
ties with populations greater than 50,000. In Massachusetts the problems
of the cities are more of a state-wide concern than in other less urban
states. In 1970, 85 percent of the people living in Massachusetts lived
in SMSAs (20.6 percent higher than the national average), and 41.9 per-
cent of the state's population lived in cities over 50,000 (11.2 percent
higher than the national average) .

Tables I-V summarize selected characteristics of Massachusetts SMSAs
and cities over 50,000.

Table I shows that the population of the majority of cities over
50,000 and almost all central cities has declined since 1960. Cities
with populations over 50,000 constituted 47.2 percent of the Massachusetts
population in 1960 and 41.9 percent in 19 70, a loss of 5.3 percent. Hcvj-
ever, these cities still contain almost half of the state's population.

Table II shows that SMSAs included 86.6 of the Massachusetts popula-
tion in 1960 and 85.0 percent of the state's population in 1970. In

115

addition, although the number of people living in each SMSA increased
betv/een 1960 and 1970 (Column 3) , the percentage of people in each SMSA
living in the central city decreased in all SMSAs across the state (Col-
umn 9) . The percentage of people living in the central city of each
SMSA varies from a low in the Boston SMSA of 22.6 percent to a high in
Fitchburg-Leominster of 78.5 percent, with the larger SMSAs having a
smaller percentage of the total population living in the central cities
(Column 7) .

Table III shows that the median income in cities over 50,000 is al-
ways lower than the median income in the corresponding SMSA. In addi-
tion, the proportion of people with incomes under 6,000 is consistently
higher in cities over 50,000 than in their SMS/^ or the state as a whole.
The proportion of people with incomes over $15,000 is almost always lower
in the cities than in the corresponding SMSA or the state as a whole.

Tables IV and V deal only with the Boston SMSA but are illiistrative
of the problems throughout the rest of the state. Table IV indicates
that the percentage of Blacks in Boston is four times higher than the
percentage of Blacks in the SMSA and the state. Other minorities are.
also over-represented in the Central City of Boston when compared to the
percentages in the rest of the SMSA and the state.

Table V shows that Boston has 7.6 percent less manufacturing employees
than the SMSA and 9.9 percent m.ore Finance Insurance and Real Estate em-
ployees than the SMSA average. The Boston suburbs over 50,000 tend to
contain less Service, Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Industries than
the SMSA and seem to be either wholesaling or manufacturing centers .

TABLE I POPULATION OF CITIES AND TO^JNS OVER 50,000 (1960-1970)

116

Cities over

1960

1970

Change

between

Net In or

% of

State

50,000

Popula-

Popula-

1960-1970

Out-Migra-

Popul

ation

Central Cities

tion

tion

Number

%

tion

1960

1970

1. Boston

697,197

641,071

-56,126

-8.0

-101,862

13.5

11.3

2. Worcester

186,587

176,572

-10,015

-5.4

-20,080

3.6

3.1

3. Springfield

174,463

163,905

-10,588

-6.1

-24,181

3.4

2.9

4. New Bedford

102,477

101,777

-700

-0.7

-4,942

2.0

1.8

5. Fall River

99,942

96,898

-3,044

-3.0

-9,553

1.9

1.7

6 . Lov;ell

92,107

94,239

+2,132

+2.3

27,611

1.8

1.7

7. Brockton

72,813

89,040

+16,227

+22.3

6,841

1.4

1.6

8. Lawrence

70,933

66,915

-4,018

-5.7

-7,965

1.4

1.2

9 . Chicopee

61,553

66,676

+5,123

+8.3

-3,379

1.2

1.2

10. Pittsfield

57,879

57,020

-859

-1.5

-5,163

1.1

1.0

11. Holyoke

52,687

50,112

-2,577

-4.9

-5,330

1.0

.9

Non-Central

Cities

1. Cambridge

107,716

100,361

-7,355

-6.8

-14,651

2.1

1.8

2. Somerville

94,697

88,779

-5,918

-6.2

-16,104

1.8

1.6

3. Lynn

94,478

90,294

-4,184

-4.4

-

1.8

1.6

4. Quincy

87,409

87,966

+557

+0.6

-8,506

1.7

1.7

5. Medford

64,971

64,397

-5 74

-0.9

-5,155

1.3

1.1

6 . Maiden

57,676

56,127

-1,549

-2.7

-5,796

1.1

1.0

7. Waltham

55,413

61,582

+6,169

+ 11.1

-1,127

1.0

1.1

8. Brookline

54,044

58,886

+4,842

+9.0

-

1.0

1.0

9 . Arlington

49,953

53,524

+6,429

+7.1

-

1.0

.9

10 . Weymouth

48,177

54,610

6,433

+13.3

-

.9

1.0

11. Framingham

44,526

64,048

+19,522

+48.3

-

.9

1.1

Total 2,427,970 2,384,778 47.2 41.9

M
M

PJ

en
H

i-H
O

O
O

o

CJ)

o

o

o
u

o

CJ

o
u

o
c_>

o
u

o
u

o

a.

o
>« p^
o

CO

S en

CO <

o it-l

&< o
o
—'< ^

to

S to

CO <!

• rH
<X Ci3
O J-i

d

c a;

B-5 -H

CO CO

iJ o

W CT\
CO '-I

o

U O

o
r^

""i

o

CH vD
O -

■U CO

•H :s;

U CO

o

<

to
w

c
CO CJ u —<

>%o

C

•H CO

vO CO 3 O

S ^ vO

CO 3 O^

^5 CO — I

m-to

td
U

c
CO o u

CVJ

O

CJ^

o

CM

o

vo

cy>

a.
o
fM

CO

>^

CO

CI

I

en

o

LCI
I

O

CO

00

cs

CO

in

117

^5

00

6^

in

O

O

C3>

vo

0-)

fO

CNJ

CM

CM

i— 1

—1

in
oo

r--

vO

CO

<T>

CM

(T.

^D

0-)

00

00

VO

1—1
in

a\

v£>

CO

CO

CM

CM

CM

r-(

f—l

00

00

I

vD
I

CM

vO
I

vO
I

0^

t^

cr.

00

00

•

•

•

s

•

CO

in

vD

.—1

o

-^

in

cn

CO

■0-

en

vO

0^
VO

CM

CTv

in

o
1

in
1—1

CM

in

00

C3N

•

•

•

CM

m

cn

1—4

0^

1—1
CM

CO

CO

CO

m

vO

m

CJN

VO

o

vO

a^

vO

0^

CO

VO

o
1—1

CM

r-^

(^

in

CM

—I I

00

00

Csl

00

VO

r^

CO

O

00

•*^

vO

•vT

r^

CO

00

-d-

CM

CTi

o

vO

CM

CO

1—1

vO

—1

~d-

-J

r^

CM

CO

CM

CO

CM

o

<3-

—1

CO

VO

r~

r-^

1—1

r^

i-H

CM

1— (

CM

O

r^

vD

00

a\

in

cn

vO

CM

f— (

vO

<!•

m

c^

CJ^

en

00

CO

m

cn

CM

CN

1—1

f— ^

i-H

00

vO

A

^

«s

CM

<!■

m

m

CM

ON

CO

CO

•<!•

-3-

CO

00

VO

vO

CO

VO

<r

m

CO

-d-

CN

VO

in

m

cr.

CO

r^.

<3\

VO

CO

in

CM

<r

~3-

r^

1—1

r~-

CO

m

1—1

VO

o

a\

<r

ON

CM

a\

o

CO

CO

CO

VD

CTi

in

o^

vO

<r

CO

1—1

0-.

C3N

in

<r

VO

-d-

CO

•-i

— i

1— <

1—1

1— t

<3-

1—1

A

A

A

CM

<r

m

13

•T)

n

iH

>^

u

(1)

-o

<U

S-l

H

o

0)

60

ij

rH

•H

0)

C)

rH

M-<

>

CJ

5-1

to

dJ

iM

4-J

o

•H

T3

•H

o

3

r;

•H

r;

00

o:

c

u

rH

o

p^

■i-j

^

li-l

o

c

(D

0)

0.)

iH

M

«-;

rC

g

CO

ij

•H

CJ

s-l

>

-iJ

rH

O

O

o

i-t

en

M

M

.■3

rj

3

3

rH

O

t->

0)

i-i

o

Cu

o

cj

K

o

0)

CO

S-l

•H

hJ

•H

•

CO

pr;

H-1

•

•

2!:

•

•

•

•

P-i

•

'.V

4J

g

1—1

CM

CO

vr

in

vO

r^

CO

cri

O

iH

o

H

CO

(0

<

Pi

M

o
o
o

o

Pi

w
o

CO

w

M
H
M
U

J3

M

to
u

M
H

M

(^

to
H
u

o

M
M
M

W
PQ

a '

118

u

«u

>

° <

r-l

CO

00

c^

vO

CO

CN

o

r^

•-4

rH

I— 1

rH

r— 1

•-1

rH

'O CO

•

•

•

•

•

»

•

•

•

•

•

B M CO

o

CN

o

CO

CN

CO

CM

»— 1

CvJ

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

CO

r>J

CSJ

t-4

1—4

CM

CM

CN

CN

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

o

_^

o

o

N

>.

.-1

<t

C?N

NO

•— 1

VD

CO

-d-

r-l

m

O

00

<J-

00

»-i

in

m 4J

•

•

«

•

•

•

•

»

•

•

•

•

"-1 C iH

CO

O

VD

1— (

o

VD

O

m

CM

VO

CO

m

VO

o

r--

CTN

^S M C_)

.— 1

CN)

f— *

1—1

f— (

*— 4

CM

r-l

CN

t-4

r-l

CN

CM

Csl

CN

CN

<^

cr> <!

00

o

0^

r^

o

CO

VD

00

r^

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

00

CO

cn CO

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

«

•

«

•> a S

CJN

CO

*— (

MD

CO

<1-

in

r-l

CO

CtN

CTN

ON

ON

CTN

CTN

CTN

vr M c/2

r- 1

CNJ

CO

CO

CM

CnJ

CO

CO

CO

CO

CM

CN

CN

CM

CM

csl

CM

1

o

o

o >>

r^

00

o

t— I

CM

CO

r^

<r

CM

<3-

o

<!■

in

1-^

<^

CTN

4-1

•

■

•

«

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

■

•

•

O C -H

m

C3N

o

<f

in

ON

CM

CM

CO

O

O

CM

OJ

o

VO

<3-

r-< M U

CN

C-J

CO

CM

CM

CM

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

OT

CO

CM

B-2

ON <;

CNj

ON

00

«— (

vO

l~-

NO

nD

rH

CN

CN

Cn!

CM

CM

CM

CM

CJN CO

•

■

•

•

*

•

•

«

•

•

•

«

•

•

•

•

o^ C 2

CO

vO

r^

1— (

CN

in

NO

r^

vD

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

»• S-l CO

CN4

Csl

CN

CO

CO

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CN

CM

CN

ON

1

1

o

o

o >>

ro

<]-

-d-

ON

00

O

in

CO

CO

VD

00

i-H

O

CO

'

O

t-~.

»■ i->

•

•

•

*

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

«

o a -H

CO

CO

00

f— 4

<t

o

CO

CN

vO

O

CO

in

VO

o

<r

CO

t^ M U

CM

csl

CM

CO

ro

CO

CN)

CO

CM

CO

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

r-l

CT> <i

00

-cr

00

CO

O

CTN

CM

CO

r^

-

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

00

ON CO

•

•

•

«

•

*

•

•

•

•

•

«

•

•

■

•

ON CI S

o

r-H

CN

r-.

r^

o

o

CN

r-l

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

•^ M CO

— (

»— (

t-(

f— 1

1—4

r-l

t— 1

»^

*~i

r-l

r-4

rH

t-H

r-4

^-i

r-H

t

o

o

O >N

<r

C3N

NO

ON

CO

CO

C3N

I— 1

\0

CJN

VO

-3-

CM

<J^

r^

o

iJ

•

«

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

CO C -H

r^

ro

in

CTn

CO

in

•— (

<}■

r-l

o-

<f

rH

O

rH

f^

CM

6^ M U

f— i

1— J

f— t

t-(

l-^

r-4

f— (

rH

r-4

•-I

rH

rH

rH

r-i

r-l

u

•_

V

<

^

'O

CO

.—1

C^

CO

in

CO

o

<■

00

CO

S £

2

•

•

•

•

•

*

•

r-l

r-t

<-t

r-l

•—1

G

t— 1

—4

CO

\o

lA

NO

o

ON

^£>

in

v£>

m

«

•

•

•

•

•

r

r-l

VO

VD

vD

vO

VD

VD

vD

to o

0) o

6 o

>,

m

in

r-l

in

vO

CO ■

vO

CO

CO

VO

VO

CO

ON

CO

00

ON

O "

4-1

•

•

•

■

•

•

•

•

«

•

•

r

*

•

u c~) c

•H

o

r-

<JN

CN

•— 1

CO

NO

in

VO

r^

CO

in

•o-

r^

<r

-3-

C <0- M

U

.— i

r-(

r-4

rH

M

^S

ON

CO

~J-

CM

ON

in

00

ON

<f

C3N

CJN

CJN

CTN

CTN

0^

ON

(U

<-

T— 1

f— I

ON

r-l

CO

CM

nD

ON

^

o-

<-

•<^

<r

vj-

<f

2 <d

<r

r^

CO

r~~

CTN

CTv

CJN

CO

r^

<t

<!•

<r

-3-

<r

<■

<J-

O CO

*«

#«

r»

*\

*^

#.

A

n

«

«

#v

*v

rv

rt

r>

n

o a a

r-(

o

o

CO

00

o

o

o

o

r-4

r-l

<-<

.—1

-H

r-l

<-<

d M CO

t— 1

f-H

r-l

t-4

r-l

rH

r-4

r-l

r-4

rH

■-I

rH

t-i

t-H

M

S

CO

00

CN

O

C7N

in

r^

CO

CO

■<J-

CJN

<r

in

<f

*~t

CO

n

CO

r-t

CO

CO

ON

r^

CO

r^

O

CO

CTN

<3-

o

CO

o-

tH >.

r-l

o

NO

C-J

CM

-a-

CO

r~-

^

in

r--

o

■-<

CN

VO

cn

na 4-1

#«

*»

e\

A

r\

•V

#v

•t

»»

n

€\

#\

•\

r\

QJ C -H

o>

o

ON

CO

CO

ON

o

ON

o

ON

ON

rH

r— 1

O

.-H

o

S M o

■— 1

13

r-l

u

M

r-(

r-4

<u

r-l

i-H

.-1

t-<

rH

J-l

d)

o

CD

•o

o

rH

CD

d

u

OJ

•H

IH

>

d

QJ

(1)

aj

CjO

<-{

d

o

x;

r*

(U

4-1

U-l

"0

•H

o

O

0)

•r-(

0)

rH

tJ

•H

T3

E

•H

4J

4J

Ta

>

a

CO

Wj

0)

!^

r-(

4-1

d

o.

14-1

>^

(U

•H

t

>.

U

c

cd

r-l

60

d

d

o

o

<u

c

CQ

iH

K^

OJ

o

CO

o

iH

Vj

a

O

C)

x^

^

d

o

•H

rH

i-i

o

•H

r-l

OJ

u

(-1

o

4-1

>N

4-J

rg

CU

c;

c

14-4

'O

u

O

•H

~^

^

0) o fl

CO

•SI

M

1-4

:s

rH

:3

o

s

•H

4-1

r-4

c

e

c

•H

T3

rH

rH

c

iH

>,

B*

OJ O J-(

a

o

o

p-

0)

nj

o

M

ca

x;

•H

O

o

cc

H

o

>N

D

rj

ra

cd

u

M

jp

u

•HOW

•H

m

"^

ut

2

U-,

►J

a

hJ

o

P44

s:

u

^

^

CO

rJ

CJ*

2

2

^

CQ

<

Ph

4-> - C

4J

1

-.H

■H O U

•r-1

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

"

c

4J

•

•

>

•

«

•

•

«

«

•

•

O ir, CJ

CJ

r- i

CN

CO

'C-

in

vO

r^

CO

C3N

<3

rH
rH

o
?5

■H
CJ

-H

CN

CO

o-

in

vO

r^

CO

ON

o

r-H

119

TABLE IV RACIAL CIlAPxACTER OF BOSTON COMP.AR.ED TO THE SMSA AND THE STATE

Race

%Boston

SMSA

%Central
Boston

Ci

ty

%State

White

94.7

81.9

96.3

Negro

4.4

16.3

3.1

Other

0.9

1.8

.6

Foreign

stock

33.7

37.0

33.3

Foreign

bom

9.4

13.3

8.7

120

TABLE V BOSTON SMSA EMPLOy>IENT CHARACTERISTICS

Indiistry

Percentage Employees
SMSA Boston Camb . Lynn Mai- Med- Quincy Somer. Fram.

den ford

1.

Agriculture
& Min.

.3

.2

.1

.3

5

.1

.1

.6

2.

Construction

Manufacturing

Transportation,
Communications ,
Utilities

5.6
23.9

7.2

5.3
16.3

10.5

2.5

55.0

12.4

10

19

10

6
9

4.8
39.5

9.0

6.7
22.4

7.7

4.5

3.

31.8

42.5

4.

9.6

8.3

*

5.2

5.

Wholesale,
Retail

Fire

28.8
8.7

30.3
18.6

20.6

28.8
5.0

43
1_

.8

31.4
5.2

45.1
L'A

31,0

6.

3.4

3.7

7.

Service

25.5

18.8

8.8

13.4

13

'A

10.0

16.2

12.5

121

From these facts it is obvious that the problems of the cities di-
rectly affect a substantial percent of Massachusetts residents. In ad-
dition, as was suggested earlier, the problems and conditions within urban
areas have a substantial impact on the activities and development pressures
in areas outside of the urban system. For these reasons, the re-use and
revitalization of the central cities is an issue of interest to all citi-
zens in the state of Massachusetts . Attempts to solve the problems of
the central cities will directly or indirectly affect every resident of
the state. Consequently, any attempts at redevelopment and revitaliza-
tion must take advantage of the lessons learned from past redevelopment
efforts.

122

The Urban Renewal and Model Cities Programs

The primary weaknesses of both the Urban Renewal and Model Cities
programs might be summarized as follows:

1. Lack of clarity and consistency in the objectives
pursued.

2. Inadequate scale and scope of activities.

3. Inadequate authority and resources to accomplish
difficult tasks. (1-2)

The lack of clarity and consistency of objectives in the Urban
Renewal program is demonstrated by three lists of program goals appearing
between 1965 and 1970. In 1965 David Page identified five major objec-
tives of the renewal program:

1. Increasing national income - economic efficiency.

2. Improving the competitive position of the central
city - intercommunity redistribution of income
(place prosperity) .

3. Mitigation of poverty - interpersonal redistribu-
tion of income (people prosperity)

4.. Elimination of blight and slums.

5. Beautification of the nation's cities.
(1-12)

In 1967, H.U.D. Secretary Robert Weaver identified three new goals

for the renev7al program:

1. Conservation and expansion of housing supply for low and
moderate income families.

2. Development of new job opportunities.

3. Emphasis on renewal areas with critical and urgent
needs. (1-20)

Finally, in the early 1970 's, new objectives for the renewal pro-
gram were established by the President's Task Force on Urban Renewal:
1. To enhance the efficiency of land use.

123

2. To Inprove the fiscal and econorr.ic condition of the
comnunity by increasing the tax base, or through
savings in nunicipal services, or a net increase

in personal or business incor.e .

3. To decrease the threat of balkanization and polari-
zation of American Society and to help in exorcising
the spectre of econo~ic and ethnic apartheid.

(1-68)

These three lists reflect an interesting change of program objec-
tives over time and highlight the basic inconsistency of Urban Renewal
Program objectives. It is unclear whether the program was intended to
help poorer and less advantaged groups in the central city or simply to
eliminate pockets of blight.

The program began with an orientation toward the physical elimina-
tion of blight and slums. It was essentially a "hardware" approach to
the problems of the central city. The program was never able to disassoci-
ate itself from the negative connotation acquired when its initial activi-
ties resulted in a net loss of low-and-moderate-incom.e housing, and the
conversion of central city land from residential to commercial uses. This
approach v;as criticized on the grounds that the poor were being forced to
pay a disproportionate share of revitalization costs. In short, you don't
help the poor by tearing dov.-n their housing, destroying their neighbor-
hoods, and forcing them, to pay r.oving costs and higher rents. On the other
hand, if one is interested in r.a:-dLr:izing the central city tax base, it may
be necessary to encourage the return of middle and upper income families
and commercial and industrial uses.

These conflicts suggest that in attempting to revitalize the central
city, it is necessary to be concerned not only with efficiency (the value

124

of the tax base created) but also with equity (the distribution of the
value created) and the general quality of life in the central city. It
was this dilemma, bolstered by widespread criticism and political pres-
sure that prompted Weaver's 1967 objectives. With these objectives, the
Urban Renewal Program seemed to be moving toward a recognition of the
necessity of a "software" or human services orientation to supplement its
traditional physical approach.

The objectives listed by the 1970 Presidential Task Force represent
a move away from the orientation toward human services. In fact, "the
administration downplayed the importance of low-and-moderate-income housing.
that had characterized the selection criteria of the mid-1950 's" (1-68)
Thus, in the mid and late 1960 's the renewal program seemed to be moving
toward a more flexible comprehensive approach to urban problems. This
approach included the recognition of the importance of human services and
the focus of the Neighborhood Development Program which sought to change
the emphasis of Urban Renewal from single projects to a more programmatic
linked-project orientation. These trends, however, were countered by the
political forces of the 1970's, and the renewal program has remained a
basically physical approach to the problems of the central city.

The most important lesson derived from the Urban Renewal Program
vras the need to balance physical renev7al efforts with human service pro-
grams. In addition, it became evident that the scale of most renev;al pro-
jects was inadequate to signif icaiitly influence general conditions in the
city as a whole. The project approach often produced a displacement effect
in V7hich problems were not solved but simply shifted from one area of the

125

city to another. These lessons suggested a need for a programmatic ap-
proach in which different projects were linked in order to avoid displace-
ment and to achieve the scale necessary to impact the problems of the
whole city.

Model Cities was an attempt to rectify the physical bias of the
renewal program and to solve the problems of lack of governmental coordi-
nation and insufficient funding. These goals were to be accomplished by
concentrating both human services and physical renewal efforts on the
worst areas of the city (the model neighborhood) . While the relationship
between urban renewal and the poor has remained unclear throughout the
program's life time, Model Cities was clearly designed to focus upon the
needs of the disadvantaged. The problem with this objective was that it
was never operationalized. It was never really clear whether Model Cities
was "to be merely a specialized welfare program; an improved way to de-
liver certain services; or an approach to changing those elements of the
overall structure of the central city which impacted the poor." (1-3)

Although Model Cities successfully demonstrated the need to bal-
ance physical renewal with human services programs and increased citizen
participation, it did not bring about any systematic structural changes
or modernization in the central city as a whole. Perhaps the greatest
weakness of the Model Cities Program was its attempt to concentrate re-
sources in the least viable parts of the city. As Perloff notes:

Although Model Cities was fairly successful
in combining substantial physical renewal
funds and social program funds into the model
neighborhood, this very success meant both
Model Cities and Urban Renev7al moved toward

126

concentration of resources in the least viable
parts of the city. Since even these fimds were
never really sufficient to provide a 'critical
mass' (to turn the model neighborhood around)
the impact of the expenditures was limited.
(1-24)

Consequently, the chief lesson derived from the Model Cities pro-
gram v/as that central city revitalization efforts are most successful
when they move with rather than against the existing economic trends in
a region. This lesson consisted of two key components. First, Model
Cities found that it was virtually impossible to 'turn around' the worst
areas of the central city without considerably more financing than was
available. Second, the concentration of funds in one neighborhood or
project area meant that the program would probably be inadequate in scope
and scale to have a meaningful impact on the central city as a whole.
These conclusions suggest that it is extremely important to define the
forces which are making the city economy grow.

The need to define existing economic trends suggests another pro-
blem which both the Model Cities and Urban Renewal programs have encoun-
tered: "There is a serious shortage of systematically collected and pub-
lished data on the inner city." (1-26) Alexander Ganz of the BRA has
noted that this information gap has concealed the fact that the role of
the central city as a producer of services, jobs, and incomes has been
expanding even as its population has declined. (1-27) Ganz maintains
that "while certain forces have caused wholesaling and manufacturing
activities to move toward the suburbs, gains in the office-based service
sector have more than made up for the losses." (1-2 7) Furthermore, at

127

the national level, service industries are growing at a higher rate than
manufacturing industries.

■ These trends indicate that one strategy of economic development
might be to increase the attractiveness of the city for the relatively
fast growing service industries which benefit from the city's existing
aglomeration economies. At the same time, rather than trying to bring
land intensive manufacturing and wholesale activities back from the sub-
urbs (which might entail large subsidies) , the city should focus upon
attracting and keeping the kinds of manufacturing industries which employ
low skill labor and do not require large plant sites.

The creation of both new service and manufacturing jobs in the
central city may also increase the effective demand for public services.
Thus, an economic development program of this nature (moving with exist-
ing economic trends) has the potential of creating new jobs in three
sectors of the central city economy.

, Even moving with the existing economic trends may produce two

counter-productive results which will generally require financial assist-
ance or structural changes from outside the central city (alternative
methods of financing revitalization efforts will be discussed later) .
First, since central cities can only tax property, they do not have the
power to tax much of the income which service oriented enterprises produce.
This leaves the city in the position of having to provide services for
both the growing office based industries and its disadvantaged, from a
shrinking tax base. Second, the mere creation of jobs does not neces-
sarily help the low income and disadvantaged population. As both Model

128

Cities and Urban Renewal indicated, manpower, job training, and other
people-oriented programs will be necessary to help low-income groups
take advantage of new job opportunities. These programs, in

turn, place additional financial burdens on the city.

Consequently, if central city redevelopment is to help the disad-
vantaged, while at the same time improve the city's tax base aiid fiscal
situation, a 'linked area' approach will be necessary which combines
'opportunity areas' vjith 'need areas'. (1-39-40) Ghetto dispersal must
be linked with ghetto development. The construction of low-and-mioderate
income housing must be linked with the development of new commercial and
industrial centers. The creation of jobs in viable econom.ic areas must
be linked to manpower training and service programs.

The necessity of utilizing a linked project approach has also been
demonstrated by several other lessons derived from the Model Cities and
Urban Renewal programs. First, given the fact that minority and low-in-
come groups are beginning to constitute a disproportionate share of the
central city's population,' great care must be taken to address the speci-
fic problems of these groups. Many of these problems result from class
and racial discrimination, which limit the upward mobility of racial minor-
ities and low-income groups. Both Model Cities and Urban Renewal sought
to create stable middle class neighborhoods in blighted areas of the city.
In one sense, this goal envisioned a static response to a problem which
results from a dynamic process. Rather than attempting to create stable
middle class neighborhoods, Model Cities and Urban Renewal learned that
emphasis should have been placed on attempting to accelerate the process
of upward mobility for newcomers and the disadvantaged. Thus, some of the

129

neighborhoods created by revitalization efforts should probably serve as
transition neighborhoods in whicli the nevjcomer and the disadvantaged are
provided the low-income housing that they can afford, and the opportunity
to develop the skills necessary to enhance their upward mobility. As
these groups consolidate their position, they might leave the transition
neighborhood and take advantage of opportunities in other linked areas.
A regional approach to this problem may become a necessity because dis-
criminatory and exclusionary policies by outlying suburbs may counter
central city attempts to create economic opportunity and ghetto dispersal.

Both Model Cities and Urban Renewal also learned that meaningful
citizen participation was essential to making revitalization programs
work. Residents of an area must be allowed to define their ovm needs
and to design the programs which will ameliorate their problems. Govern-
ment officials, planners and other technicians must work with residents
as co-equals, because only the residents have first hand knowledge of
their owrt problems and how revitalization attempts may help to solve these
problems .

Finally, both Urban Renewal and Model Cities identified two trade-
offs that often must be made in central city revitalization efforts . First ,
programs seeking to enhance the economic and social characteristics of an
area may entail negative environmental effects. (The Park Plaza Project
in Boston is a classic case of a development of this nature) The negative
environmental consequences must be carefully measured against economic and
social gains. The distribution of these economic and social benefits must
also be considered. Then, environmental impacts must be balanced against
economic and social impacts to arrive at a final determination of a pro-

130

ject's desirability.

The second trade-off that central city revitalization attempts
must consider is that between taxable property and more viable economic
and institutional development. As Thompson observes, "The real economic
base of the larger metropolitan region is the creativity of its universi-
ties, and research parks, the sophistication of its engineering firms,
the flexibility of its transportation system, and all other dim.ensions
of infrastructure that facilitate the quick, orderly transfer from old
dying bases to new growing ones." (1-38) Many of the institutions des-
cribed above are exempt from the city's property tax (universities, trans-
portation systems) or must be encouraged, with tax abatements, to locate
in the central city (new research or office complexes, etc.). This cre-
ates the problem of forcing the central city to forego needed property
taxes in order to attract the type of development which has the greatest
long-term viability. Careful calculation of payment in lieu of taxes, or
special tax arrangements may be necessary to provide viable development
while at the same time not draining the city's tax coffers.

In conclusion, past federal experiences have identified the desir-
ability of setting two key inter-related objectives for public investment
in the central city:

(1) To aid in the revitalization of the central city
in terras of m.odemizing and strengthening the
basic socio-economic and physical foundations.

(2) To improve the quality of life and range of oppor-
tunity available to the less advantaged in the
central city.

(IV-1)

Both Urban Renewal and Model Cities have worked toward these objec-

131

tives at various times during their existence. They failed, however,
to translate these objectives into operational program elements. At the
time of their inception, both Model Cities and Urban Renewal were viewed
as the answer to the problems of the central city. These conceptions,
hov/ever, were based on an inadequate understanding of how urban systems
operate. From these programs we have changed our view of the problems,
and added to our imderstanding. This understanding is still not com-
plete, and any new programs will have to contend with a high degree of
uncertainty. We have learned that any revltalizatlon program must con-
centrate on physical, economic, and social development simultaneously.
Any attempt to address these problems separately will lead to counter-
productive results. In addition, past federal experiences have demon-
strated that the powers and resources of local government need to be en-
hanced to cope with the complex inter-relationships of central city prob-
lems. To date, local governments have not assumed the responsibilities
or developed adequate mechanisms to carry out meaningful revltalizatlon
programs. The use of public and private developm.ent corporations to
create large scale New-To;jns-Intown may be one answer to this and other
problems of central city revltalizatlon.

132

The New-Towi-Intox'm Program

Federal financial assistance to encourage the construction of
New-Towns-Intown (NTIT) is provided for in Title VII of the Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1970. To date, financial assistance consists of
loan guarantees which seek to improve the availability of capital for
new town projects by allowing developers to borrow money at lower interest
rates, and to offer debt repayment instruments similar to corporate bonds.
Private developers may be guaranteed up to 80 percent of the value of real
property before development and 90 percent of the land development costs
up to $50 million. Public developers may receive federal guarantees cover-
ing 100 percent of both the value of real property and land development
costs. Title VII also provides for federal loans, public service grants,
and special planning assistance, but to date, funds for these purposes
have not been appropriated. This lack of appropriations and the $50 million
ceiling have already severely limited the potential impact which New-To;<7n-
InTown might have on the revitalization of central cities.

The purpose of the NTIT program was to enlarge the scope and content
of central city redevelopment programs in order to overcome the problem of
inadequate scale encountered by both Urban Renewal and Model Cities. The
NTIT program seeks to utilize the key lessons from Urban Renewal and Model
Cities by using a programmatic redevelopment approach to achieve broad
scale social objectives.

Its goals as defined in the Declaration of Policy in Title VII, are
to "refine the role of the federal government in revitalizing existing
communities and encouraging planned, large-scale urban and new community

133

development." "...treat comprehensively the problems of poverty and em-
ployment (including the erosion of tax bases and the need for better com-
munity services and job opportunities) which are associated with disorderly
urbanization..."; and "...develop means to encourage good housing for all
Americans without regard to race or creed." (V-2)

From the outset, like both of its predecessors, the NTIT program
seems to suffer from the problems of lack of funding and a failure to oper-
ationalize objectives.

The New-Tovm-Into\m program has stimulated the following different

approaches or models of central city development:

MODEL I: Development on a large vacant or abandoned

parcel of land outside the central business
district (examples are Fort Lincoln, Welfare
Island, and Pontchartrain) .

MODEL II: Development of a large contiguous parcel of
imder-utilized laiid within the central city,
basically similar to the most advanced of
the later urban renewal projects (e.g.,
San Antonio, San Diego).

MODEL III: Development of a very large mixed-use sector
of the central city, involving non-contiguous
projects (rather than a single project) and
joining New-Town-Into;vTi approaches with other
approaches (e.g., Hartford Process, Cleveland,
Chicago) .

Model I developments will probably only achieve limited objectives
because their potential is determined by the availability of vacant or
abandoned sites. The popularity of this approach stems from the need to
minimize the costs of land acquisition and resident relocation. The mini-
mization of these costs, however, does not guarantee that the site will
have sufficient economic potential or be of adequate scale to positively
Impact the central city as a whole. Thus, the development of vacant sites

134

may not be the best way to spur revitalization.

Model II generally provides for projects of a larger scale, with
more economic potential, and boundary flexibility than Model I. However,
the orientation of Model II toward a single project area again limits its
potential impact on the entire central city. Projects of this nature run
the risk of simply displacing problems from one part of the city to another;
or becoming an enclave of new development in a sea of deterioration.

Model III involves linking different kinds of projects in a program-
matic attack on the problems of the central city. With this approach,
various areas could be balanced against one another. Returns from profit-
able developments could be used to finance or provide services for less
profitable developments. People displaced from a project with high com-
mercial potential could be relocated in another project area with greater
residential potential. Theoretically, the whole urban region could be
used as the Model III progrcim area. However, political constraints suggest
that only the central city and not its outlying suburbs will be included.
This approach offers the greatest flexibility in project design and seems
to take advantage of the lessons gained from the Urban Renewal and Model
Cities experiences .

As Perloff notes, the "linked area approach is based on the recog-
nition that the NTIT is, because of its location in the central city, more
tightly meshed into the metropolitan fabric than a free standing new com-
munity. As the NTIT is an integral part of the central city, it is neither
feasible nor desirable to develop it as an isolated entity." (V-15)

At the present time, the majority of NTITs are in the final planning

135

or initial development stages. For this reason, it is difficult to assess

how well they will utilize the lessons gained from previous revitalization

efforts. H.U.D. has attempted to induce NTITs to internalize the lessons

frora past experiences by requiring:

Although a new community need not be completely
self-sufficient, it must provide in a single area
the housing, social services, public and com.mercial
facilities , and job opportunities normally associ-
ated with a city or tovm. In determining the degree
of internal diversity for a given site, consideration
will be given to adequacy of existing or projected
services and facilities in the immediate area. How-
ever, the community may not consist simply of housing
with a minimum of coiraaercial facilities serving only
the immediate needs of people for neighborhood shop-
ping. Nor may a new comjnunity be predominantly in-
dustrial or commercial development, with a minimum
supply of new housing.
(H.U.D. Guidelines, p. 13) (emphasis added)

Tables VI and VII, on the following pages, provide comparative data
on select NTITs and show how their emphasis on the various components of
revitalization differ. These tables indicate that most NTIT developers
are attempting to avoid the mistakes of the past. For example, the pro-
jects vary in size from 100 acres to 8,400 acres; and most experts feel
that each v/ill be of adequate scale to have a significant impact on the
central city in which it is located. The fact that the emphasis placed
on each component of revitalization varies according to the conditions in
the host city and the type of NTIT being developed, indicates that the
NTITs are attempting to move with the existing economic trends specific
to their region.

In addition, all NTIT proposals call for a balancing of physical
renewal efforts with human service programs. Whether these proposals will

|«r.~. i

u

o

P4

l-l
o

o

O

cussi
annin

u

c3

u

o

o

0)

"^-"

c
o

■H

0)

c

*-~ CO

i*-i

rH
CO

o

c

v-l

g

U-l

c
c

•r-i a-

O
O

V

o oj

o

u
o

.

+

fH

c
u

-a
ij

136

o

u

o

T)

r~.

o ->-

o

CO

o

e

.-1 0)

OJ

0

^

to

o

i-l

*

O ro

00

■^v^

«< 8-! E-^

o

U3 -U

.c

Uh

a:

O (fl

in

»C>I

o

Not

Available

o o o

o

O

3 to

i-i

^

•H C

O .-1

•

<•

CM CM \0

•«

o

CU >

u

l-l

Q

3

iH ft

•

r^

c3

—1

o

oo

•H

o

CO

ea

Cc

.C U-l

td

o

o

</>

Vj

?:

VC

u

3

<j

iH

IX.

Q.

■ '

•

1

Q

•-N

^

o

c

T3

5

1

c

^ c

to

CJ

3

^

o

OJ o

JO

N

hJ

■<2

*

CO

*<

> -H

CO

u

•rl

M

J

^

^

<u

»H

0) AJ

o

f~\

M

to

M

o

o

o

o
o

CJ

u

T-I

a CO

u

k3

•r^
4-1

H

>-

^-l

s

CO

o

o

6

<u o

c

»^

3

►J

f^

O 1

*

CB

O

*-> a,

CO

t3

u

s

>

>

0)

o

00

'^^.fc

6-f

s^

S^

»-?

o

^s a^ B^

O

o

CO u

a

CJ

OJ

5>

<q

<y

a

•o

sr

rH

o

in

vO

in

S3-

o

O in in

o

in

iJ o

CO

c

■a

w

P^

2

2

c

1-t

•

1

in

cs

rH

nH

sT

•»

CO CM ^3-

o

CM

CO u

>

o

r^

CO

►J

3

r«.

iH

m

•»

</>

3

8

g

T-i

r-«

.<-»

(a;

is

o
C

«

c

•H

c
c

P-i

o

O

o

o

o

o

^5 ?^

o

o

G
O
iH
fH
M

e

m

rH
1

•

u
o o

rH
^ •

3 a

(U o

rH
>, OJ

4-1 >

CO
o
CO

J3

tn
k-i

CO

S

>^

rH
G
00

!0

K

o

.-3

iH

o

o

CO

B^

S-!

^5

5-;

o

1 o o

o

o

•H 01

>

r-i

*

O

ca

-a-

M

^-^^

CSI

in

O

(O

A

CO r—

««

in

u a

■^-^

g

s

c

^

O 1

r^

CO

to

■H

CM

fO

r«.

N— ^

r-l

rH

o

•H

00

00

CO

CM

VO

</>

o

2:

fn

p^

A

60

^-^

o

►J

T3
OJ
N

■41

rH

tn

o

o

c

CM

•H

•H

to

i'-N

t5

M

■H

c

tn

r^

rH

CJ V4

rH

-H

rH

^

?

C

rJ

Cl

CT\ OJ

rH

4J CI

•H

4J

CO

td

o

O

.— i

Vj

rH U

<u

•H

to ex

4.1

»—

-H

•-J

o

<;

H

o

iJ M

a.

u

V-' O

u

00

O

a

> o

3

s

u

H

H

C r;

rs

rt

o

^^

5^

J-^

5^

in

^^ B-^ S-5

o

v-l ,-<

u

-a

U

Pi

<

< y.

rH

vn ---^

o

to

vO

r-^

rH

ON

o

CNi o r-

o

o

u <u

<U

T-(

"J

Pj

o

^

a

m

OD

t->, CS4

o

^■^^

CM

(O

CM

<~i

*i

<r CM c^i

r*

CO

(X >

-a

W

;z;

s

C H

^

u-l

tN v*

o

o

r^

in

</>

01

c

OJ

p

ia

2

<

00

f—

01

lO

CO

o

CM

CO

iH

rH

-a

:=

V-i

6
o

ft!

H

H

► •3

5S

<

00

C

<

i-H

CO

M

M

1^

c

o

ru

to

OJ

g

<

2

-H

1-1

►J

M

*r-N

u

g

&

►J
O

c
o

g

03

r-l

•Ji

CJ

c

CO

o

o

o

u

nj ■

0)

9}

•H

OJ

0)

to

4J

H

o

2:

c

o

r-l

a

o

u
o

m

B

4J »J

CO QJ

rH

u
u

1

►J

•H

C3

O 1

o

to

.5^

S^

^s

6-?

CM

cNj 5-? 5^-S

o

o

> O,

tn

-ri

x:

•

i-H

o

*^«*

tn

r^

-3-

ro

^o

in CM CO

o

MD

tH o

4J

3

o

H

m

Q

rt

u-i

»

CO

•^

CM

CM

r>

iH CO in

o

1

l-l .-1

c

rH

u

Pi

ca

c

n

vO

<r

»*

o

a. 0)

to

o-

c-

O

S

•H

CO

r-i

r-~

SJ-

>

o

u

t:^

U-t

to-

0)

to

>

3
CO

rH
CO

4J
O

w

O

ca

•H

o:

•K

M

*

^^

t-l

fu

to

tn

CJ

f-H

OJ hJ

la

C

prf

T-<

r-

•H

iJ

*

o

u

r-(

0]

a\

(U

e

C3 i^

>.r-i

^3

•ri

rs

>

O

>^

m

r-( Q)

l-l

o

>

4J

CO

C

iJ

rH

M

D.

•

CJ

^

— J-l

u

o

o

tH U

•H

-H

(0

CO

C

Pi

rj

c

:s

o

o

o

to

iri

MD

u o

m

4J

rH

!— 1

c

1

CJ

c

n

m

o '^

o

"*"^

0^

S^

5~?

t>3

,<*

S-! t>; E^;

C~'

1

C-- CU

C

c

2

^

C

•H

QJ

o "^

o

in

VD

vO

O

cn

CM

<r cr\ r-»

O

o

u

OJ

4J

c

■U

C

s

-o

o

o o

*

CSI

CM

CO

l-l

.-i

iH

•-H CM in

-C-

•H

■TS

T)

C

O

c

o

•H

c

o

«<f

o

CO

g

</>

CJ

•r^

CJ

Cu

dJ

u

s

3

r-t

Sf

CO

>

5

m

U

c

o

»4

6^

^^s

.

H
t/3

OJ

o

rH

OJ

CO
>

rH
CO

o

a

^

<

z:

z

W

<;

o

w

M

H

H

«

H

U

^-»

<

d

tu

a

►-)

o

:=i

o

Pi

?5

C-i

(-^

3

<i

o

'>Jm

U

C-i

4-) tn

c c

il 0)

cc -a

CJ >>-'

l-l

•O 4-1

0) -r-l

4-1 'Jl

u c

G G

o ^-^
l-l

CL,

Q

Q
UJ

UJ
■-)

o
oi

»^

c

G

to

G
Pi

(0
•H
V)
4J

05

3

-a

Ci

a
u

E
O

fr-S

c
o

3
U
l-l

•rH

G

to

3

XI
3

CL

G
O

CO

a.

C
G
(X

o

c

3

O

4-)

M

is

en
o

no OT

G t.T

4-1 CO
to

-H G

tn B

in O

CO U

C

O

G
C to

•T3
G

3

O

rJ

G tn

Q

H

I-H
CO

I

o

Q

w
t-l

o
o

►-)
o

Pi

CL,

H
O

H

O
H

Z

o

H
CO

AJ

p:

O

O

H

o

..

^

>^

o

4J

4J

•r<

c

tn

•H

C

G

M

TJ

G

tn

to

tn

CO

o

l-l

P^

'J>

1

*

•K

+;

Pi CO

137

TABLE VII

ALTERN.A.TIVE E>ffIiiSES ON NTTT COMPONENTS FOR DIFEEKENT NTIT MODELS

EMPHASIS

Jobs Component

Substantial

Some

Very Little

MODEL I
MODEL II

■ MODEL III

Services Comoonent

Pontchartrain

(San Diego)
San iVntonio

Hartford Process

(Cleveland)

(Chicago)

Fort Lincoln
(Battery Park)

Welfare Island
Cedar-Riverside

>K)DEL I

MODEL II

MODEL III

Fort Lincoln

San Antonio
Cedar-Riverside

Hartford Process

(Cleveland)

(Chicago)

Pontchartrain
Welfare Island

(Battery Park)
(San Diego)

Housing Component

MODEL I

MODEL II

MODEL III

Welfare Island
Fort Lincoln
Pontchartrain

(Battery Park)
Cedar-Riverside

Hartford Process

(Cleveland)

(Chicago)

San Antonio

(San Diego)

138

be implemented is yet another question. Developers almost always qualify
the social and human service elements of their proposals with a statement
that implementation is dependent upon the financial involvement of some
federal, state, or local agency. Thus, the provision of social services
is not viewed as a primary responsibility of the developer. If some in-
stitutional arrangem.ent is not devised which clearly assigns this responsi-
bility, the probability of full implementation of the service component
of the NTIT proposal is probably quite small.

The uncertainty of implementation of the social service component
of NTIT developments is a manifestation of the problems of lack of govern-
mental coordination and the inadequacy of existing local institutions to
deal with the complex problems of revitalization. As both Urban Renewal
and Model Cities pointed out, the success of central city revitalization
efforts are dependent upon substantial political support at every level
from the local citizen participants up to the federal government. As
Perloff noted:

The main organizational problem is somehow to combine
the advantages of the private entrepreneur (with the
relatively great flexibility, ability to mobilize re-
sources, and organizational talent and freedom from
the more obvious kinds of political pressures) with
the advantages and powers of a public entity. In
several NTIT projects, a partnership between a private
developer and the local renewal authority has proved
itself a workable arrangement, with the private de-
veloper providing the entrepreneural skills and the
local agency the powers of eminent domain and land
write-doOTi, as well as access to the local, state and
federal bureaucracies .. .a public development corpora-
tion as the entrepreneur, be it locally or state
based... (may also be able to fulfill both functions). (V-32)

139

The problem, however, remaiiis that even the innovative institutional
arrangements referred to by Perloff and those being used by some exist-
ing NTITs have not guaranteed the implementation of the social service
component of the NTIT program.

In conclusion, the fact that NTIT developers have attempted to
deal with the weaknesses of past revitalization programs in their plans
and proposals does not guarantee that these weaknesses will be overcome
in the implementation stage. The two most pressing problems of the NTIT
program continue to be inadequate funding and lack of coordination between
various governmental agencies. If these problems are not addressed, NTITs
may fall into the Urban Renewal mold, providing inadequate human services
and simply creating enclaves of physical renewal.

140
Financing Central City Revitalizatlon

All of the lessons learned from Urban Renewal and Model Cities, and
the potentiality of the NTIT program mean very little if adequate funds are
not available from both governmental and private sources to finance central
city revitalizatlon efforts. Perloff has noted that two factors generally
constrain central city developers: "1. The cost of building in the central
city is higher than the cost of building in outlying areas, and 2. The re-
turns from Intown investment often do not compensate for the higher costs
and risks." (11-55) For these reasons, it is a generally accepted fact that
central city revitalizatlon efforts cannot be carried out without substantial
direct government subsidies. The governmental subsidies are necessary to
compensate and stimulate private development in situations which would have
othen'7ise been uneconomic. Past federal subsidies have taken the form of
grants for land writedovms, subsidies for housing, infrastructure, interest
and planning costs, loans, and loan guarantees. (V-26)

Table VI indicates that the estimated costs of the various NTIT programs
range from $40 to $800 million. At present. Title VII loan guarantees have
a $50 million ceiling. If Title VII funding remains unsupported by additional
federal subsidies, it is highly unlikely that a meaningful NTIT program will
develop. Past freezes on housing subsidies, the tight capital market, and
generally poor economic picture have tended to exacerbate this problem.
Experts feel that these problems could be overcome by federal initiative
in the creation of a National Urban Development Bank or a major program of
central city community development grants. (V-56) Meaningful action along
the lines of any of these proposals is highly improbable. Although the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974 (signed on August 22 of this year) de-

141

monstrates a new degree of federal concern, the overall commitment of the
federal government to central city revitalization efforts seems quite un-
certain at this point in time. Given this situation, private developers,
local governments and public developm.ent corporations must look to their
own initiative to discover methods to reduce the capital and operating
costs of central city redevelopment.

Select techniques for the reduction of such costs are summarized

below:

1. The Use of Vacant Land; "Development of such land
is less expensive than the development of built-up
areas as there are no clearance or relocation costs."
(V-27) This approach is limited by the availability
of sudi parcels and their general lack of economic
viability. However, the use of vacant parcels in

a linked programmatic approach may be beneficial.

2. Creation of New Land: Several NTIT's are utilizing
land created by diking, filling, or the use of air
rights. Through these techniques, the value of land
formerly unsuitable for development can be substan-
tially increased by preparing the land for high in-
tensity development. The problems with diking and
filling are that they may be environmentally damag-
ing. The use of air rights is extremely expensive
and can only be used in areas with high economic
viability. (11-57)

3. Re-Use of Under Utilized Land: Land used for low in-
tensity or inappropriate purposes may prove viable
for redevelopment efforts. T\-70 prime examples of
this type currently exist: (1) Unutilized publicly
o^'med land such as inactive military installations;
(2) Privately owned obsolete areas such as port faci-
lities or railroad yards. The greatest problem with
publicly owned lands is arriving at a 'fair m.arket
value' for its sale to a developer. However, leasing
arrangements may be a solution to this problem. Obso-
lete privately ovmed lands are generally quite expen-
sive, so the economic viability of the proposed re-
development project must be substantial. (11-58)

142

4. Innovative Manipulation of Tax Laws: This technique
involves encouraging investment in central city de-
velopment by channeling tax benefits to private in-
dividuals and corporations. Tax shelters can be pro-
vided for v7ealthy investors. Capital losses can be
guaranteed through limited partnership agreements ,
etc. The chief problem with this approach is that
imscrupulous ' invest o-rs might take advantage of a
technique that was designed to encourage investment
for the public benefit. Furthermore, the federal
government loses tax revenue but has no direct con-
trol on hov; the money is used. (11-60)

5. Tax Increment Financing: Tax increment financing
allows the property taxes paid on the increased
value of redeveloped property to be used to pay
back the costs of public investment in the project
area. This system works by fixing the assessed
value of property in a renewal area prior to rede-
velopment and then allocating som.e portion of the
increase in assessed valuation resulting from re-
development to the redevelopmient agency. This agency
is than allov;ed to use its share of the incremental
tax revenues to amoritize tax allocation bonds.
These bonds are attractive to investors because they
are exempt from federal and state income taxes and
are insured by government covenants. The chief
problem with this approach is that it freezes the
tax base within the project area for other non -muni-
cipal taxing entities such as school districts, etc.
All NTIT developers have expressed interest in this
form of financing, but at present only California,
Minnesota, Iowa, and Oregon state law allows this
method of financing.

6 . Channeling Development into Desired Areas via Planning
Controls : Local governments could use their zoning and
approval poxvers to guide central city development into
desired areas. New Orleans has done this by refusing

to build additional bridges across the Mississippi River,
thus limiting access to outlying land. Minneapolis-
St.Paul encourages concentration and discourages sprawl
by using their A-95 review process. The problem is
that most central cities do not have enough control
over regional land use decisions to encourage the con-
centration of development. (H-61)

7. Internal Subsidies: Central City Revitalization efforts
using the linked project approach could possibly sub-

143

sidize low-income housing and human service programs
by using returns V7hich it receives on high-income,
commercial and industrial land development. Returns
in profitable project areas could be used to subsi-
dize development in less profitable areas. The prob-
lem with this approacli is that revitalization efforts
usually do not yield high returns. (11-100)

Although the techniques described above may help to provide needed

financing and lowered costs for central city revitalization, they cannot

substitute for a substantial national and state financial commitment. At

the most, these techniques represent a holding action which V7ill allov;

revitalization efforts to continue on a limited scale until national and

state policies are formulated.

144

Potential Roles for the State

Given the lessons froa past and present federal urban redevelopment
programs, it would seem that there are at least three immediate avenues
through which the state might provide assistance for central city revitali-
zation efforts in Massacliusetts . First, all redevelopment programs have
suffered from the lack of systematic data on the economic and social trends
in the central city. Past experience has shown that it is essential to
take advantage of existing trends by designing programs which move with
rather than against these trends . Since other state programs are highly
dependent on the need of accurate information of this type, the state could
assume the role of gathering and publishing detailed systematic economic,
social, and environmental data for all areas of the state. In addition
to helping central city programs, such information would benefit all state
planning efforts.

Second, the lack of adequate funding has been a key problem of all
urban redevelopment attempts. The state could help in solving this problem
through four different approaches:

1. Encouraging cities and communities to utilize tax increment financing
in their redevelopment efforts . Brookline and several Massachusetts
communities are presently experimenting v;ith this technique. The local
officials involved feel that the approach has great potential and that
home rule powers are an adequate legislative base from which to initiate
it.

2. Revise state tax allocation schedules so as to provide central cities
with more money to pay for the services which they provide to a large
portion of the state's low-income population.

145

3. Create an Urban Development Bank to make substantial long-term loans
at reasonable rates to central city revitalization efforts.

4. Establish a land banking process by v;hich the state or localities could
hold land for limited periods of time until they v;ere needed for commun-
ity use. Mass. House Report No. 6488, discusses this issue in depth
and concludes :

Among the possibilities for the use of land banking are
advanced acquisition of sites for public investment ,
i.e., schools, roads, hospitals, etc. The prime objec-
tive is to obtain the site m.ore cheaply while forestall-
ing price rises, obtaining the "best" site, improving
the pattern of related land use, and perhaps, receiving
a temporary return on the interim use of the parcel.
Costs associated with the plan are the initial purchases
price, servicing the debt, foregoing of taxes, management
costs, and the problem of uncertainty of siting.

• Land banking may be used for the acquisition of stra-
tegic areas of development such as, airports, land sur-
rounding major highways and interchanges along with mass
transit stops, large open spaces, and areas of critical
environmental, unique or historical importance. Public
expenditures which have significant benefits to private
landowners confer enormous bonuses upon fortimate in-
vestors. Land banking or advanced land acquisition can
be used to distribute these benefits more fairly. Thus,
when public expenditure is involved, increases in the
valuation of affected land will accrue to the public.

Another consideration for the use of land banking is to
help to perfect the land market.

Land banks are well adapted to correct the
errors and scars of the past. Scattered
throughout m.any of our older suburbs are
pockets of underdevelopment, dotted with
small lots of odd sizes or occupied by va-
cant buildings. This collection of sites
frequently adds up to an impressive total •
of developable land, but its present form
is uninviting to developers. These odd bits
of remnants can and should be assembled into
parcels suitable for building. Furthermore, ■
there are often pockets of legal blight.

146

where the land has been rendered undevelop-
able because of problems over the estate
or title. A public agency could assanble
these odd pieces of land into economic plots
and make them available by sale or lease to
developers.

Essentially, in buying important parcels of land and
making them available in a planned groxjth strategy,
the land bank would begin to impart added order to
the whole process of land development and urban growth.
Various strategies of acquisition would reduce the un-
certainty and confusion in the land market. The re-
sults would be more stabilization of the market and
the better implementation of a land use policy. Further-
more, by exerting a control over the ovmership of crucial
parcels of land, pricing of land would become more stable.
Influence would be exerted on land speculation, and the
goal of obtaining the best site for the desired purpose
would become more possible.

It should he noted that the first two approaches would require no
new state expenditures, the Development Bank would be loaning money rather
than simply giving state grants, and land banking could actually capture
the increased value of land produced by public expenditures.

Finally 5 the inability of local institutions to cope with the prob-
lems of revitalization suggest the need for a State Development Corpora-
tion (perhaps similar to New York's UDC) . Perloff has identified the
following six powers that such a corporation would need:

1. Preparation of physical, economic, social, and
financial plans for the "developm.ent sectors,"
in relationship to broader planning for the city
and region (with prior approval of the Mayor and
City Council) ; primary responsibility for zoning,
land use, and building controls within these "sec-
tors"; and coordination and phasing of public im-
provements in the designated "sectors".

2. Operation as a developer with powers to buy, sell,
and lease land; acquire, constru'ct, and rehabili-
tate buildings and other property; and condemn,
assemble, bank, and writedovm land and other
property.

147

3. Operation of public facilities and quasi-public
enterprises (such as mini-buses) .

4. Issuance of tax-exempt bonds and other obligations.

5. Overriding of local zoning, building, and housing codes.

6. Establishment of public, joint public-private and pri-
vate subsidiaries and undertaking joint activities with
existing entities. (V-37)

Bills v/ere introduced into the General Court in 1967, 1969, and
1971 to create a state development corporation. These bills would have
created entities with the powers which Perloff suggests. The major issue
in these bills was not only what type of powers such a corporation should
have but v/hether it should be responsible to an independent board appointed
by the Governor (as in New York) or should be responsible to the Secretary
of Corammity and Development and through him to other Cabinet officers, to
keep its operations in line with state agency policies.

In addition, the Boston Economic Developm.ent and Industrial Corpor-
ation (BEDIC) is a local public development corporation with most but not
all of the powers suggested by Perloff. It presently lacks the power to
override local zoning, building, and housing codes (which may not be a nec-
essity for a local corporation. This corporation is responsible for the
Dorchester industrial park project mentioned earlier in this report. Con-
sequently, Massachusetts has considered these alternatives and is presently
making limited use of some of them.

The preceding actions are only suggestive of the things which the
state might do to aid urban redevelopment efrorts. In essence, the state
needs to develop a series of programs v;hich would affirra its commitm.ent to
the goal of revitalizing the central cities. These programs should encourage

148

(rather than constrain) localities to engage in a continuing process of
revitalization and cor:r:-.unity developnent .' In the final analysis, the suc-
cess of a Central City Revitalization program is a function of two factors.
First, the degree of local activity, responsibility, and cooperation which
the program generates is critical. Second, the commitment of higher levels
of government to the revitalization goal miust be demonstrated by long-term
financial and institutional support. Without these two elements, revitali-
zation efforts V7ill have only marginal effects on the city. Given the
fact that the problems of the central city are integrity linked to the pres-
sures on outlying suburbs and rural areas, the need for state and federal
action is clearly defined.

III. MINUTES OF THE 1975 LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS

150

2/13/75

February 13, 1975 Meeting

Topic : Innovative Land Use Planning and Regulatory Activities in Other States

SUMMARY: The meeting focused upon three issues:

I. Recent land use legislation in Florida

II. The implications of the Florida experience for Massachusetts

III. Future work of the subcommittee

I. FLORIDA LEGISLATION

Dan

O'Connell: In the early 1970 's, several problems in Florida pointed towards

the need for land use legislation. Rapid migration from the

North was placing stress on the ability of the local governmental

systems to provide adequate public services (i.e., schools, roads,

sewers, etc.) for local residents. In addition, a severe water

shortage throughout the state dramatized the growth problems.

The governor appointed a committee to draft legislation. Four

bills finally resulted:

1. The Environmental Land and Water Management Act

2. The Comprehensive Planning Act

3. The Water Resources Act

4. The Land Conservation Act

The major bill was the Florida Environmental Land and Water Act of
1972. Modelled on the American Law Institute code, it set up two
land use techniques: 1) areas of critical state concern (not to
exceed 5% of state), and 2) developments of regional impact: of
such a size that would affect more than one county. About 75% of
the state had no land use controls whatsoever. It was deemed neces-
sary to have someone administer the new laws. Because there were
no regional planning agencies, the state had to pass a separate
act — the State Comprehensive Planning Act of 1972, which set un
a division of state planning in order to implement these acts. In
the land management and state planning acts, there was now language
to provide for the designation of regional planning agencies to do
regional impact reports.

Guidelines for development of regional impact would be recommended
by the committee, approved by the governor, and then go to the
legislature. The legislature used this technique to insure that

151
2/13115

no guidelines on regional impact would be adopted by administra-
tive order.

The third act, called the Water Resources Act of 1972, directed
development of a state water use plan, putting all water resources
under state regulation. The voter-approved Land Conservation Act
of 1972 authorized $2A0 million in bonds for state acquisition of
environmentally endangered lands and recreational lands. Responsi-
bility for implementing this act was with the Department of Natural
Resources. The first funds were spent in the Cypress area. $45
million was appropriated to be combined with federal funds. Fund-
ing in the first year was very low.

With the implementation of these four acts in Vlorida, all kinds
of constitutional and legal questions arose (rights of private
property, political pressure to fight en\T.ronmental regulations
by lawsuit, etc.). The governor appointed a Pronerty Rights Com-
mission. Taking real property off tax roles made the towns angry.
The Commission was being forced politically to set uo new mechan-
isms for shifting payments of compensation affecting large groups
of people simultaneously.

The latest issue is one-stop permits. Developers are tired of
18 month waiting periods. An environmental reorganization bill
is now under consideration. This would put state planning under
the Department of Natural Resources , thereby avoiding five or six
state agencies to review applications.

Development of regional impact technique is applied to only about
40 percent of the state where local zoning or subdivision laws
are in effect. If a DRI is planned in a jurisdiction with such
controls, the new law provides specific requirements for public
notice and hearings. The regional planning bodies have 30 days
to prepare an impact review and recommendation which the local
government must consider before deciding whether or not the DRI
will be approved. If a DRI is planned in a jurisdiction without
such controls, the local government has 90 days to adopt zoning
regulations or give the state an opportunity to declare the area
one of critical state concern. A limitation of 5 percent of the
state was adopted so that the governor would have to focus on
narrow choices of the most sensitive priorities.

mzii^

152

II,

IMPLICATIONS OF FLORIDA LEGISLATION ON MASSACHUSETTS

Lawrence

Susskind : Massachusetts and Florida share many of the same issues regarding

critical areas of state concern. l\vro approaches in defining cri-
tical areas are: 1) putting a percentage figure on the amount of
land in state where the person vested with the power to define the
critical areas will be allowed to do this, and 2) giving the local
governments first crack at defining critical areas within their
boundaries (as done in Colorado) , and then determine what is com-
mon to all municipalities.

The Environmental Policy Act allows some provisions for how to
define and who is to define large-scale development, should there
be a more careful review of it.

In most states that have enacted comprehensive legislation, there
has been a demand for action from either tremendous growth pressure
that localities can't manage, or crises such as oil spills. We
have neither right now in Massachusetts, so why should the legis-
lature support it? Economic development would be a good theme
for Massachusetts, as this might get the legislature to act. Com-
munities should induce development.

The issue of a state planning operation requires more attention.
The governor is considering the establishment of an office of state
planning with some power. Centralized planning must be related
to land use operations . Serious thought about what model of cen-
tral planning this state will adopt is necessary.

Dan

O'Connell: It is necessary to focus on the real problems at the moment:

Florida is keyed to the automobile. The problem of imported oil
will lead to greater problems unless we have more efficient plan-
ning. This is a perfect time for better forms of regional develop-
ment design.

Alan
Kaufman:

(Conservation Law Foundation)

In that respect, one aspect of the problem consist of outer conti-
nental shelf drilling. A mandate of national interest threatens
Massachusetts. The on-shore impact is devastating. On-shore de-

153

2/U115

Lawrence
Susskind ;

Alan
Kaufman :

Lawrence
Susskind :

Dan
O'Connell;

George
Brown :

Lawrence
Susskind ;

velopment brings jobs, which brings housing growth, transportation
problems, etc.

>

The communities are concerned about providing more or improving
public facilities. There is a problem of growth management in
some small towns and a problem of how to encourage growth in
others. Is there enough talk about managing local growth so that
the bill should be keyed to that?

Any bill that makes sense would have to respond with different
thresholds of regulations. Community growth could be handled by
a new zoning enabling act. Regional responses to growth decisions
are beyond the control of any one municipality.

Land use has been considered mostly as a conservation technique.
The Boston Chamber of Commerce is using land use as a wav of getting
things done, rather than preventing accomplishment. The concern
in local communities can spark the legislators' interest. Perhaps
we should describe legislation as one that helps guide growth.

In Massachusetts, regional agencies usually represent groups that
protect the interests of localities. What role does the middle
government in Florida play?

Florida uses the state comprehensive planning act, Xizhich gives the
division of state planning the authority to adopt, for the purpose
of uniformity throughout the state, certain boundaries that every-
one would use. The decision was to use traditional county lines.
The division of state planning agreed to give money to the 7 out of
10 groups that would convene and make environmental reports.

The Chamber of Commerce is proposing regional government for the
Boston area. Franklin County's bill is a step towards more re-
gional institutions for the county. How do these activities affect
our view of regional bodies that might be proposed in a new bill?

Do we have a system, of substate regional planning with which we
are sufficiently secure at this time to use in a land use bill?

imps

154

Susan
Lutwak :

Joel

Brenner

(MAPC)

The boundaries under which planning agencies operate should be

addressed. MAPC is presently working on a regional land use

pattern.

If developing regional capacity means only adding another set of
strictures, we will lose home builders' support. They want a
speedy way of obtaining development permits . IiJhat powers need
to be given to a regional body?
DiLuzio : There will have to be a strengthening of legislative mechanisms
in order to make municipalities responsive to proposals by the
existing regional council.

Focus upon two categories:

1. ^-Jhat is the objective of state use planning?

2. \>Jhat institutional mechanism will put the objective
into effect?

III. FUTURE WORK OF THE SUBCO>C-IITTEE

Saltonstall:

The governor plans to meet with the Growth Commission as a group
February 27, 1975, 9:00 A.M. It has been suggested that if the
Growth Commission is interested in developing legislation, the
three subcommittees must come together and develop something that
can be mutually agreed upon. Perhaps this could be done by creat-
ing a steering committee of the commission, including the heads
of the subcommittees and two or three people working with them.
In addition, it is obvious that the subcommittees, themselves,
will have to do some outreaching into the communities if a legis-
lative endeavor is to be successful. Finally, I have been asked
to announce that our meeting on March 13 will be devoted to dis-
cussion of the problems of agricultural and open space land uses.

155

2/21/15

February 27, ]975 Meeting

Topic: Summary — Special Commission Meeting with Governor Dukakis
GOVERNOR' S STATEMENT (See text of Statement following these minutes)

On February 27, Governor Michael Dukakis spoke to the Special Commission
on the Effects of Growth Patterns on the Quality of Life in the Commonwealth
and the Subcommittees on Growth, Land Use, and Demographic Services.

Governor Dukakis asked the Legislature to cooperate in the development
of a "comprehensive growth and development planning program for Massachusetts"
and announced the creation of the Office of State Planning to coordinate the
program. He said a state master plan was necessary "if we are to provide
economic growth and environmental protection — both of which are critical to
the future of the Commonwealth."

Dukakis said he was testifying, not in favor of new legislation, but to
enlist the Legislature's help in defining the growth policies of the state.
According to Dukakis, the planning process would:

— define the state's long-range goals;

— provide a base for evaluating the impact of major state decisions;

— serve notice as to where economic development should be encouraged
and where open space should be preserved.

While the Office of State Planning is formally under the Executive
Office of Administration and Finance, its director will be an ex-officio
member of the cabinet and would report directly to him.

The planning office, according to Dukakis, "will be neither costly nor
create a new layer of bureaucracy. On the contrary, we will try to stream-
line existing planning functions which are now spread among numerous state
agencies. From the existing pool of planning personnel, I will direct that
a number of individuals work under the guidance of the planning office."

Dukakis said the state master plan will not be developed "by a few
professional planners sitting in Boston, but will be prepared only after
cooperation among local communities, regional planning agencies, a citizens'
advisory board, and various branches of state government."

Among the state decisions to be guided by the master plan are:

— state highway and mass transit construction will be built to encour-
age the residential and economic development goals outlined in the
plan;

156
1111115

— allocation of funds for purchase of open space will be made, accord-
ing to priorities in the plan;

— all other items in the annual outlay budget will be evaluated accord-
ing to the plan.

Dukakis eicpressed great expectations for the new office and the hope
that members of the Special Commission will actively participate in the
development of a more comprehensive approach to growth policy.
DISCUSSION

In response to John Ames' question of whether the office would draw up
a map or develop a process to evaluate locations for designated growth,
Dukakis stated that "the office will try to create a clearly defined picture
of what we v;ant the state to look like in five, ten or so years. This re-
quires a designation of areas for certain development, but it does not mean
state-wide zoning."

As an example, Dukakis cited the previous state transportation policies
that have encouraged the construction of expressways without concern for the
secondary consequences. This destroys older urban communities by encouraging
development to move out of the city. "If we don't want that process to con-
tinue," Dukakis replied, "we have to be specific about where we want develop-
ment to take place."

Professor Larry Susskind reported that land use policy must be locally
oriented. Susskind 's group has come up with a plan to enable local communi-
ties to define goals. The Office of State Planning could monitor how locali-
ties define land use problems. It could also serve as a link between local
communities, regional planning agencies, and the state level.

John Barrus expressed the concern over the loss of agricultural land,
and also stated that as it becomes economically unfeasible for agriculture
support industry to remain in the state, farmers lose services essential to
their industry..

The Governor expressed concern with this issue and said the Office of
State Planning would have to look into the whole food question.

157
Statement of Governor Dukakis to the Special Commission on the '
Effects of Growth Patterns on the Quality of Life in the
Commonwealth — February 27, 1975

The following is testimony by Governor Michael Dukakis before
the Legislative Commission on the Effects of Growth Patterns on
the Quality of Life in the Commonwealth:

I want to thank Representative Wetmore and Senator McKinnon
for their invitation to appear before the Commission on Growth
Patterns today to discuss the steps that I have taken to initiate
a comprehensive growth and development planning program for
Massachusetts. The lack of a comprehensive plan has been the cause
of many foolish and wasteful decisions by state government in the
past .

For too long major state decisions on physical and economic
development have been made in a vacuum and on an a_d hoc basis.

State development decisions have major immediate and long-term
impacts on the areas in which they are located. These impacts must
be given adequate consideration; both when Che state itself makes
decisions about public facility siting and as it reviews private
proposals .

In this time of economic hardship, we need to plan carefully
for economic and physical development in Massachusetts. We need to
be able to tell industry precisely where it is wanted in the
Commonwealth. We must be able to provide economic growth and
environmental protection -- both of which are critical to the future
of Massachusetts. No longer can we allov; wetlands in major vjater
supply areas to be filled in for industrial locations while we fail
to encourage industry in more suitable areas; no longer can we plan
college campuses without assessing their impact on surrounding
communities; no longer can we locate state buildings in areas which
do not need additional office building; no longer can we make any of
these decisions without planning them in a unified office of planning

In short, state government needs, as the members of this
commission realize, a comprehensive plan for Massachusetts. We need
a comprehensive plan to give those of us in state government long-
range direction for the state; to help us evaluate the impact of
major state decisions; and to indicate for all concerned where
development will be encouraged.

In response to this need I have established this month a nev;
Office of State Planning. This Office will have principal
responsibility for- comprehensive planning in all state activities.
While the Office of State Planning will be formally located in the
Executive Office of Administration and Finance, planning is so
important that the director of this Office will sit as an ex officio
member of the Cabinet and report directly to me.

The Office of State Planning will function in the following
way :

- more -

1

158

1, The Cabinet will be responsible for setting state policies for
growth and conservation. Goals for residential and economic
distribution will be prepared, based upon the agreed policies.
The Cabinet will, in addition, ensure that policies for housing,
economic development, transportation and environmental quality are
compatible with each other and with the long-term needs of the state

The Office of State Planning will serve as staff to the
Cabinet in this policy-making capacity. The Office will help the
Cabinet to evaluate the impacts of alternative policies and enable
the Cabinet to make well-informed choices about policies for
Massachusetts. Input from a state-level citizen advisory group will
also be sought at this point.

2 . T
devel
local
them
of th
plan
both
1 ivin
goal ,
and t
s t ron
A var
quest
techn
by a
other
of th
wh i ch

he Off
oped b

commu
into a
e plan
will b
state
g in t

the 0
he reg
g citi
ie t y o
ionna i
ique s .
few pr

gover
e Stat

the p

ice
y th
n i t i
s ta
dev
e d e
poll
he v
f f ic
iona
zen
f me
res ,
Ma
of es
nraen
e wi
eopl

of Stat
e Cabin
es and
t ewide
e lopmen
vel oped
c i e s an
ar iou s
e of St

I plann
par tic i
ans sho

semina
ssa chus
siona 1
t visit

II make
e of th

e Plan
et and
the St
state
t as a

on a
d the
region
ate PI
ing ag
p a t i o n
uld be
r s , an
e t t s '
planne
s and

the s
is s t a

n mg wi
, in a
a t e ' s r
c omp reh
two-wa
region-
desires
s of th
ann ing
enc i es
in the
used :
d perha
compr eh
r s in B
the i n V
ta t e CO
t e feel

11 take
close w
e gional
ensive
y St ree
by-r egi

and ex
e Commo
will wo
of the

p r e p a r

public
ps o the
ensive
OS ton .
o Ivemen
mpr ehen

they h

the
or kin

plan
plan .
t . T
on ba
pec t a
n w e a 1
r k w :'.
Commo
a t i o n

meet
r mor
plan

The
t of
s ive
ave a

ini t
g re
ning

I
he s
sis.
t ion
th.
th t
nwea

o f
ings
e in
cann
plan
peop
plan

s t a

ial po
la t ion

agenc

view t

ta t e c

It w

soft

To at
he mun
1th to
the s t
, news
nova t i

0 t be
ning p

1 e in
somet

ke.

lici
ship
ies ,
his
ompr
ill
he p
tain
i c ip
dev
ate
lett
ve

deve
rogr
ever
hing

es

with

develop
portion
e h e n s i v e
reflect
e o p 1 e

this
a 1 i t i e s
elo p
plan.
e r s ,

loped
ams o f
y part
in

3. Finally, the fully developed plan will be presented to the
Cabinet and to me for discussion, possible further modification and
formal adoption. I hope that members of this committee will also be
a part of this process. Procedures will be adopted to update the
plan on a regular basis.

What then? Other states have comprehensive plans -- though not
always developed through such an open process. The difference is that
Massachusetts' comprehensive plan will not sit on the shelf --
honored more in the breach than in the observance. All major state
decisions on development and conservation will be guided by the state
plan .

Forexample:

--state highway and transit systems will be built to encourage
the residential and economic development goals in the plan;

- more -

159

I have not come before this commission today with a request for new
legislation. I believe that the planning program that I have described to
you can be established under the existing authority of the Executive Branch.
I would value highly, however, participation by members of the Legislature in
the work of the Office of State Planning. The considered opinions of the
members of this commission would be invaluable to me and to members of the
Office of State Planning as we prepare a comprehensive plan for the Commonwealth.
I would suggest that a working relationship be established between this
commission and the Office of State Planning. I would propose that the
commission take an active role in the articulation of growth policy issues.
Regular and substantial input should come from the members of this commission and
its subcommittee in tlie development of the comprehensive plan for Massachusetts.
I would propose that the Office of State Planning make regular presentations to this
commission as drafts of various parts of the state plan are prepared. I would
hope that the members of this commission would make extensive comments on those
presentations.

I am encouraged by the interest of the members of this commission and its
subcommittees in comprehensive planning for Massachusetts. I believe that
together we can develop the kind of informed, long-range decision-making for
this state that will be a model for state . governments around the country.

Thank you. »

':»!

160

— allocation of funds for purchase of open space will be made
according to the priorities in the state plan;

--siting of all new water pollution treatment facilities will
be guided by the plan;

--al] other items in the annual capital outlay budget will be
evaluated according to the plan;

in addition, 1 will develop methods by which state agencies
with regulatory or permit powers can use those powers within the
context of the state comprehensive plan. For example, I would hope
that the following state regulatory powers could be guided by the
state pi an ;

--Department of Public Works curb cuts on state roads;

--Division of Water Pollution Control discharge permits into
surface waters;

--Wetland permits;

--New hospital siting under the certificate of need program;
and

--Energy facilities siting by the state energy facilities
siting commission.

The Office of State Planning will assist all affected state
agencies in evaluating their decisions in the light of the state
comprehensive plan. No major development will be submitted to the
Governor for approval until it hag first been reviewed by the Planning
Office .

Perhaps the best way to describe the Office of State Planning is
to say that it will be the state's chief land use planning agency. As
this commission knows full well, balanced growth and development
really comes down to how we decide to use our land in the
Commonwealth. I want the most comprehensive and practical advice on
land use that any state government has ever had. I am relying on the
Office of State Planning and its network of regional planning agencies
to give me and the Cabinet that advice.

Programs which result primarily in development of land use
recommendations (such as federally supported land use programs) will
be the direct responsibility of the Office of State Planning. In
addition, it is my intention that when comprehensive land use planning
or related population or economic developm.ent studies need to be done
for on-going state agency programs, the Office of State Planning will
prepare these comprehensive planning elements for the on-going programs

- more

161

I want to emphasize that the creation of the Office for
State Planning will not be yet another excuse for inaction. In
fact, it will be precisely the opposite. I hope that careful
planning will eliminate the kind of pitched battles between state
agencies, citizens groups and private developers which have been
so costly here in Massachusetts. I hope also that it will end
once and for all the kind of endless bottlenecks which have
confronted so many private developers in Massachusetts and which
have led some of them to become so frustrated that they have
decided not to locate anywhere in Massachusetts. The creation
of a strong Office for State Planning, overseen by a Governor who
is deeply committed to its work, will- finally provide
environmentalists and those interested in economic growth with a
framework within which they can work together toward the goals
that are so important to all of us.

I know this commission has been seriously investigating the need for new
land use regulatory legislation for Massachusetts. I would welcome suggestions
for such new legislation from the commission and would consider them carefully.
We do need to keep in mind, however, that Massachusetts already had a number
of effective pieces of land use regulatory legislation on the books. It is
my initial intention through the Office of State Planning to try to make that
legislation work. If, after that attempt, we discover some gaps in our existing
body of land use law, I would then support the passage of additional land use
legislation.

There have been some doubts expressed about this new Office of State
Planning. Isn't it simply another layer of Bureaucracy? Won't the new Office
be costly? The answer in both cases is "No". In its various agencies the
state already employs a large number of professional planners. The work of
the Office of State Planning will be a cooperative venture with all state
agencies. It will not attempt to "dictate" policy to anyone; instead, it
will cooperate with everyone for the long-range good of the entire state.

From the existing pool of planning personnel in state agencies, I will
direct that a number of individuals work on state planning as a coordinated
venture under the guidance of the Office of State Planning. Thus, each agency
will have representation in the work done by the Office of State Planning
and Massachusetts' comprehensive plan will be developed without the hiring
of additional state personnel.

- more -

162

A^sndri for MBrch "^"^ T-'^p^iiin^" of L^nd Us9 '^u'b CoTT.Tni'fc'tee

TOPIC: Lsnrt Use Planning from the st^-ndpoint
of those who use land in the product-
ion of natural resources.

MOD'^j^RATOR : John Barrus

Mass. Farm Bur^^iu Federation

Former "^tate '^enator
Reorganization Task Force on Ap-riculture and Land Resources.
Irre'"''^rsihle Land Use Decisions.
Report on finding;?" o"^ the Gov'^rnor' s Corjnission on 'f^ood.

AGRTClTlTFR^r Dr. N. "^U2:'^ne Fn^el

Drofessor of Agriculture and Resource 'Economics

■Economic significance of Massachusetts A2;riculture

Loss of Agricultural Land

Prcr^m.s in other '^tates

Renort from ''^^'tional Com.'^ittee on •'^-gri cultural Land.

ppnpcTDy. -Dr- , John H. ^''oves

Professor o'f^ ■Pn-npc-f-T'v ^- '''ildlife Manap'sment

Uni^^'ersitv o"

^ u s e 1 1 c A ph '^ r s '^

''-'conomic significance of Forest Products in Massachusetts
Multiple benefits o"*^ Productive Open Land
Furopean Practice

FA^TR M'^^T'^^TAL'": ^^eakef" to be annoince^

Fcnnom.ic si.gnif icance of sand, gravel, stone and other m-inerp?LS
Planning needs
Prevention of abuses

ojjT,'TT>.'^Aov. -.r^^^^^^ T^^ Colbv

Land Use Division

DeTjartm.ent of A. ^ri culture

Form.er Fxecj.tive D5,rector

Mass. Citizens to "^av^ Ooen '^nace

Methc^s: Grand schemes ^t^., stet) b""' s"^et) ^oriroach.

Substantive considerations in Land Use Planning.

Political Considerations.

Discussion;

163
3/13/75

March 13, 1975 Meeting

Topic ; Land Use Planning: Open Space, Agricultural and Forest Lands

SUMMARY: The meeting focused on five issues presented by the following

people and concluded with a discussion of future subcommittee

meetings .

I. John Barrus (Mass. Farm Bureau Fed.) — "crisis" conditions

in the agricultural industry

II. Dr. N. Eugene Engel (U. Mass.) — economic analysis of farm

problems in Massachusetts

III. Dr. John H. Noyes (U. Mass.) — economic significance and

benefits of open space and forestry
in Massachusetts

IV. Mr. Sinnott ( ) — economic significance of

sand and gravel in Massachusetts

V. Warren Colby (Dept . of Agriculture) — Importance of open

space land in the quality of life

VI. Discussion of future subcommittee meetings, specifically
the discussion of land use bills introduced this session.

I. BARRUS (See Statement in Appendix )

What is sometimes overlooked in discussing economic wealth is
that agricultural production is the creating of new wealth,
dependent solely upon good farmland. There are too many examples
of good farmland going out of agricultural production and into a
condition which will preclude it from ever being put to agricul-
tural use (i.e., shopping centers, housing developments, etc.).
Any planning program related to land use should make serious ef-
forts to eliminate irreversible conversion of farmland.
The Citizen Task Forces on Environmental Reorganization, in 1972,
identified the following problems of farmland:

1) Farmers are induced to sell productive
farmland by a combination of high taxes
and prices offered for their land

2) Loss of these lands reduces the value of
suburban development

3) Governmental regulations can lead to loss
of good productive land

A) Regulatory schemes for industry does not
take into account special circumstances of
agriculture, while other schemes are overly
restrictive

164

3/13/75

Thus, it becomes equally important to see that regulatory action
by government, local zoning regulations and land proposals by
governmental agencies do not result in a negative reaction to
preserving good farmland.

A report from the Governor's Commission on Food, in 1974, discussed
the problem of conversion of agricultural land to other uses.
Their proposed solution was the development of a comprehensive land
use plan for Massachusetts that incorporates the agricultural pre-
servation concept and provides tax benefits for maintaining the
land, and tax penalties for changing the land from agricultural to
urban use. To accomplish this proposal, the following steps were
suggested;

1) A cabinet level land use policy council,
created with the responsibility for de-
veloping a comprehensive land use plan
for Massachusetts within three years;

2) Conservation district boards of supervisors,
requested to place top priority on prepara-
tion of county agricultural land use capa-
bility maps to consider proposed changes in
land use, and to preserve the best agricul-
tural land in a way that protects the equity
of the land owners.

Maintaining a viable agricultural industry in this state is neces-
sary. Crisis conditions exist, making it imperative to come to
grips with the problems now.
II. ENGEL

Statistics on the number of farms in Massachusetts from 1860-1973
show a significant loss in the amount of farm acreage. In the
last five to six years, there was approximately 80,000 acres of
farm land lost. In 1973, there were 5.7 thousand farms, a little
over 700,000 acres of land in agriculture. We are losing about
200 farms per year due to difficulties in supporting profitable
farm supply industry, difficulties in finding veterinarians and
feed supply stores. Existing farms are expanding in size and

165

small farms are disappearing. (See Tables on following pages)
The total gross income of agriculture in Massachusetts is ap-
proximately $190 million. About $145 million of this is in food
production, tobacco and small amounts of wool. Processing is a
$1.6 million industry. Wholesaling is about a $3.1 million in-
dustry. Agricultural industry employs 16,600 people, excluding
family workers. Processing employs 33,000, wholesaling employs
about 16,000, food service employs 88,000, retailing food indus-
try employs about 63,000 workers. There averages approximately
3 workers per farm and there is a loss of 500 farm workers per
year .

Vermont produces 124% of what it consumes, R.I. 13.5%, N.H. 27%,
Maine 108%, Conn. 14%, and Mass. 16% (fish included).
Twelve northeastern states are actively involved in state land
use planning. All have farmland assessment legislation.
1\-]o major items are presently being developed:

1) Concept of transferrable development rights

2) Purchase and lease arrangements or outright purchase
The national land use task force of the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture explored alternative resource management methods under
five gneral categories:

1) Public oi'Tnership — outright purchase of land, trans-
ferrable development rights

2) Public regulation — zoning, subdivision regulation,
health, building and electrical codes

3) Taxation — property, farmland, inheritance

4) Techniques or methods--subsidies , tax incentives,
regulatory practices that will alter market price

5) Public investment — roads, water systems, solid waste
disposal

Discussion :

Saltonstall:

The idea of development rights is difficult to implement. How does
one decide how many rights are designated for each piece of land?

Engel: There must be a state agency to handle development rights. The

usual requirement on development rights is the density of population,

166

Table 1
Number of Farms, Land in Farms, Massachusetts

Year Number of Farms Land In Farms

(thousand) (million acres)

1860 35.6 3.3

1880 38. A 3.4 ■

1900 37.7 3.1

1920 32.0 2.5

1940 31.9 1.9

1960 13.0 1.2

1965 8.7 .9A

1966 8.1 .89

1967 7.5 .86

1968 7.0 .82

1969 6.5 .78

1970 6.3 .76

1971 6.1 .74

1972 5.9 .72

1973 5.7 .70

Source: U.S. Abstract of Agricultural Statistics and Massachusetts
Agricultural Statistics (1972 and 1973).

Prepared by N.E. Engel, Department of Food and Resource Economics,
University of Massachusetts , Amherst .

167

Table 2
Value of Farm Land and Buildings , Massachusetts*

Per Acre

Per Farm

Total Value

Bui

Iding Value

Dollars

Thousand Dollars

Million Dollars

Mill

ion Dollars

1965

393

43.8

334

139

1966

421

47.6

345

140

1967

449

51.7

355

141

1968

479

56.2

. 364

143

1969

514

61.8

376

146

1970

565

69.4

396

152

1971

623

76.7

430

164

1972

702

86.9

472

177

1973

799

99.5

522

194

* Source: Farm Real Estate Market Developments, USDA.

Prepared by N.E. Engel , Department of Food and Resource Economics,
University of Massachusetts , Amherst .

168

Table 3

The Retail Value of Food Produced as a % of the
Retail Value of Food Consumed in New England
(includes seafood)

Value of Production as a
State % of Value of Consumption

Connecticut 14.2

Maine 108,3

Massachusetts 16.1

New Hampshire 27.5

Rhode Island 13.5

Vermont 124.0

Total 27.9

Source: Census of Agriculture, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Bureau of the Census, Economic Research Service, USDA

3/13/75 165

Saltonstall:

Has the system worked in any foreign country?
Engel: Perhaps in England it has been- successful. Sweden has an easement

type arrangement.

III. NOYES (See Mass. Forest Facts in Appendix)

Forest land is a renewable resource. Approximately 60% of the
state is woodlands. About 13% is under public ownership (state
forests, MDC, etc.). 87% is under private o\>mership. Historically,
oxmers have been farmers, but this is no longer true. Present
owners do not have tc rely upon income from the land for their
livelihood. If we are going to manage the land, we will have to
manage it in thair interests.

Massachusetts has 100,000 acres in tree farms and about 3% billion
board feet in timber. Red oak and pine are considered very good
quality wood. Massachusetts harvests about 115 million board feet
annually, which just about equals the growth. Trees have multiple
uses such as watershed protection and are of recreational value.
The slides shol^m of forest use in Europe reveal that there is a
concern for the preservation of natural beauty. For example,
trees are used to frame views of open fields and forests. In
Sweden, there is a program of land amalgamation. One owner might
have a farm in one location and another piece of land in another
location. Voluntary exchange of land for farm operation is pro-
moted by the government, which, by buying appropriate pieces of
land and holding them in a land bank, can effect these desirable
exchanges .

Denmark is entirely zoned into 1) existing towns and villages,
2) potential development, 3) agricultural land, and 4) recreational
land. There can be an exchange of the land use among these zones,
but only by permission of the local planning authority. If the
land use is changed, there must also be permission from the local
planning authority.

IV. SINNOTT (See Table on following page)

The value of minerals in Massachusetts (clay, sand, gravel, etc.)
is over $70 million per year in industry. Much sand and gravel

170

M
4-1
4-1
Q)
CO
=)

o

CO
cfl

<u

C

iH

O

^

•H

03

J-i

H

O

D

■o

o

^4

CLi

iH

rt

j-i

0)

C

p.

en

ID

C

OJ

CO

3

Uj

1—1

O

CO

o

>

X

>.

en

t:

c

0)

CO

D

w

iH

a

CO

c

>

4=

c

CO

P

CO

c

00 -—I

r-. en

oc

m
en

00
CO

CNJ

ro

iJ

VD

<

CN]

v£

o

•H

00

z

c

a

4-1

i-H

CO

1— 1

C

•>

r

CO

r^

cc

D

T-H

o-

c

eg

m oc

CNI

-a-

00
CM

O

00

in

00 00

CN

CO

,,

1

1

-o

1

1

CU

1

1

en

Cfl

m

o

c

c

i-H

O

0

O

4-1

4-1

en

•H

4J

4-1

T)

V4

U

o

o

0)

-C

X.

J2

en

en

o

o
•a

U

TD

T3

O

d

C

r^

CO

CO

C

m

en

CO

a

D

CJ

o

O

r-*

J_)

4-1

4-1

>

CO

CO

4-)

q;

4-1

en
-H

CO

4-1

0)

e
c

o

0

: 1

00

1-1

c

a

J 1

c

■t 1

ID

U-4

^4

c

5 1

C

o

q;

4-

J 1

CO

r-

en

0

0 1

OJ

0)

tj

>.

4J

TD

c

D

o

CO

E

H CO

C

o

■—1

■H

^

J (U

CO

4J

CO

a

5 O,

eo

w

>

00

c
r-

CNI

00

crv

en

OC

c

•H

TD

3

t-{

O

c

•H

v^

c

O

•H

4-1

CJ

D

"O

O

>-(

P.

(U

I-H

^

to

4-1

• 0)

0) ^

--i u

^ CO

CO E

u

•H W

i-n C

P.

O- '•

CO en

QJ

4-1 iH

O CO

2 en

#t

X en

R 4-1

C

OJ

B

a.

• -H

0) J=

1-1 en

^

CO O

rH C

•H T-l

CO E

>

CO >.

^

4-1

•

O Xl

^— ^

2 OJ

en

u

^4

3

(D

<: en

CJ

Z CO

D

OJ

-3

E

o

u

en

Ch

• CO

>.

>,

V4 C

Xi

CO O

C -H

r^

•H 4-1

o

E o

•H

•H 3

4J

rH -a

a.

0) o

1

n u

Ph p^

en

c
o
o

171

3/13/75

resources in eastern Massachusetts have been depleted. There
are large quantities in western Massachusetts, but there is little
demand for it .

The mapping programs of the state (i.e., bedrock, soil, ground and
surface water maps, etc.) provide only basic data, and the infor-
mation is not always distributed to the people who might make use
of it.

Sand and gravel deposits extend out under the ocean. In the past
two years , the state has funded research on offshore gravel de-
posits from Newburyport to Scituate. Provisions have been set
up to regulate these deposits. The state, however, would need a
dredge going every day and dock space to make it economic.

Discussion

Saltonstall:

Why hasn't the coal in the Mansfield area been mined?

Sinnott: It has been mined for the past 100 years in small quantities, but
it has been done with crude machinery. Pumping problems exist.

Saltonstall:

Pertinent to this aspect of land use are the questions of where
to locate shafts and transportation and what to do with tailings.

Sinnott: As soon as the tailings are removed, they would be pulverized and
replaced under ground. There is no need to have any on the sur-
face; farms could still operate on the surface.

Ventresca: Would you favor state control of mineral extraction?

Sinnott: Yes, if it were reasonable with certain minimum conditions, — one
set of regulations that guarantee reseading of the area within
one year. Even the sand and gravel industry supports this mini-
mum regulation so they will avoid the multiplicity of town by-laws

V . COLBY

One of the less tangible resources we have is the "New England
Scene — Currier & Ives." Environmental and societal benefits of
open space land have importance in the quality of life in Massa-
chusetts— much beyond what the statistics indicate. Appeal as to
a place to live and work is an important concern. The first step

172

3/13/75

in any land use process is to protect productive land by cate-
gories. If land is unproductive for other purposes, it could be
turned over to developers.

VI. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS

Saltonstall:

At the next meeting, we will discuss bills introduced last year
and this year. I do not sense a legislative mandate for strong
legislation this year, as we do not have one from the Governor.
What steps could this group take this year to encourage more legis-
lation next year? The community goals idea is plausible if x^^e can
stimulate the communities.

Brenner: A number of proposed bills are concerned with regional zoning.

It is important to have your input as to proper criteria for such
approaches. A system of regulations that would not entail com-
pensation is an important issue. There would be regulation, but
not exercise of eminent domain.

Barrus : In reference to your ideas on zoning is something the courts have
said you cannot do.

Brenner: There are other land use policies that have been proposed which
are merely regulation and not outright takings.

Saltonstall:

They are not near enough to enactment to be of good service to us.

Brenner: Regulation like that is a possible direction on which this com-
mittee could focus. Sanctions short of outright taking of develop-
ment rights are worth our investigation.

Barrus: N.J. and Conn, policies are dealing with development rights. They
do not impose additional regulations that preclude a farmer from
making a profit.

3121/15

173

March 27, ]975 Meeting

Topic: Subconimittee Reconmendations to the Wetmore Commission on Proposed
Land Use Legislation.

Ames:

Saltonstall;

Gianturco :

Ames :

Gillette;

The choice we face is whether to go ahead with legislation or
wait another year. The land use issue is not understood by
the Commonwealth and the Legislature. Therefore, legislation
V7ill probably not be enacted this year. If one accepts the
fact that legislation dealing responsibly with land use is
not going to pass, we should draft a bill which significantly
addresses the issue of land use, and use that bill as a mechan-
ism for education for the first year. Then establish our di-
rection for the subsequent years. The substance of the bill
is not critical, as any legislation is subject to amendment.
We should draft a bill which is broad-based and addresses the
issue in one way. Something based on the lowest common de-
nominator or what is generally acceptable in a political sense
will be a mistake in the long run.

A meaningful bill deals with two elements: developments of
more than local significance, and regional planning concerns.
It would be similar to the American Law Institute approach,
adopted by Florida.

A meaningful bill includes both defining certain areas of
critical planning concern and enumerating decision-making
responsibilities.

In terms of public education, is it better to have a single
bill rather than a number of approaches?

We could use either; however, a large number of bills (more
than three) would diffuse the educational impact.

I feel we need a bill that will pass and be educative as well.
We should discuss a bill without the title of land use, but
that would require local input. Serious planning should be-
gin at the local level, and this preliminary data would go

3/11115

174

Ventresca:

Dwinnell:

Lane;

Saltonstall:
Carter :

Gray:

Fegan ;

Barrus :

into a central planning agency. I can see no difficulty
in getting this kind of legislation passed.

I agree with Gillette with the exception of one point — there
will be no end result unless some mechanism for state and re-
gional decision-making is included. I would put it all in
one bill, as it would be politically acceptable and more than
a collection of information.

I agree with Gillette. The Vineyard bill was passed because
the officials there were in agreement. A land use bill will
have to be very simple and basic in the beginning, and then
we can add to it gradually.

I am concerned about the local input. Maintaining local ini-
tiative will be difficult unless there is some incentive. My
legislation provides financial incentives.
I concur.

I also agree. However, v;e might also think of several bills
which might deal with different aspects of the land use problem.
I believe we should consider all elements in one bill.
I suggest a comprehensive rather than piecemeal approach. I
respect local and regional points of view, but we are dealing
with a state issue. We must prepare for national legislation.
Such a project could focus on education. If the state describes
its role, then we can obtain local and regional input, but the
state should establish its policy, first. There is a tremen-
dous amount of federal money coming into Massachusetts for
various land use purposes. We should utilize it.
One basic premise should be established — compensation for taking
of equity. Is there to be a state land use plan to do it? If
there is to be a program for payment of equity, one must decide
how it is to be done. If no payment is available, a very
limited land use plan should be accepted. New Jersey and
Connecticut have a tax on real estate transfers. A solid, know-
ledgeable plan cannot exist until information is gathered. The
Governor's proposal for planning in A and F could gather this
information.

2/11115 175

Ventresca: Information gathering is unnecessary for legislation. The
process is our concern.

Lee: The coastal zone process is underway. V7e have a technical

staff and a three-year program to analyse information and
develop recommendations. Why couldn't something like that
be done state-wide?

Gray: I worked with constituent groups on the zoning enabling act.
We need maps, as Connecticut has used, in dealing with open
lands, water supplies, etc. Communities should say where
their prime interests are, and this information should be
sent to state and regional agencies.

Susskind: The way we define the problem is what people relate to. What
is the land use problem? We could have one bill that gives
us a handle, but we need to be clear that we are talking about
a bill that does several different things. There are five
different problems:

1. Helping communities deal with problems of managing growth.

2. Unique environmental resources that are of state-wide
concern.

3. Developments of more than local concern — power facilities,
large-scale developments.

4. Series of state-level activities that have impact on land-use:
i.e., job subsidies, housing subsidies, transportation, etc.

5. The Governor's interest in an economic and physical develop-
ment plan for the state. Developing a process for formulating
it from the bottom up.

I tend to feel that we will never get five bills. We need one
thing that moves in the right direction. There are three ways
to accomplish this:

1. Write a bill that says we shall have a plan. I do not
think it will work (although Hawaii did it).

2. Think of a mechanism for controlling growth and solving
problems. Mandating mechanisms does not put them to work on
problems.

3. Design some process that moves from the bottom up. This
enables comm.unities to get to work and enables them to concen-

ziniib

176

trate on the land use problems that they feel are most impor-
tant. Localities must face up to the fact that there are some
problems which are regional. Unless each level has a chance
to surface its problems, then we have not done our job. There
should be a growth management bill for the Commonwealth that
goes from the bottom up. We must get each level working toward
a coordinated approach.

DiLuzio: I concur with the need for one comprehensive bill. I agree with
working from the bottom up, in theory, but this may be an end-
less process. Sometimes, it is necessary to work from the top
down.

Albright: Representative Ames, do you think that your bill is inconsistent
with the Governor's approach? ^-Jhat is his attitude toward your
bill?

Ames: My bill takes a different approach from the Governor's outline
to us. I think the Governor is talking about mapping. My bill
is a process instead of mapping. I think the Governor is com-
mitted to a responsible approach to land use, and that he would
go along with a process approach if the legislature adopted it.
Even a mapping approach requires legislation.

McClintock: The role of mapping and data is the end of the process. If you
leave everything to local communities, nothing significant will
happen. We can get a process at the same time — Martha's Vineyard
is an example. This same general approach can be used else-
where. People, in referendum, would probably vote for it.

Gianturco: We need to sort out what we are trying to do. Do we want to

do groundwork and have no bill presented? Do we want one bill,
or several? Do we want strong or weak bills? I asked Constan-
tinides to report briefly what he had done in the land use
project funded by HUD.

Constantinides ;

We used the centralized and decentralized approaches, simultan-
eously. The state should formulate guidelines for regional
planning programs. Regions should have the responsibility to
develop regional plans. Localities should have power to develop

3/21115

177

plans for open space according to the guidelines of the
state; localities should not develop plans of their own,
without adhering to state guidelines. We have proposed
legislation for a land management system. It establishes
a land use board at the state level within A&F. It works
closely with the Office of State Planning. It reviews re-
gional and local plans, and it establishes standards and
criteria for designation and regulation of specific areas
of development. Developments of regional significance are
retained by regional planning agencies, who are given an op-
tion to establish themselves as regional land use commissions
within a 5-year period. Regional land use commissions develop
regional plans which are certified by the state. These com-
missions have the power to designate areas of critical con-
cern. This establishes guidelines for localities to develop
open space plans, using a horizontal system (vertical system
would involve legislation) . The regions can decide in five
years. After five years, the state will establish such a
commission if the region has not acted.

Saltonstall: Does this approach take into account the need to streamline
the permit- granting process? I am convinced that, from the
point of view of the state's economy, a "one stop permit"
mechanism may be important in certain instances. We should
listen to local constituents, in order to avoid a fear of plan-
ning without knowing what it would accomplish. We must also
engage in a public education process.

Carter: Should we file an interim report?

Saltonstall: We should try to generate community interest by asking them to
participate. We need a bill asking communities to state their
growth management goals, problems and priorities, and their
definitions of areas of critical planning concern, and develop-
ments of regional impact.

Gianturco: If a weak bill is passed now, then stronger legislation v/ill
be difficult to get passed in the future.

3121115

178

Susskind: I am also interested in a strong bill, but the way to get to
that bill is to mandate and provide resources for local and
regional input. Given this input, and an evaluation by the
Office of State Planning, we could then require that a tempor-
ary commission, made up of legislators and cabinet-level ex-
ecutive officers, draft a bill that would take account of both
state concerns and local and regional priorities.

Carter: If a weak bill is passed initially, which is what Vermont did,
it signals the opposition to prepare for a stronger bill pre-
sented in the future. The opposition would be organized
against it, and defeat it, which eventually happened in Vermont.
Therefore, I suggest that we have one significant bill. It
is important to have our goals set. What is the most impor-
tant issue we have not yet addressed? The regional question —
impact on more than one municipality. We should set up re-
gional chartering in which municipalities would be able to
get together. Look at the RPA situation.

Lane: The Commission should produce one proposal and submit an in-
terim report saying that we will submit this bill to local
agencies.

Ames: That is a sound idea. If the committee should produce a bill
and send it to the RPA, requesting a specific comment, that
would initiate the educational process.

DiLuzio: We want input from localities, but we also want to expand
their thinking from a parochial view to a regional view.

Ventresca: The Lane approach (that of producing one proposal and submit-
ting an interim report to be given to local agencies) will
work only if it is a bill stating that each region is to es-
tablish a process. On maps, they do not address a growth
policy, except in the basic sense of what resources we have.
We don't need an inventory or maps in order to determine what
decision-making process should be established. The bottom
up approach could be done most effectively by the mandate
just described.

3121115

179

Constantinides :

Our bill has some characteristics, of which Ventresca speaks.
A heavy emphasis on regions is an effective focal point. I
believe that if we return to the earlier stage of that bill,
we could find a way of achieving consensus, and use this as
what we send out to obtain local input.

Carter: Susskind, Ventresca, and Constantinides should meet together
to discuss a compromise bill.

Gray: We should involve the business and industrial community in
a positive manner.

Saltonstall: Will there be financing for land use planning, eventually?

Carter: The Office of State Planning could finance the writing of
the report.

Gray: Could we file a report and a bill?

Saltonstall: I suggest a very small group, including the business community,
Ames, Gianturco, Susskind, and Carter V7rite a report and sug-
gest either one bill or a range of bills. Report to us on
April 24th meeting. I also suggest that we ask the Farm Bureau
if they could give us a more precise memo on transferrable
rights.

4/10/75 ^^°

April 10, 1975 Meeting

Topic: Re-use and Revitalization of Central .zy Land
Summary: The meeting opened with statements c- the following topics:
I. Overview: George Morrison, Executive Director
Roxbury Action Program, Inc.
II. Transportation: Elbert Bishop, Executive Director,

Southwest Corridor Land Development Coalition, Inc.
III. Economic Development of Mini Industrial Park:

Marvin Gilmore , Executive Director, CDC, Inc.
IV. Housing: Chester Gibbs , President, Chester Gibbs Associates,
Inc. Urban Affairs Consultant.
V. Land Banking and Land Trust: Beldon Daniels, Professor,
Harvard School of City and Regional Planning.
VI. Structure and Summary/: Chuck Turner, Executive Director,
Circle, Inc.
The statements are briefly outlined below;
I. OVERVIEW— GEORGE MORRISON

This session will attempt to outline our thought process on the necessary
elements in an urban Land Use Policy and how these elements relate to overall
state policy. From the Governor's statement it does not appear that land use
legislation will be considered during this session of the legislature. Every-
thing that we have done to date and may do in the future is a waste of time un-
less legislation occurs .

This subcommittee has demonstrated that one issue that is paramount is
that of self-interest. It is necessary to try to merge all self-interest groups
behind a single policy. The policy must contain something for everyone. This
may be possible as long as people get to know each other. That way, trade-offs
and compromises can be made .

Urban land use is obviously a strong self-interest for everyone not just
urban dwellers . The basic economic and cultural institutions of the state are
located in urban centers. For this reason, urban land use is an important ele-
ment in any state land use policy.
II. TRANSPORTATION— ELBERT BISHOP

The literature on the impact of transportation on land use in urban areas
is inadequate. This discussion will focus on the Southwest Corridor, particularly

181
4/10/75

the cleared land area of about 160 acres in Boston. In February of 1970, a
moratorium on highway construction was issued which called for the halt of
several major highway facilities within Route 128, including the Inner Belt
and the Southwest Expressway, In 1972, this moratorium was made permanent
and the lands initially cleared for highway expansion are available for develop-
ment and relocation of the Orange Line. Two other transit lines are proposed-
Roxbury Service, which would serve the population in Roxbury and Mattapan, and
a cross-town transit from Cambridge to Boston University, Fenway, crossing the
Orange Line to the vicinity of Boston City Hospital and U. Mass.

Development of stations on these new routes constitutes one of the major
opportunities of the cleared land in the Southwest Corridor. In addition to
increasing the job market for the Corridor communities, station development
is expected to join together communities which have been separated by the rail-
road embankment. However, development of land around the stations is also
problematic. There is intense speculation on land around the proposed stations.
In addition, many of the parcels of land are in fragmented o^'mership . Both of
these conditions call for careful public control. There are several policy
options for dealing with these problems. Most recently, attention has been
focused on Corridor development corporations with the powers of advance acquisi-
tion, eminent domain and excess condemnation to allow such corporations to con-
trol land uses to benefit the neighborhood public interests.

Recent legislation drafted by the Skidmore Co. for the U.S. Conference of
Mayors outlines additional land use controls necessary in areas near transit
stations. It also provides incentives for developers to work with transit
authorities. It is unlikely that any of these policies will have an effect on
systems already in the works; but it is obvious that new state legislation is
needed to give some form of policy control over development.

At present , the MBTA is inadequate for handling development questions .
They have little capability for land use analysis. However, there is no senti-
ment at the state level to coordinate policy formulation. The planning function
itself is fragmented among a number of state agencies. Perhaps the Southwest
Corridor could be used as a model for developing institutional mechanisms that
would provide a framework for controlling the development process. There is a
necessity to involve the people of a neighborhood in planning for future de-
velopment and the impact that the development will have on their community.

4/10/75

182

III. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF A MINI -INDUSTRIAL PARK— MARVIN GILMORE

The Community Development Corporation of Boston (CDC) is concerned with
the long-term economic impact of physical development and job creation in specific
neighborhoods of the central city. There is presently a lack of room for indus-
trial expansion in the central city.

The decline of the tax base in urban areas is also common knowledge.
CDC's emphasis is on reversing the trend of suburban industrial parks. In some
cases, by renovating the existing vacant physical plant and de-emphasizing the
piecemeal development approach in favor of formulating and supporting more long-
range goals .

The Governor recognizes the need for such activity, particularly the need
for the development of urban industrial parks. The firmest proposed allocation
of land in the corridor, aside from the land set aside for transportation uses,
is the earmarking of a 29.1 acre site in the Roxbury section for the development
of an industrial park. CDC will develop this park in conjunction with the Boston
Economic Development and Industrial Commission. CDC has a 105,000 dollar grant
to conduct a feasibility study of the area. There is presently a push at both
the city and state level to get this project undenv'ay. CDC is now looking at
potential financing for land acquisition and construction costs (i.e.. General
Obligation and Revenue Bonds) .

CDC perceives its role as intervening in the free play of the market so
that the site is developed for a productive use which is also consistent with
the fulfillment of community needs.

IV. HOUSING— CHET GIBBS

I am most concerned with housing opportunities for Black and other minority
families. We don't need a land use policy to deal with some of the concerns.
But a state land use policy might be helpful in dealing with others. State policy
should consider two avenues of approach:

1. Redevelopment of the core city where Black and minority
families live .

2. Opening up opportunities for integrated housing in the
suburbs .

Recommendations :

1. Continue but increase the amount of inner city housing for
Blacks and other minorities.

183

4/10/75

2. DCA should provide support to \:ommunity development corporations

so they can take on the major responsibility for urban redevelopment.
DCA and MHFA should allocate funds. At present, most of the financ-
ing of these agencies has been given to white housing. Low-income
housing in the suburbs should have transportation readily available.
Business relocating to the suburbs should provide job opportunities
for Blacks wishing to relocate. New jobs and transportation develop-
ment in the central city should be combined with increased housing
- opportunity-. Suburbs should be required to match the housing they
build for the elderly with housing for other low-income groups.
If we wait two years for this study commission to complete its work, DCA
will have clearly adopted their own policies which might take the wrong direction.
V. LAND BANKING AND LAND TRUSTS— BELDON DANIELS

It is difficult to undertake any community-based development without having
the equity that exists in large corporations. S. 1604 ^^7as just unanimously re-
ported out of the Commerce Committee, This bill attempts to deal \<ri.th this
problem by creating a Massachusetts Community Development Finance Corporation.
This is the first development bank to be established in the U.S. specifically
for the benefit of community development . Such a development bank could pro-
vide equity financing for housing in Springfield, for an industrial park in
Boston, or for housing in the Southwest Corridor.

S. 160A creates a $10 million community development finance corporation
empowered by the state to provide equity to community-based developments . This
is only important if we have a vehicle, like community development corporations,
to undertake large-scale developments in the central city.

We should begin to develop in Massachusetts a range of economic development
financing instruments which can deal with full range of overall economic develop-
ment in the state from development of land to development of ventures. We need
an overall integrating effort. MHFA is an important instrument in terms of
construction loan financing for community housing development . This does not
deal with the problem of providing seed money. It does not help in acquisition
of land at reasonable cost or mortgage guarantees for the encouragement of in-
dustrial plants.

In response to S.1604, originally the Governor said that $10 million
obligation bond issue charges would have to be paid by the community develt)p-

4/10/75

184

ment finance corporation. We pointed out to the Governor that if this were
done, the instrument would simply become one more debt-financing instrument
Incapable of providing seed money. This would defeat the whole purpose of the
bill. Furthermore, it was not what the state should be working for. The state
should be working for specific, measurable increased income taxes, corporate
income taxes, and Secretary Smith's own figure — for every new job created, there
is $3,000 saving to the Commonwealth. Therefore, we will gain by devising mechan-
isms which create new jobs .

There is a very fine piece of property on the East Boston waterfront. A
500-unit , $17 million project could be built which would be of enormous social
and economic benefit. It could be financed by MHFA — mixed housing, commercial
and recreational development. This has been hung up because the City of Boston
has been unwilling to make the investment to restore the seawall and piers.
Now the city has received $43,000 per year on taxes on this property. Afterri/ard,
it will receive $254,000 per year. The city will be able to liquidate its invest-
ment in 7^ years .

When the state was considering the construction of the highway system,
Jamaica Plain, Roxbury, and the South End could be torn down to build highways
at a cost of $27 million. But the state is not yet prepared to spend the same
amount to integrate these communities to make them socially, physically, and
culturally whole. Now the state is prepared to pass the benefit of reduced land
costs on to the communities. We should have a state-wide policy which says we
are prepared to undertake those same costs in order to benefit the community from
the beginning .

Summary of Mechanisms Other States Have Considered:

1. Western states, particularly Oregon and California, have used a people's
utility district (i.e., community development corporations specifically for pur-
poses of land and resource development) . Oregon has districts which are independent
of school districts and municipalities. They can be created within a municipality
or county. They can be larger or smaller than the basic government district in
the area. Constitutionally, municipalities are wholly creatures of the state.
The state has the power to create new districts. These districts have the power
to tax. They have the power to issue general obligation bonds and are not de-
pendent on a municipality. Such districts are usually designed for purposes of
water development, recreation development, and electric development. Ownership
is local, and profits are returned locally, benefits are local. This same mechanism

4/10/75 185

could be used for land to build an industrial park in Roxbury. These districts
not only have the power to tax, but also have power to issue revenue bonds. They
separate non-self-liquidating cost from self-liquidating cost.

The overall land planning mechanism in the state should complement housing
financing agencies and industrial development financing agencies. We do not have an
overall vehicle at athe far end of the rainbow which is capable of financing
a Boston industrial park and the East Boston watarfront project.
VI . STRUCTURE— SUMMARY— CHARLES TURNER

I hope concern for the Bicentennial focuses light on some of the princi-
ples the country was founded on. Governments were there to aid people in their
pursuit of Individual growth. Aid in people's attempt to govern themselves.
The government that was most important was the government of the individual and
family and neighborhood. These principles disappeared from legislation around
the 1900 's. We need to return to them. In urban areas until the 1900 's there
was a sense that cities were collections of people trying to have a certain
kind of life for themselves. Various ethnic groups interacting in many ways ^
but also attempting to maintain and develop their own x<7ay of life. The political
structure reflected this kind of thinking. In the 1900's, an organized minority
was able to change political structure in the name of good government , but in
reality in pursuit of their oiv/n vested interests. If our political structures
do not re-emphasize the rights of individuals and neighborhoods, we will have
no ability to solve the problems that confront us. Decisions made in abstract
planning do not have any validity for human beings. The state legislature really
needs to look at structures similar to people's utility districts. Mechanisms
that would allow people to protect the base of land. Neighborhoods should have
the right to decide how land is to be used.
VH. DISCUSSION

Lee: The City of Boston investment sounds like a good deal.

Daniels: • At the time this proposal came up, it was at the time when

urban renewal program was frozen and subsequently eliminated.
We lost federal funds for development. Programs have shifted
from concentrated programs like Model Cities to a community
development revenue-sharing program. Now dividing $30,000,000
on a city-wide basis instead of $90,000,000 in a few focused
areas. Given the present condition of the money-market, it is

4/10/75

186

Carter:

Gllmore:
McCllntock:

Daniels :

Brenner ;

Turner:

Bishop:
Morrison :

extremely hard for any older city to float general obligation
bonds . We should take a developmental approach to these prob-
lems . The major impetus is coming from the states now.
After the land package is assembled in urban areas, what
strategies are used to attract industry?

We hope to have the land at zero cost which makes it competitive.
The problems you have discussed are more complex than problems
in a rural setting. Is traditional land use regulation that has
been before this committee of any relevance to these problems?
Absolutely. The only way we can deal today with East Boston
waterfront or the Southwest Corridor or Chelsea is by a totally
integrated approach. Taxes and financing must be integrated with
other developmental controls. Two or three basic ways of raising
capital besides general obligation bonds. One of the classic
ways is the severance tax — Kentucky coal coming out of the ground.
Second major source, which Vermont is now using, is unearned
increment tax — dependent on amount of profit gain and the length
of time the land is held for. It places a high tax on land
speculation. Maine — reclaiming by state of over 400,000 acres
of commonly held public land which during the late 19th and
early 20th centuries went out of control of the Commonwealth.
That land is now being returned to the state. It is very
valuable land. Value that comes from resale of land under
planned use control then goes to community development corpora-
tions which can then participate as developers of that land.
If you wrote a bill setting out standards for areas of regional
concern, would you vzant the state to do that or would you want
a certain amount of participation from localities? This is one
of the issues the subcommittee is xmcertain about.
It doesn't make sense for bodies removed from local situations
to make decisions .

Need structures that keep decision -making decentralized.
The people's utility district concept ought to be in legislation.
But there is also a need for comprehensive state policy planning
mechanisms .

4/10/75

187

Saltonstall;
Albright :

Bishop ;

Turner :

Ventresca ;

Turner :

Gray:

Turner:

Saltonstall:

Morrison :

No money is made available to local communities to do planning.
There is such a bill in Urban Affairs.

I have a question for Mr. Bishop on incentives available to
developers. Are any of these now available?
Some are available but hard to get . We need a coordinating
mechanism. Development corporations are a way of getting around
monolithic organizations. They give more control to a local
community. Federal and state regulations should be written so
that a community corporation could initiate a corridor develop-
ment corporation.

We need legislation that would allow communities of a certain
size and character to set up institutions that can give them
power over what happens on a certain piece of land. The mechan-
ism needs a financial base. If all we can get is local veto
power, then we should start there.

How would this fit into regional approach to growth and develop-
ment?

We are talking about a series of regional trade-offs but the
existing regional agencies do not represent their constituents.
Many of them do represent their communities. But I would agree
in a few cases representatives do represent a narrow point of
view. RPA structure could be more representative.
The question is, how can we persuade legislators across the
state that we need to decentralize power?

You are focusing on the debate we had two weeks ago tr>'ing to
define a bill. Some people want to concentrate power because
they feel something has to be done and other people want com-
munities to act first .

There are ways for certain interest groups to do pretty much
what they want. These groups usually have money. Neighborhoods
normally do not have that, and so legislation is needed to
include neighborhoods .

'''"/" 188

April 24, 1975 Meeting

Topic: Analysis of the revised draft of the proposed bill relating to Local and
Regional Participation in the Formulation of a Growth Management and Land
Use Policy for the Commonwealth

Summary: The meeting consisted of two parts:

I. Frank Keefe, recently appointed director of the Office of State
Planning, discussed his perceptions of the function of the Office
of State Planning (OSP) .
II. The Subcommittee conducted a paragraph by paragraph discussion

of the most recent summary of the Local and Regional Participation
Land Use Bill.

I. Statement by Frank Keefe

Keefe: The Governor has charged OSP with the responsibility of organizing

and coordinating existing state policies and objectives to reconcile
the various desires and demands of the Commonwealth. At present,
this is being done by a number of different agencies, but there is
a need to centralize these efforts. The OSP also has a clear role
to put together local objectives which may be filtered through the
regional planning agencies and put these objectives into some kind
■ of a workable planning package. My overall bias is that we should
concentrate on policies which would reinforce old urban centers;
such as the Lowell Urban Park concept which has renewed interest
in development in Lowell.

: What kind of legislative authority does the Office of State Planning

have?

Keefe: There was an Office of State Planning and Management in A & F .

Governor decided, instead of going through legislature, he would
escalate this office to a more prominent position. It is under
Secretary Buckley, but I am answerable to Governor. I essentially
have cabinet rank without a vote.

McCarthy: My concern chiefly that there be enacted no land use regulations

that will in any way impede industrial or economic growth. I believe
I can speak for labor groups in this regard.

Keefe: My view of land use planning and regulatory procedures is that,

rather than impeding economic development, you would basically ac-
celerate it. We should designate areas which are appropriate from
a number of points of view. This would avoid costly battles at local.

189

regional and state level. Such a land use program would go a long
way toward making Massachusetts an area where industry can receive
good services. The Governor wants to develop guidelines for growth
and development in the state. Given the existing laws, a lot of
growth is misdirected.
Saltonstall: The Governor, in his statement to us ^ said that he wants to take all

planning laws and coordinate them through one office. The Subcommittee
has been working on drafting a bill that would stimulate local and
regional participation in the formulation of state land use and
growth management policy. I do not feel that this proposal bill would
interfere with the Governor's objectives. I hope it might prove to
be a useful tool in meeting those objectives. I realize that the
Governor does not want to wait for legislation and this bill should
not slow down any efforts that are underway. This Subcommittee will
be glad to help your office in any way possible.
Keefe: Thank you. I will be interested in reviewing your approach and com-

mit myself to working with you.

(At this point, Mr. Keefe had to leave to go to another meeting)
II. Discussion of the Local and Regional Participation Bill
Saltonstall: The drafting committee met last week in an attempt to combine

Representative Ames' legislative approach with the approach which
Don Connors suggested early in the subcommittee's deliberations.
Since then, Representative Wetmore, Senator McKinnon , and Represen-
tative Demers , have met to organize a steering committee of the
Wetmore commission. The steering committee will meet next Tuesday
to discuss the legislative approach which is summarized in the handout
that you have before you. We would like to have your comments and
revisions on this summary.
(The Subcommittee was working from the Summary of the Bill relating to Local and
Regional Participation in the Formulation of a Grov7th Management and Land Use Policy
for the Commonwealth

Gray: VJe might strike "land use" from the title of the bill,

Saltonstall: In some respects, that appeals to me. At the moment, the proposal
is not entirely a land use proposal. It relates to all kinds of
growth. The first paragraph is introductory, so let's move to the
second paragraph which tries to describe what a growth management
committee would do.

hllhllS

190

Gray:

Saltonstall:

Vent res ca:

Gray:
Saltonstall:

O'Leary:

Gray:

Ventresca:
Saltonstall:

Ventresca:
Saltonstall:

Brenner:

Ventresca:
Saltonstall:

Ventresca:

Carter:
Brenner:

Who would be on such a committee? How would they be chosen?

We could leave it open to the community. Or we could list them

as members of selectmen, planning board, industrial development and

conservation commissions, etc. It should probably be some combination

of elected officials and citizen representatives.

It will have to guarantee minority representation. A representative

mix of community. Perhaps some members would be appointed by local

elected officials and some appointed by RPA.

These committees could be appointed by moderator rather than selectmen,

Some towns have strong moderators who make a number of appointments.

Others have weak ones, so that may create problems.

The composition could be one-third public officials, one-third

business, one-third minority.

The statement of growth management problems and priorities should

be reviewed in a public hearing.

This approach does not require a municipality to submit a statement.

We have gone on the basis that a municipality which failed to produce

a statement would be risking its approvals on projects requiring A-95

or state review. This incentive got them into RPA's.

The word "required" should be an alternative to simply requesting

the statements.

That is really a question of what the legislature is willing to

vote for. McClintock says if it is not reasonably strong, it is

not worth voting for. But we must try it on the legislators.

If the incentives are the same and the statements are "required",

what is the legal remedy if 'the iLo\-ras do not submit the statements?

Could there be a writ of mandamus if the town took no action?

Action could be taken legally and legislatively.

If we are looking for push, the question of having the state or

RPA do planning for them would get communities started.

Maybe the regional planning agency could go ahead with regional plan

without the locality's statement or maybe we should tie compliance

to the cherry sheet.

Where do the small grants for producing these statements come from?

There is a certain amount of 701 money that might be available to

carry out the process .

hllkll'i

191

Saltonstall:
Gray :

Carter:
Gluck:

Saltonstall:
Gluck :

Saltonstall;

Carter:

Saltonstall:

Ventresca:

Webb;

Saltonstall:

We hope to have local matching funds such as in Duxbury and Rockport.
If several small towns want to get together, they could pool consul-
tant services .

In that case, we might as well have regional planning agency do it.
Any money that may come from federal land use legislation, when
passed, should be included.
That is part of the thought in mind.
We should spell it out explicitly.

Should the Statement of Growth Management Problems and Priorities be
approved by the town meeting?

The system of approval in a town was discussed as being the town
meeting and the city council in a city, following as many open meet-.
ings as seemed to be called for. Should substantial minority re-
ports also be accepted? I think they should be. The minority in
one to'vm could be the majority in the next town. One of the things
I want to discuss is described in the next two or three sentences —
("areas of critical concern .. .Martha's Vineyard bill, etc.") I
wonder whether listing categories that should be covered should say
"may include without limitation such things as transportation, schools,
water supply, utilities, population growth and mix, places of employ-
ment." Tovms should be asked to designate where their people are
going to work. The question of future tax growth should be addressed.
Should a list like that say "shall include" instead of "may include"?
The longer the list grows, the larger the grants will have to be.
How binding are these statements going to be?

What if the town says, "We don't want low-income housing?" How
binding is that?

Ch.774 and the Department of Communities have been working on that.
Obviously, the local Statement could not conflict with existing state
policy or the state policy would pre-empt the local Statement.
The town can make statements on some categories, but the state really
has control in areas where clearly defined policy exists.
Some central state department could make available a list of guide-
lines for the preparation of the statements.

We should include a phrase that the Office of State Planning, and
all secretariats shall render all assistance within their means to
the towns for carrying out the intent of this Act.

4/24/75

192

0 'Leary:

Saltonstall:

Perry:

Gray;

Saltonstall:

Ventresca:

Saltonstall:

Gray:

Saltonstall:

Carter:

Ventresca:

Saltonstall:

Ventresca:

Saltonstall:

Gluck:

We need input somewhere between the RPA's and local communities.
Local districts such as solid waste districts and other special dis-
tricts should have some input.

Any other agency or multi -community agency, if it wishes, could
submit such a report (regional school or water district, MDC, etc.).
In the initial draft, we suggested that the statements be submitted
to any multi-community agency or special district to which the com-
munity belonged.

The statement should also include not only the number of variances
which were granted in the past, but also those which failed.
Each town should be asked to consider the important things occurring
in surrounding towns .

One suggestion made was that the state develop a standard question-
naire to ask towns . They would not necessarily have to follow this
questionnaire, but it would be helpful if they did.
If a definite laimdry list is not considered, it will be difficult
to correlate the results. Some standard form is needed.
Let's move to the next paragraph starting, "Municipality is free...".
This is partly a stick and partly a carrot.

One of the requirements of A-95 review is tnat the project be con-
sistent with regional goals. The RPA could say the community had
not complied with regional goals by not submitting the statement.
Does the federal government have standards for turning things down
under A-95?

One of the things reviewed is consistency in state standards and
criteria.

This is the only stick in the bill. What about tying compliance to
the cherry sheet and state reimbursements?
This is the idea of 701 and small grants.
Could it also be tied to Chapter 90 or school aid?

I would hesitate to do it with school aid. Maybe we could say capital
outlay would not be forthcoming. We should probably simply include
as many sanctions for non-compliance as are politically feasible.
However, if the state decides to turn down a project, it should have
a public hearing in the town to explain.

Some towns have already done a great deal of work towards developing
community goals, master plans, etc. Other towns have not even begun.

kllkllb

193

Periry:

Webb;

Perry:

Saltonstall:

Gray:

Saltonstall:

Gray:
Saltonstall;

Carter:

Brenner:

Saltonstall:

Brenner:

What if a town went through the process of preparing a statement,
only to find that it conflicts with what the state feels should be
done? Should the state suggest criteria for what it plans to do and
allow the towns to respond to it?

In the second paragraph, where it states, "Localities will be asked
to react to specific intergovernmental models for land management,"
it means that the state would prepare several models which it might
consider enacting, and ask the localities to respond to them. In
this way, the localities could get an idea of what the state is con-
sidering and would have an opportunity to react to and suggest re-
visions in those models.

Towns may not be aware of what other surrounding communities are
doing. The RPA should coordinate the plans to keep all of the toxims
informed of what is going on in the region.

The bill provides for the statements to be submitted to all abutting
communities .

The RPA should hold public hearings en the composite regional report.
There might also be sub regional hearings.

The major problem that may result from this bill is that of reconciling
differences between communities. In the coastal zone bill, the regions
are instructed to make their best efforts to resolve differences, but
after that they for^^/ard what they have to the state. Perhaps we should
follow the same procedure in this bill. Another problem that arises
is, should the regions respond to different criteria than the locali-
ties in the formulation of the Regional Reports?
No.

Should any administrative authority other than planning be managed
through regions? Should we include in this bill any overhauling of
RPA's?

That is another political issue. We probably don't want to deal with
it at this point in time.

If we have sub regional hearings, what will this do to the time sche-
dule?

We would prefer to keep a short time span. But I think 18 months is
far too short.
2-^-3 years is more realistic.

194

Saltonstall: At least that. Conceivably more.

Gray: If the Act becomes effective on January 1, the towns will need

15-17 months for approval of town meetings. We could work with
24 months as an initial time period. Since we don't know when the
law will become effective, we must be flexible with dates.

Saltonstall: Yes, but we should keep the pressure on. The critical question is
when we should bring all of the reports back to the legislature.
This effectively combines Connor's scheme with the Hatch-Ames scheme,

Albright: Chances of passage of legislation would be increased with the back-

ing of the Governor. Bring Keefe into the process of drafting.

Saltonstall: Yes, When the steering committee is formed, I hope Keefe will be
included.

195
6/19/75

June 19, 1975 Meeting

Topic: Presentation of the Findings of the SENE Study and Announcetnent of OSP's
and the Governor's Reaction to the Proposed Legislation.

Frank Keefe: The Governor has decided to endorse a joint legislative-adminis-
trative approach for the formulation of a state growth and develop-
ment policy. This will be a coordinated effort between the adminis-
trative process of the Office of State Planning and the legislative
process proposed by the Wetmore Commission. Our office and the
Governor have suggested several amendments to the legislation. The
Commission will have the support of the Governor in promoting the
legislation.

Briefly, the recommended amendments are as follows: (1) Abridging
the time schedule presented in the legislation — three months for
local statements, one month for regional review, three months at
the state level; (2) We would like to replace the requirement that
the process results in legislation, with the requirement that the
process ends with a final report to the legislature. This allows
more options. The report could be legislation; (3) Remove the men-
tion of small grants to the localities for the development of state-
ments. The state does not have the money; (4) Authorize free tech-
nical assistance from the RPA's; (5) Remove the sanctions for non-
compliance. It would not be mandatory for a town to prepare a state-
ment. This is an opportunity for the localities to participate in
a substantial way in the development of state policy. We do not
want to force them to participate.

Saltonstall: When you say 'not mandatory', do you expect to use every moral per-
suasion to get the to'■.^7ns to participate?

Keefe: OSP will work with the RPA's and the Department of Communities and

Development to provide technical assistance for the formulation of
the local statements. OSP would also like to work with the Com-
mission to develop a questionnaire that will generate local interest
and be easy to respond to.
The other amendments that we have suggested are: (6) Include a pre-

6/19/75

196

Fegan:

Keefe :

Susskind:

Keefe :
Gray:
Kee f e :

Saltonstall:

Ventres ca:

amble with the bill that will define the problems and costs
which result from implanned and uncoordinated growth patterns;
(7) Instead of requiring that the local statements be endorsed
by town meeting, we suggest that the local growth policy com-
missions develop the statement and have the selectmen endorse
it. There would still be hearings on the statements as outlined
originally.

Massachusetts has 351 municipalities. Cities and larger communi-
ties have planning staffs to carry out this type of process . Who
speaks for the communities that do not have the leadership to
carry this out?

I recognize the problem. The RPA's can generate interest and
Secretary Flynn is developing technical assistance for localities.
Is there a possibility of having a statement from your office to
the RPA's encouraging them to use 701 money to assist communities
in the development of these statements?
Yes.

What is the reason for the short time periods?

OSP is presently talking about developing a first cut at a growth
and development policy for the cabinet. If the Wetmore Commission
and OSP can parallel their work, we will have simultaneous legis-
lative and executive action on these policies . We are trying to
coordinate the work of OSP and the Wetmore Commission.
I realize this is moving very quickly. If we collapse the time
schedule into six months or a year we may be allright. If the
legislation passes in September, it would be ideal. If it does
not pass until December, we may have difficulty coordinating our
efforts.

I am not so concerned about accelerating the schedule. If towns
do not send in their reports, the time may have to be extended.
Towns that are late will only be hurting their o^'/n opportunity to
participate. We should try to encourage people to be fast. I am
concerned, however, that without sanctions or state aid, no one
will do anything.

Without sanctions will the whole process bog down because the
communities have no real desire? I am also concerned with the

6/19/75 ^^'^

overlap of this approach with the Coastal Zone Task Force. We
are presently attempting to develop a coastal zone regulatory
process. What happens if the" coastal zone group moves in one
direction and this process moves in another?

Keefe: We have anticipated this problem. Any coastal zone proposals

fall within the coordination of OSP, Since the major responsi-
bility is in our office ^ there is a real requirement that what-
ever proposals come from coastal zone will have to adhere to
state-wide policy.

On sanctions, 1 do not think they will work. I don't think the
proposed sanctions vjould be recognized by federal agencies . I
feel cities will participate very quickly. It is the small to^-ms
that are going to be difficult. They will not be reached through
sanctions. They might be reached through an educational program.
We should have a meeting with the RPA's to discuss this legisla-
tion and their key role in it. The RPA's might be given the re-
sponsibility for reaching the small municipalities, with as much
cooperation at the state level as we can provide.

Saltonstall: I think we should have that meeting. I will schedule it for one
week from today. My reaction is to agree with the Governor. Th.e
legislature seems to be heading for a dead period during July. If
we wait for August to complete our discussions, we may not get the
bill considered until September or October. Then nothing might
happen for another year. Let's meet next week to consider these
suggestions in more detail and discuss the legislation with the
RPA's. At that meeting, perhaps we can reach a consensus about
what to send the commission and the legislature.

Mr. Robert Kasvinsky then presented the SENE study.
Summaries of the Southeastern New Englan Study may be obtained by
writing The New England River Basins Commission, 408 Atlantic
Ave., Boston, MA 02210

198

June 25, 1975 Meeting

Topic: Consideration of OSP and Governor's proposed changes to the
legislation and discussion of RPA role in implementing the
proposed process.

Saltonstall: The meeting today is to solicit the reactions of the RPA

directors, who we have with us, to the OSP revised draft of
our legislation. I also hope that the subcommittee can
reach a consensus on its recommendations to the Wetmore
Commisssion. The Commission will be meeting one week from
today to consider the final draft of the legislation that this
subcommittee decides upon. The draft of the bill that you
have before you was prepared by OSP. It calls for a shorter
time span than our original draft and includes a preamble and
some other changes that were requested by the Governor.

In general terms the bill calls for the Office of State
Planning to send a questionnaire to each community asking
for answers to specific questions relating to the community's
growth management problems and priorities. Each community would
be asked to establish a local growth policy commission
(described on page 4 of the bill) . The local commissions would
hold public hearings and conduct necessary discussions for
responding to the state questionnaire. Based on the local
reports, the RPA's would prepare regional reports that iden-
tify regional problems and prioities; and would attempt to
resolve any differences between communities. Both the local
and regional reports would then be forwarded to OSP which
would use them in the formulation of state growth management
and development policies, and to make recommendations to
the executive and the legislature.

Obviously, the bill calls for heavy local and regional
involvement in the forumulation of state policies.

Wetmore: If the subcommittee agrees upon a bill the Commission can
put it out in report form and it can be referred to a com-
mittee hearing in August.

6/25/15
199

Keefe: We have asked the directors of the Regional Planning Agencies
to respond to this legislation because it seems that the
RPA's are the best unit of government to reconcile local
differences in terms of appreciation of statewide policies
and objectives.

Miller (MAPC) : We support legislation that would create a statewide land
use policy framework. We are also in favor of a "bottom-up"
approach for the development of this policy. Our major
concern is the compression of the time schedule and that
the sanctions and incentives have been deleted from this
draft of the bill. Without sanctions or incentives many
cities and towns may simply not respond.

Saltonstall: In the original draft provisions were made for the denial

of money to communities that did not participate and for small
grants to those that did participate. The state presently
has no money to provide small grants and the executive
office hesitates to put communities under compulsion to
participate. The only remaining compulsion is that com-
munities which do not participate are giving up their op-
portunity to influence state policy.

Gray: What other possibilities, either positive or negative, would
encourage communities to participate?

Keefe: My personal feeling is that sanctions are either unworkable
or unnecessary. Therefore, it is best to eliminate them
entirely. We do not want to force communities to participate.
Forced participation seems to contradict the intent of
the act. We also do not want to force communities to
comply without offering them compensation. OSP and the
RPA's can offer technical assistance to help localities with
the preparation of the statements. This is the only in-
centive we can offer. The Governor feels strongly about this.

Saltonstall: At our meeting with the Governor last winter, I asked him
about sanctions. He said he would use every moral per-
suasion to get the communities to participate.

200

Gray: In some states they have said that if the localities did
not do it the state would.

Keefe: We are asking localities to participate in the formulation
of state policy. If they decide not to participate that is
their choice. Is it necessary to make it more explicit?

Gray: Communities like to have it spelled out.

Susskind: California has had a law mandating local planning for several
years. The state has not had the time or the resources
to go into a locality and do the planning when the community
did not comply. We are trying to present a positive op-
portunity to the localities. Should there be language in
the bill that says RPA's are hereby directed by the legis-
lature and OSP to provide any and all assistance, both
technical and financial aid, for the formulation of these
statements (701 and 208 fund etc.)

Keefe: The main incentive for a community to participate in this

process is that they may develop policies which will address
local concerns and at the same time fit into a statewide
context.

DiLuzio: I question the capability of RPA's tp provide technical

assistance for a program of this magnitude. I don't think the
idea of moral persuasion will get very far. There should
be a stipulation that if a community doesn't respond the
state will step in. This will, at least, stimulate some
movement .

Keefe: With respect to 701, there is no 701 money available. With

regard to RPA's not being capable to provide technical assis-
. tance, they are presently being given $7 million to do
water quality and other planning.

DiLuzio: The money does not address the issue of establishing com-
munication between local communities and the RPA's.

Susskind: The bill is designed to increase communication between

all levels of government. However, we need incentives to
provide for the local response. Perhaps the legislation
could tie the local statements to the A-95 review process.

6/25/75
201

this was done in an earlier draft. In addition, the state is
getting $18 to $20 million per year in planning grants.
More of this money should go to local communities. I
suggest that it is very important to have an explicit state-
ment in the legislation that says we expect the RPA's to pro-
vide assistance to localities from 701, 208 and other grants.
Both 701 and 208 have significant citizen participation
and land use components. The process described in the
legislation fits right into these 701 and 208 requirem.ents.

Paul Doan (Cape Cod Planning Commission) : I am concerned about the mul-
tiplicity of local planning efforts. Why is another commission
established to formulate the local growth policy statements?
Would it not be better to ask the local planning board to
prepare the statement? In regard to the RPA's providing
technical assistance, what happens when the local municipalities'
objectives are radically different from the regional objectives?
Would it be legitimate for RPA personnel to be in conflict with
the community they were assisting?

Keefe: RPA people always find themselves in this position. But

there is a difference between providing technical assistance
and telling a locality what to do. . The first report will
describe local priorities and objectives. Technical assis-
tance for this report might include specific data from the RPA
etc. The RPA will then review and comment on what the localities
have put together and attempt to resolve any conflicts
between various municipalities or municipalities and the region.

Saltonstall: One mechanism which we had used earlier to address the prob-
lem of conflicts was minority reports. I believe it was left
out of this draft but it should be reinserted. Minority
reports would be useful because in large cities different
in one to^^m may be the m.ajority view in an abutting com-
munity; and minority views may be consistent with regional
goals in cases where majority views are not or
vice versa. For these reasons we may need to

bll'bllb
202

provide that OSP receive minority reports. Going back to
the planning board issue, we may be wrong in asking for
another commission. However, planning boards are so in-
volved in the problems of day to day administration and
zoning changes that they might not have time to give the
statement adequate attention. These statements involve
more than zoning issues. They involve the growth of the
whole community. Adequate citizen participation must be
insured.

Paul Doan: Was any thought given to having the RPA's submit questions
to the localities rather than having initiative come from
the state?

Saltonstall: That would mean more work for the RPA's. Would you be

prepared to do it? Perhaps it would be better to have OSP,
the RPA's, and the commission to prepare the questionnaires
together.

Doherty (MAPC) : The funds that RPA's presently have are specifically
allocated to projects agreed upon with the federal govern-
ment. Better than 50% of our budget goes to technical assis-
tance and the development and updating of regional plans.

Keefe: We think that the opportunity offered to the communities

through this bill is important enough that they will want to
participate even if additional funds are not available. The
Commonwealth does provide $100,000 a year to be divided
among the 13 RPA's with no strings attached. We have included
this $100,000 in the budget again this year; if the legis-
lative keeps it in, these funds might be used for the process
discussed in the bill. The reason for the abridged time
schedule is that we wanted greater coordination between
this program and the ongoing activities of OSP.

Doherty: MAPC gets only 18% of that $100,000.

Ventresca: The bill should contain more discussion of the impact of

local and state tax policy on land use and growth patterns.
There should also be a hearing process or some other citizen
participation requirement at the regional level. In addition,
the section defining potential areas of critical planning

eiibiib

203

concern is heavily weighted toward conservation, we should
also include a more detailed explanation of areas suitable for
commercial and industrial development. Section 8 states
specifically that there shall not be any judicial review.
I am not sure you can do that. Finally, the commission you
have created at the state level is unconstitutional.

Saltonstall: The commission is constitutional if it is a temporary

commission, which is what we had in mind. However, we must
include a termination date.

Mary Peardon (DCA) : The bill seems to ask for descriptions and lists
rather a discussion of issues and policies of concern to
local people.

Susskind: The questionnaire that stems from this section should
try to sharpen policy issues rather than collect data.
Perhaps the communities could map areas that they would like
to see conserved, other areas they would like developed,
indicating density, type, an pace of development.

Paradise: The communities should outline long term goals rather than
using a map.

Susskind: Is this reasonable in the time frame alloted? I would like
to see more long range planning but it may be difficult
with this time schedule. If the communities have done
this type of thing they should include it. The questionnaire
should be as succinct as possible. Perhaps including a
number of closed ended or multiple choice questions, (ie.
amount of land for conservation, development etc.)

Saltonstall: There also needs to be more information on long range
economics and transportation.

Keef e : This whole section should be rewritten and made more

specific so that it is easily translatable into a questionnaire.
We will work on it.

Susskind: If people have specific items they would like in the question-
naire, can they call you?

Keefe: Yes, by Monday.

Bill Klein (Nantucket Planning and Econ. Dev. Comm.): I am concerned
about the time frame, but we can probably live with it.

204

I am also concerned about creating another local planning
body. Rather than dictating to the community what the specific
make up of the commission is to be, why not give them 3 or 4
choices? Let the communities decide what the appropriate
agency would be. Also, why does the moderator make the
appointments, but then is given no further responsibilities?

Saltonstall: In a great many communities the moderator makes many

appointments. Perhaps this should be the chief elective
officer.

Fegan: As I understand the bill, it calls for a short term process
that will be done once. Citizen groups will put a great
deal of time into such a project as long as they know that
it will not be an endless process. An announcement of the
request for the statements should be sent to or ^nizations
already in place that have an interest in the land use and
growth policy question (ie league of women voters etc).
In addition, the towns should recognize that where data
is available they should not generate the same data. The
RPA's can be helpful here.

Colby: The impact of the state and local tax structure affects land

use. The bill should deal with local taxation more specifically
(ie What does it cost to have a house built in your town?
What is the effect of school taxes etc.)

Barrus: The bill makes no mention of- compensation for loss of equity.
There should be a section requesting a study of methods of
compensating different land o\vmers for loss of equity that
might result from different regulatory procedures. In
addition, the validity of the community's response to the
proposed questionnaire will depend upon the data available.
If the towns do not have the data the responses will not
be meaningful. I suggest the $100,000 of state money to
the RPA's be used for gathering necessary data.

Savolainen (SRPEDD) : The reports from the RPA's should go back to

the municipalities in draft form for comment and review.

Saltonstall: We will make as many of the suggested changes in the bill as
possible before submitting it to the commission. I think

205

the bill is worth trying to get into the legislature before
its recess. Action would then be possible by August. Is
there a consensus on this approach? (There was no dissent.)

'♦(

IV. APPENDIX: STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE

tt

W

c

>-<

rt-

(t

rti

p

c

^

0

a

H- '

a

v£)

»

-vl

fD

c!

rf^

OQ

en

H-

05

O

a

^

tu

►i

1— ■

O

^

Ctl

1— '

n

p

r^

3

3

M'

3

OQ

H
>
H

O

*^

CO
>
M

>
o

w
W

o

1—1

o

a:

h- 1
►^

H

cn

>
H
H
cn

O
>

:2

o

n
o

H
>

>
to

Cfi

n
o

o

>
It-
H

o

>

cn
cn
>
Q

d

cn
W
H

H
cn

>

JO

X

208

CO a

CD

tr'

C

x>

H

O

tu

S'

!U

•*(

en n

CD

3

ti

3-

<

3

CD

3

O

T

O

3

O.

fD

ft)

fD

Cu

<

CU

g

(U CD

o

Cl-

0)

•o

<~t

rt)

S 3

3

f-i

CD

H-

<

h*

M

S!

m

■a

G

rt

i-i

3

H-

3

t1

rt)

o

3 O

»-i

cn

P

o

tti

(D

rt)

OQ

CL m

m

(D

^J'

a

O

C

H

CD

T3

C

^

o

a> <

3^

ft)

3"

cr

M

M

CL TO

ro

Ti

3

a-

g

o

fD

O

[D

to

(a

• M

3

M

^

53

3

c

O

rt

O

en

O

cr

rt

T3

rt

rt)

H-

t-i

t3

H-

Cj.

v;

t-'

H-

rt

c:

a

O

o

a

<

fO

CD

O

3"

ti

rt

3

(-'

n>

(T>

n

rt

3

3

fD

13

c

M

fD

3

n

3-

Q^

o

rt)

O

3"

rf

13

0)

13

en

en

3

o

to

O

1*

h-"

a

G

ti

rt

rt)

rt

CD

en

tti

CD

c

o

en

ft)

CD

•x;

M

C

3

M

ft)

fD

en

rt

o

o

CO

3

3

H-

"a

ft)

C

tti

t+i

D.

3"

rt

a

H-

3

o

?d

3

en

H-

rt>

to

to

ra

3

CX3

n

ft)

rf

rt

<

n

3

ft

li

OQ

rt

•13

ft)

o

3-

rt)

H-

OQ

rt)

rt

3

O

Q.

tti

p.

en

rt)

ft

0)

3"

CD

t-l

CO

tn

H-

Cu

OQ

3"

CO

ro

3

rt

H-

en

rt

o

O

tti

to

rt

en

3

rt

T)

0)

3

en

<

H-

en

CD

C

rt

1

H-

rt)

•a

cn

C

O

H-

rt

rf

cr

rt)

3

OQ

H

H

rf

^

Hi

3

S'

fD

M

en

to

3

3

O

tD

§

fD

H-

!^

H-

S

<

3

fD

n

e/:

M

O

rt

H-

tti

fD

H.

O

I-!

o

ft)

Hti

P

(D

3-

P

H-

3

CO

(D

T)

O

3

rt

fD

CR

n

rt

H-

M

g

rt

h- '

G-

H-

to

O

CQ

^

C

(h

M

O

H-

O

3

h^

3

H

^

3

3

O

c:

3

D-

<

rt

3

K

CD

■P-

H-

cr

s:

en

rt)

rti

M

3

•

rt

ft)

M-

(D

H-

CD

t1

•<!

rt

O

rt

^

1-1

3

en

3-

i-h

^

OQ

T)

H-

3

O

n>

Ml

>

M

1— '

rt

en

o

<

W

<-t

ro

t+i

vD

3

CD

O

en

fD

tti

n)

o

i-n

•^

CD

3

a-

rt

n

M-

n

S

•o

CD

U)

rt

3

*o

rt)

ID

rt

H

H-

^#

t1

H-

t1

M-

7^

rt

M

H-

rr

o

H

H-

3

o

3

O

3"

Cl

O

3*

!_i.

en

W

5<

OQ

<

CW

^

fD

3

0)

(T>

3

H-

O

O

p-

CL

S

CD

Cl.

en

H'

^

t+i

■^

G

rf

3

ED

3

(D

rt

CD

CD

o

tti

en

O.

c

3

to

M

M

cn

K

n

ti

rt

C2.

o.

t1

to

•

CD

o

O

o

3 '

3-

1-^

en

3

O

en

3

3

o

CD

(t>

rt)

c

•

D.

i-h

O

i_i.

S

3

Cb

en

fD

i-ti

c

CD

T)

ID

»-(

«

rt)

H

C

rt

-d

H-

3

M

CW

fD

O

05

3*

CD

3

f^

3

H-

fD

CD

H-

o.

rtl

TO

I-!

Q;

rt

o

ft)

3

CL

CO

to

rt

3

B-

l-(

(1.

fD

rt)

CO

VJ

13

ffl

3

n

O

ft)

3

n

c

y*

M

O

ro

ro

3

fti

rr

fO

to

C

3

Cu

f-1

t1

H-

K

CO

en

3

cn

rt

a

ft)

O

3

H-

rt

3

H-

H-

H-

o

3

rt

h-u

to

H-

3

O

3

rf

ft)

rt

3*

3

rt

3

CQ

t-h

►d

rr

3
rt

CD

fD

03

rt)

CD

OQ

>

ffl

(D

rt

en

3

H-

O

O

O

l-t

3"

en

C

Ml

0<5

O

3

rt

c

rt

ft)

^

1^

H-

H-

3-

3

to

w

ti

<

tti

3

rt

rt

3

O

H-

ft

Ln

<

fD

rt

en

t1

to

t-h

3

D'

rt

fD

"<:

^

rt

on

O

OQ

OO

1-1

CD

v;

1

CD

rT

H-'

rt)

(-'

O

rt

M

en

3

CD

CO

3

>£>

CD

C

ro

fD

rt

rt

rt

(D

Ui

3

OQ

X)

Ci

fD

3

■O

a.

O

rt

m

rt

«j>

t1
rt

fD

en

V

O

c
n
n
m

m

CO

>

N

o

D

CO

to

•O rr

n- >

T)

M

o

^

H

-

•o

rt

C/l

>-( hJ-

3- 0-

1— '

W

G

1— '

3"

cn

h-"

0

rt

O i-ti

ro <

03

3

3

p

ro

rt

3

C

-o v;

H-

3

CL

CL

3

03

3

CL

CL

o

O cn

3

3

>

rt

3

ro

"<:

en (-■

o o

cr

c

n

H-

"I

ro

H-

<

<#

ro 03

< n

v;

cn

rt

3

H-

3

ro

3

ro v;

ro

H-

TO

N

cn

W

h-'

H-

CL

i-i

(— '

^

3

O

rt

0

3

cn

3 O

vO

CTQ

n

3

i-t

T)

■3

O C

O O

■^

3

o

03

03

1-1

rt

M tn

>-( 3

Ln

3

3

rt

O

3

^

c ro

3

CL

3-

§

tm

ro

O

ro

rt

rt H-

ro

H-

3

(W

ro

o

p. -a

O rt

CL

p

cn

<

^

cn

o

o

O 1-1

rr

ro

!-<

cn

H-

3

cn

3

o

3 o

tn ro

<

1-^

H-

1-1

>#

■a

<

cn o"

rt ro

ro

3

O

o

<-t

ro

M

c

1— ' OT

3

rt

ro

r-i

ro

CL 3

O

cn

3

ro

3"

3

s

v; -3

TD

/— N

ro

r-(

ro

O

cn

•o

H-

o

>

3

2

3

r^

05 O

3

3

M

rr

ro

cn

«

(U

3 H-

(N

T)

03

CL

H-

cn

3

CL 3

cn

n

M

<

CL

ted by
iden-

03

rt
03
rt

ro

Cfl

3

ro

O

i-h
r-f»

O

c w

cn rt
ro C

CL
13 ^

o

M rt
H- O

n

•^ fi
ro
n

Q

209

o

•-d

Cfl

3 "3 rt

•3

tr*

H-

r-l

>

s:

n

r

1-1

pi

CO

^

rt

T3 I-i 3

O

ro

3

ro

H-

o

o

ro

3

rt

ro

3

"3 o ?r

cn

OQ

o

cn

M

3

cn

n

3

c

CO

rt

i-( 3 H-

ro

H-

»— '

o

rt

M -3

H-

o

CL

CL

p-

ro

0 n 3

CL

cn

\^

3

3

-;

M

3

<-<

cn

3 3* Cf5

I-I

~-J

3

rr

cr

ro

t-i

3

c

p-

t-

n »

p.

3

Ul

ro

ro

ro

3-

3

ro

CO

n

3

3

3* ro

3

rt

3

ro

rr

3

ro

o

rt

3

ro o H-

h^

cr

CL

•r-'

cn

3

h'-

CL

a

P-

CL

CO I-I rt

>— •

0

v;

ro

3

c

W

o

3

•3

3

O

3*

o

2

<^

3

cr

H-

3

rr

I-I

P-

3

G

rt 3 ro

^J

rt

CL

3

<

P-

3

cn

cn

O O r^

Ul

3

3*

rt

H-

ro

rr

O

n

cn

^-N

ro

I-i

3

ro

O

C

rt

O

3

rr

p-

H- *

T) ro n

3

^

cn

rt

•3

CO

p-

O

v£>

n

3 o

cn

^

rt

ro

ro

1— '

H-

n

3

-^

o

H M 3

O

3"

3-

3

3

ro

i>

3

rt H- -3

I-I

r1

-0

ro

■3

3

■3

CO

rt

^— ^

rt

H- 3 I-I

ro

n

M

H-

3

1— 1

M

O

r^

n H- ro

cn

3

M

3

3

H-

ro

rr

0

C rt 3-

c

ro

3

3

3

3

P-

O

M

M ro ro

!-''<;

00

t— '

CW

ro

3

3

CO

3 a 3

rt

(-«•

c

^

^

CL

<

O

I-I - cn

3

cn

l-l-

-J -3

rt

ro

r-l

H-

o

O

M

h- 1

Ul

r|

3

CO

ro

"3 cn <

i-h

rr

3

1— '

O

CD

3

rt

3

I-I -3 ro

rt

n

rt

?r

P-

rt

o ro <'

CO

zr

C

cr

ro

3

ro

OQ

ro

CT" O 3

rr

ro

I-I

ro

CO

rt

3

t-i (-■• "3

C

ro

CO

ro

rt

3

ro i-n 1

CL -3

ro

3 P-

v:

r-l

— —^ _ _. .

cn n

:.

O
1

__ ^_

_

_

_ _

_.

I-I h--

n

rt

^-H

■3

CL

rc

_

cd

■■

3 3

o

3-

3

r^

ro

cn

3

v;

^

rt 3
C CL
I-i

3
3

ro

>

0
l-fl

<

ro
i— '

rr

3

3

i-ri

ro

ro c

cn

I-I

«-J

(—1

o

h--

G

D-

.

• cn

cn

H-

UJ

ro

•3

H-

cn

ro

ro

O

N

o

■•

CO

hi-

3

21

ro

r-l

3

-3

3

3

rr

era

ro

-a

I-I

M

3

3*

3

CL

M

3

rt

ro

3

CL

3

M

3

O

w

3

M

CL

3
rr

3

3

3

3

i-h -3

<

ro

1— '

3

H-

>«

O

I-I

!-'•

30

3

^-i

3

I-I

o

I-I

H-

3

cr

O OQ

^

TD

o

cn

CL

3

^-J

rt

23

3

h-'

cn

t— '

n

a

3"

r-!

3

3

C

ro

•*

o

ro

ro

ro

ro

3

rt

C

cn

ro

CO

3

1

CL

ro

►— '

3

rt

i-(

3

1-^

1-1

VD

3

ro

■3

I-I

CL

CO

3

^

cn

M

r^

ro

CO

M

.

Ul

rt
3

^

n
^1

O

CT<3

(TO

p-
cn

o

1

in

M

rt

M

ro

i-t

O

3

rt

ro

ro

3

3

3

3

3

3

CJQ

3

rr

3

3

O

S

rr

CO
1

3

3

ro

CL

cn

h--

i

3
CO

ro

I-I

o

o

CO

ro

CL

r'
w
o

M
CO

H

M

o

3

3
O
rt

ro

CL

OQ

o

M

H
O

n

o

3

a
n
n

rt
O

c

o

M

o

Pl

o

n

I-"

H)
O

9

210

H
>
H

H-

l-h

n

s:

on

0

C

o

H-

rt

rr

F!

M

C

rt

C

a

M

a

D-

11

H-

^

0)

TO

rt

cr

rt

(D

o

cn

CW

(n

ro

CU

rt

M

O

H-

i-'

P

o

»#

3

M

rt

r

fD

n>

rt

w

0)

D-

•

rr

3

o

(i

o

W

fU

3

rt>

3

?:

**

M

CU

H-

to

M

cr

f1

M

H-"<!

CU

B3

fi

3

M

CU

(D

Ch

O
O

3

H

C

?r

03

q

w

Xi

=1

ro

Cj

XI

3

rt

o

o

3

H-

i-i

fD

3

f-(

fD

rt

o

a

(D

K

w

tL

03

o

rt

H-

rt

CL

n

fD s:

■a

cn

g

►^

o

ft)

3

O

(D

o

rt H-

i-{

rt

fD

M

CO

3

H

n

i-ti

M

n CL

ft)

p

3

Cu

ft

cn

3

M

OO

H-

o

• fD

cn

rt

rr

3

03

H-

r;

c

3

t-i

ro

fD

rt

a

03

5-

H'

H-

03

H-

3

3'

O

(t

fD

n

H-

CI-

3

D.

3

rt

•^3

Co

i-h

ri

rt

3

fD

CW

O

M

O

cn

I — 1

03

t-J.

fj^

S

*<:

h--

f^l

01

rt

O

i-ti

03

tr'

o

H-

CT*

O

P

H-

3

0)

C

03

l-i

cr

O

fD

3

&

O

rt

l-h

3

?r

fD

H-

fD

cn

3

"O

cn

C

i-i

Cu

tfi

H-

(n

3

fD

c

h- '

3"

f-l

03

n'

3

cn

i-i

cn

H-

03

O

fD

3

c

o

OQ

-o

<

fD

cn

3

H

(D

cn

T)

o

M

03

rt

Cl

C

fD

cn

i-i

3

o

rt

03

rt

1

fD

O

(t>

■a

H-

OQ

cr

>

rt

<

i-i

n

B)

<

I--

o

O

ft)

(h

fD

fD

?r

o

3

H-

CU

cn

3

3

x>

f— '

a-

fD

3

fD

O

o

l-j

2

o

i-ti

3

S

a.

a.

03

v;

i-(

H-

X)

o

H-

ff

fD

•*

3

ft>

0

0:

3

i-(

cn

ro

a.

e

O.

03

M

3

fD

cn

a>

cn

o

rt

H.

D-

3

03

H-

1-1

cn

fD

o

O

H-

rt

rt

o

H-

rt

w •

3

fD

0

VJ

h- '

•3

3

3

»i

rt

<

3

O

^i

0<3

rt

&3

fD

i_>

O

"3

w

(D

H-

H-

1— '

O

cw

O

>-(

V

1

cn

3
cn

O

■a

Ml

1

(D

cn

O

UJ

"t-r

P3

C

tr

B

fD

fD

m

3

cn

*0

M

M

03

to

rt

3

<

H-

(D

cn

03

"d

n

i-{

rt

fD

H-

cn

o

fD

3

3

cn

rt

fD

CL

CL

c

%

•

ft)

03

H- 3

Cb

O
3
rt

0 fD

1 n

H- O
CD 03

cn cn

H- rt

O 03

3 M

tSl
O
3
(t>

n

o

3
cn

fD

<

03
1

H- 3 O

3 03 O

3 03

H- 03 cn

vo CW rt

^ fD 03

Ul 3 M

fD

D' 3 tsi

v; rt o
3

1 T) fD
fD t-"

05 03 O
H- 3

O
3

3 rf cn
03 O fD
(-• I-!

cr <

n fD 03

3 n

3 o

H- 3

CO T)

cn M

H- fD

O rt

3 fD

cn &

O
3

03

3

to

H

O
11

►id

03 03

H II

o
0) c
cn 3

CL

o

l-h ?^
fD

n v;

H

H- l-h

rt 03

H- n

r> H-

03 h-i

rt
cn H-
rt fD
03 cn
rt

n 03

3

n G.
o

3 H-

n 3

fD
9

CJQ >

C l-h

H- l-h

CX 0)

fD H-

M 1

H- cn
3

fD >

cn cw

fD
l-h 3
O O
H ^

G. rt

fD O
<

(D T)

M II

O O

X! 3

3 C

fD M

3 cro

rt 03
rt
fD

cn o
3

03 O

fD

cr 1

H- 3

cn "03 cn

rt 3 rt
03 O. 03
rr

fD

K

cn
o

II X3

fD 11

03 O

■rt -o

H- O

3 cn
cw D

03 •

3

M >

3 M

< CO

H- O

O- '-5
fD

II fD

fD.

n cw
o

03

o fD cn

II 3

H- G. 03

rt 03 3

1^ rt Cl

rr 3

(D
3
<

1
O
3
3
fD cn

o o
3 cr
cn i-i.

fD

o n

i-h rt

n cn t-'

o rt CD

O 03 cw

II rt H-

D- fD cn
H- H'

3 "O 03

03

rt 03

H- 3

O 3

3 H-

- 3

03

M rt

O
3

f-h
O
II

fD cn

03

3 3-

fD fD

3 II

rt fD

03

H
fD
O "3
l-h O

rt

n H- n

O 3 O

3 rt 3

T) fD "3

II II II

fD cro fD

3- O
fD <

3 (D

cn II

H- 3

< 3

fD fD fD
3
rt

03

i-d
II
o

X}

o

cn

fO

a

o

M

03

cr

W

3

03

rt

O-

3

03

cn

rt

03

3*

(D

W

(D

3-

fD

03

0)

03

<

cn

n

v;

3'

n

H-

o

TJ

3

03

11

G-

cn

O

C

rt

rt

cn

03

fD

rt

M

O

11

rt

v;

r>3

H-

o

O

o

3

3

3

(D

>

rt

>

o

•~t

o

rt

fD

rt

n

s;

0

rr

03

H-

cn

n

rt

3*

l-h

M

t-

03

-3

1-1

03

03

O

3

O

(D

n

rt

n

G-

K

OQ

H-

ro

03

fD

H-

M

M

03

11

cn

H-

W

H-

o

M

rt

?o

rf

rt

rt

03

p-

M

H-

H-

O

rt

fD

*

fD

<

P-

cn

cn

C/J

l-^-

cn

O

t«

y*

rt

fD

3

3

H-

rt

fD

o

c

fD

.-^

rt

n

cn

cn

n

h-*

n

H-

rt

11

\r>

•

rt

O

H-

^

H-

G.

l-h

rt

j>

n

fD

fD

V— ^

03

cn

cn

11

M

H-

rt

H- 00

rro

03

03

H-

03

3

rf

<

11

03

fD

l-h

fD

fD

rt

K

O

cn

03

(D

H-

11

cn

G.

rt

•«

03

fD

-

3-

3

03

fD

?r

ti-

H-

11

fD

3

fD

cn

"<

ll

rt

03

rt

fD

fD

cn

03

cr'

11

rt

c
1

fD

cn

fD

O 03

0 II vc
3 fD ^

n 03 c

fD cn

1 a

3 O H'

» l-h II

fD

cr r:> o

C 1 rt

rt H- cn

rt H- cn
3* O rt

fD 03 0)

H^ l-i 03 3 x) n

03 09 fD fD O

3 II

cn n

c

3 H
ft 3

fD
fD

3 03

< 0<3

M- fD

II 3

O O

3 H-

3 fD

n fD cn
o 3

rt fD

03

II
fD

3
O

03 O rt

O
■3
> fD
O D

03
3
cn
O
3

>

n

rt 03

I— I
■3

II [>3
O O

n 3

fD fD
cn

cn >
n

l-h rt

O

II ,~s

i — '
n >£i
o ^
03 n:
cn <— '
rt

03 cn
M fD

ft
G- cn

< c

cn

fO "3

o -o

M

l-h 03

O 03

n

X)

fD

1

M

o

M
3

03

n

rt

fD
G.

a.

a-
o

%

cr

•o

3

o

^

0)

m

H

>-(

X

O

M

(D

rt

s:

a>

a

rt

OQ

>•

rt

rr

H-

ro

CO

H-

D

T3

1-'

W

o

Cu

■-i

M

rt

cr

m

H-

H-

ro

Ui

O

<

H-

M

^

(D

P

(0

(W

T)

O

ET

M

O

Hi

0)

B3

p

c

CD

3

3

>-!

H-

rt

cr

i-ti

rr

cr

n

O

rt

(D

ID

i-(

rc

--!

P

(D

rt

03

x>

3-

rt

r-l

m

C

(0

CL

1

H-

ft)

D.

rt

CL

S

D W

3"

c

O

3 H-

H-

o

t-i

CL M

CO

(D

ro

I-'

u-

f+i 03

rt

a.

03

1-^

H-

(D

n rt

3

3

i-ti

H- O

(B

n

(— '

*

M

03

H- ll

^

rt

rt (D

--J

fD

Hr m

Ui

O.

fO c

•

03 M

03

0)

3

O rt

n

U-

H) (13

3"

03

s

"( n

3

H-

(T3 >-i

n

M OO H-

(I)

I—

H- rt

03

O H-

cr

3 n

0)

ro

03 03

n

M M

(D

i-i

fD

l_i. 0)

cr

H-

3 1-1

(T>

3

■a (D

rt

rt

03 03

rt

"-1

n 03

(D

O

rt

i-(

1

CQ cr o

1-1 fD i-i

O H-

S W rt

rt C H.

3" cr n

3 03

T3 H- t-"

O rt

M rt 03

H- fD i-i

n G. (t>

v< 03

> 03 03

■o

O
X>

o

03

D Ml

cr

03
03
H-
03

o
1-1
o

03

O XI

M o

fD fD
>-! 03

c n

03 rt
3 3- -O
CL (D l-J
t-( (U

3

03

H- rt
fD H-

K O

3
O
i-h 3

03

rt v;

3"

(D

C
03

fD fD 3
(M 03

3 H- v;

O 03

I-' cr

03 fD

O

^ H- rt
< 3-

03 (D fO

3

CL

o
m
o
n

00
119

o >
o

03 3
03 »
rt 3

03 03

MOQ

(T3

N 3

O (D
3 3
fD rt

p. -O

03 h-"

0>

cr 3

fD

3
OQ

•a rt

>-( 3-

fD (D
X)

03

ro

CL

03

i-h

i-ti

w

H-

O

03

H-

03

i-l

H-

I—"

rt

h-"

1— '

O

\—i

r^

2

o

CL

rt

rt

n

O

03

H-

S

I-"

3

T)

H-

i-l

rt

o

H-*

O

3-

1-1

V£)

ft

c

^J

rt)

rt

H-

J>

n

3-

3

•

rt

fD

03

3

-

03

o

1— 1

<

rt

fD

rt

M-

03

03

rt

rt

03

03

fD

rt

M

M

O

01

■ra

0

03

t— '

cr

l-t

03

fD

-a

fD

3

^

03

•

n

o

03

o

<

3
1

CL

s

CL

M
O
H

CL
»

c«

m

rt

3

C

<

CL

H-

^

n

o

o

o

§

3

fD

X)

3

M

rt

(D

03

rt

M

fD

CL

ET

03

3

cr

CL

o

c

rt

^

3

3

0)

O

OQ

s:

fD

3

fD

a

rt

M CO m

fD rt 3

00 C <

H. CL H.

03 v;

03 rt
rt O

i-t

o

o

3

(D
3

i-t

(D

n 03

3 t-i

m 03

3 3

cu c^

?^

1-1 3

rt 03

3* CQ

fD fD

1^ 3

ID

3

rt

H-

n

O

f-n

a:

3

o

O

O

03

c

3

►I

?:

rf

3

03

03

3-

rt

a

c

H-

(D

M-

1-1

f-l

H-

fD

<

cr

C

03

03

03

3-

"-1

rt

3

03

a*

O

H-

«#

01

D

i-n

O

3

3

03

ID

rt

fTQ

3

CL

3*

CL

1-1

03

H-

fD

H-

P-

n

01

03

n

rt

rt

01

rt

c

fD

f1

rt

rl

h-"

D-

H-

03

hJ-

rt

n

rt

n

C

03

rt

(D

rt

1-1

rt

01

03

03

03

3*

«

H-

rt

03

•«

fD

<

fD

H

f-l

N

3-

C

o

n

fD

1-1

3

o

03

H'

3

i-n

h- '

3

rt

O

OQ

1-1

C

0>

O

>-(

3

^~\

M

CL

M

03

CT^

(-■ CQ

03

i-n

I—"

=3

OQ

O

03

-^

H

fD n

I-'

i-i

o

rt!

c

i-h

rt

b

-r

OQ O

01

o

n

3

p-

03

;—

o

H- s:

O

3

03

rt

CL

O

rt

03

03 rt

M

03

fD

1-1

fD

(TQ

m

1- 3-

ID

M

I-"

P-

rt)

,-)

03

3

O

»-(

O

H-

rt

03

=1

<

rt -a

03

n

fD

ifi

3

H-

C

rt)

p-

H- O

n

03

OQ

m

n

rt

3

I-l

O M

rt

M

3

1-1

03

03

rt

o

3 M.

fD

M

fD

M

n

n

CL

tL

03

OQ

rti

1-1

>

3

a-'<

fD

rt

P-

n

0)

p-

O

fD

03 »

03

n

p.

O

I-l

rt

rt

rt

3

W

p-

O

3

03

VJ

rt

cr

1-1

03

3

03

p-

rt

O

03

cr c

fD

H-

01

M

CL

ID

rt

i-n

pJ

fD rt

03

o

ID

n

fD

O

3

03

p-

3

n

H—

r-

3 3

M

03

3

3

rt

o

CL

>.n

03

O

c

•

CL -a

P-

3

fD

^

3

•a

rt

03

Pi

o

03

N3

Cl

03 p.

P-

3"

o

^

rt)

P-

01 3

O

'T)

fD

rt

P-

I-l

OQ

OQ

03

01 "O

3

(-■

03

w

3

3

3

P-

n

fD M

o

1-1

OQ

«

03

<;

CL

CL (D

O

I-l

03

rt

n>

• 3

3

p-

03

■3

CL

03

rt)

01

5^

fD

CL -a

13

m

CL

03

3

03

P

■3

T

r^

0

03

rt

rt

rt

rt

fD

o

ID

T3

I-l

3-

rt)

p-

03

03

<

M

rt

rt)

03

I-l

3

rt

pJ

rt)

O

D

OQ

ID

03

•3

1

03

l-t

o

■o
o

03

rt)

CL

211

M

3

03

O
rt
ID
CL

H

a:

CO

m

H

►^

H

M

G

^

CO

M

1^

o

►tI

:/i

H

r-'

>

t^

-n

O

X

G

CO

'-N

m

33

■J)

■T3

o

O

r'

i-h

M

n

-•

K

O

■-J

4>

J

o

CO

m

o

3

S
IB

3
O

212

C/3

H

>

H-

o

a

n

>

cn

rt

H-

o

to

3*

rt

g

tn

c

fD

rt

§

•3

ro

f^

fD

H-

m

w

CD

rt

n

*

CO

rt

1—

rt

3"

ro

ft)

(SJ

ft)

ro

M

rt

<

(ti

fD

ft)

H-

tn

3

3

W

u.

rt

cu

rt

(D

3

d

ft)

i-i

D-

3

3

h-^

fD

ft)

D-

CL

D.

M

rc

<

0)

3

l-J

H-

iro

rt

ft)

cn

H-

H-

3

o

tfi

l-fl

O-

M

M

H-

*<

ft)

ri)

C

rt

a

w

n

H-

(D

o

3

<

(D-

H-

1

3

O

O

O

O

<

fj

(D

H«

H

cn

3

CO

O

H-

11

o

^

3

m

H-

M

W

ft)

3

H-

CL

3

ft)

C

n

tn

rt

(K

H-

<

w

(D

rt

C

tu

v;

C/3

O

"xl

ft-

W X)

rt

i-i

CL

n

cn

s

tn

<

fD

W

l-h

ft)

rt

I-"

C

S

rt

H-

!-(

O

fD

fD

o

C

o

rt

ft)

3

H-

(D

(-M

(T)

ft)

3

ft)

rt

3

o

^

<

c

cr

c

ft)

rt

M

M

Cl.

rt

i-(

3

h- 1

Lj.

fD

H-

<

3"

c

fD

3

Lj.

M

rr

H-

ft)

t— '

ra

fD

3

G.

H-

O

3

M

H-

ft)

H-

I--

rt

fD

CL

ro

O

►-i

►-(

n

(D

?r

f1

-3

ft)

cn

<

^t

O

^

n

3

00

Cl

ft)

CL

C

fD

rt

»-(

H-

m

p- >a

ft

Hh

M

fD

(D

M

a.

cn

M

M

(D

o

3

M

O

P)

rt

o.

r-fi

•

ft!

(D

^

D

O.

M

3

n

00

1— '

ft)

rt

1-!

3

O

(D

•3

cn

l-ti

3

fD

cn

o

o

3

O

n

CL

rt

ft)

1-!

•

rt

1— '

H-

CL

H-

00

3

ft)

n

CL

C

H-

3-

rt

O

CD

fD

3

3

H-

i-fi "O

M

ft)

1— '

H'

C

3

fD

fD

•3

•X.

i-(

03

C

cn

o

i-(

h--

M

C

(D

ft)

cn

O

CL

O

o

H-

ft)

cn

(-'

h- '

1-1

fD

tn

CO

rt

fD

I-"

O

cn

c

a.

cn

cr

tD

\D

ft)

3"

O

1— '

CD

H-

fD

c

fD

s:

ft)

cn

CL

M

cn

^

rt

H-

rt>

H-

ft)

cn

f3

CL >3

3"

M

fD

ft)

ft)

fD

cr

Ul

H-

3

3

rt

3

o

1— '

cn

o

fD

rt

H-

h-'

rt

3

H-

O

■3

cn

H-

CL

0

ft)

rt

3

•

n

?r

M

H«

n

I-'

3

1— '

H-

CD

g

rt

ft)

3

ft)

;^

H-

O

(D

M

0)

<

cn

C

3

H-

rt

H-

3

O

M

cr

3

cn

£

3

(D

cn

H-

<

(U

tn

i-ti

s:

M

H-

o

H-

ft>

OJ

fD

tn

(t>

cn

D

o

ro

M

Hi

cn

M

3

-3

3

tn

GO

H-

■a

to

c

CL

M

O

M

rt

M

D- CO

H-

ft)

r-

O

■3

o

M

Cd

l-tl

H-

ft)

ft)

C

O

•3

H-

3

O

H-

CL

rt

t,

H-

(D

CL

cr

rt

3

n

H-

3

■3

D.

1— 1.

M

3-

H-

M

CL

ro

H-

cn

o

CL

tn

f^

d

K

^

3"

tD

rt

H"

(Ti

rt

O

r^

m

O

M

3"

rr

n

ft)

3^

I-!

O

3

Oi

3

(-■

s:

<

H-

H-

m

0

<

CLT>

0)

■

3

rt

H-

o

ft)

3

n

Cl

^

fD

i-(

ft)

M

cr

Cu

(T)
tn

3
fD

tn

c
1— '

CL

M

cn

3'

cn

tD
I-!

ft)

rt

1

fD

3

M

3

ft)

ft)

CO

fD

ft)

fD

H-

3

3

3

M

tn

M

rt

CL

rt

U)

rt

M

3

C

tn

ft)

c

ft)

CL

CL

O

CO

n

><;

3'

rt

rt)

rt

c

ft)

»

tn

n

<

D

fD

o

fD

3

ft)

3

CL

3

"O

3

cr

u.

h-"

H-

fD

n

ft)

tn

fD

o

ft)

3
3

tn

3

§

CL

H-

O

H-

c

rt)

3

3

3

3

■3

00

rt

H-

f-i

O

n

rt

fD

ft)

3

O

><

cn

3

CL

cn

CL

M

c

CL

fD

ft)

o

fD

CL

3

3

(D

<

fti

D.

CL

(D

fti

3

M

r^

ft>

C

Hi

O

fD

no

cn

O

1

ft)

cn

(D

1

1-1

l-l
o

•3
O

tn

CL

w
o

M
CO

■3

M

O

cn

M

fD

O

rr

ft)

CO

<

ft)

3

H-

fD

rt

3

cn

i-l

fD

H-

M

3

3

ft)

O

na

00

rt

1

H"

H-

*

03

t.

O

cn

3

ft)

3

3

tn

•

o

H-

Hi

3

H-

Hi OP

3

►x)

H-

O

o

CO

rt

1-1

fD

fD

3-

3

r-i

ro

fD

O

<

I-!

i-l

H-

o

M

fD

O

fD

^

ft)

fD

"3

s«

rt

rt

(D

>

•

cn

CL OO

rt

fD

o

P

tr

3

Hi

rt

^

f)

fD

v:

n

3

o

fD

H-

g

s;

3

3

fD

i-(

n

H
M
O

3

ft)

D
rt

fD

(D

O

c

05

3

03

N

W

n

c

H-

CR

CL

H

fD

n

3

n

O

(T>

o

w

cn

C

(D

3"

<

o

H-

0

a

(fi

3

a>

H-

<

(D

fD

3

tj

<

ro

O

3

u.

01.

fD

3

cn

(W

fD

c

H-

B

fD

fD

H-'CW

rr

fD

"I

H

1-1

cn

03

<

h-"

O

M

C

^

H-

3

w

o

cn

X)

fD

M-

■3

O

03

<

cn

O

3

m

H-

M

3

s:

M

03

I-!

OJ

CO

o

O

(D

CN

rt

rr

u-

•«

no

3

•a

cn

f-(

3"

cn

H-

r-i

cn

ID

3-

H

p-

•

o

rr

O

03

3

03

O

3^

3

s:

cn

03

3

l-Tl

o

fD

w

3

fD

OT

rr

rr

rr

rr

i-n

3

>

^

C

fD

■3

H-

i-h

rt

X)

n

V

P

t-"

D.

O

3

P-

I-!

o

O

cn

03

^

M

M 09

n

"0

O

03

c

cn

O

3

03

H-

fD

M-O

tn

H-

rr

>*

Ci

H-

3

n

03

W

O

rt

tn

03

cn

o-v;

O

3

cn

01

H-

rt

n

(TO

i-ri

•

rt>

H"

03

fD

rr

1-1

OQ

c

03

rl

Cl.

3

t.

3-

H-

O

cn

H-

O

cn

03

03

H-

fD

rr

K-

fD

H

^.

rr

0)

3

Cl

H-

3

fD

rt

03

a-

>

fD

CO

n

CR

T3

CL

3-

rf

n

D.

rr

03

1— '

fD

o

^

<

M

03

M

rr

03

rr

03

03

H-

03

rr

O

3

O

3

^

cn

n

cn

3

fD

03

S

O.

M

rf

H-

O

O-

f-t

03

03

03

3

<^

fD

l-(

3

M

ft)

^

03
ffl

a

\

7^
(D
3
rt

e
o

H-

fD

CL Z

3

O

fD M

rt

O

< ►n

fD

3

fD <

H

O

M l-h

fD

3

C C

cn

H- "3 3

rt

o-

CL

cn

03 CD

CL

03

3

3

fD cn

CL

n rt
3- C

fl)

03 CL

3

3 •<

<

h^

1-^

cn s:

M

3 O

O

i-i

3

rr 7^

3

O H-

m

3

3

crCTQ

rt

03

0)

M rt

M

03 O

213

H

X

W

■^

H

>

►Tl

^n

— 1

C

^

C/3

— 1

k;

o

•n

tn

1-1

I"'

H

g

r^

o

C/2

c

t/3

^"s

w

03

cn

►t3

O

o

r-'

iti

1— 1

n

r-"

i-<

\D

-~i

£-

^

H

r'

c

(D

03

03

(1

3

M

O

D-

H-

3

i-ri

H

c;

^

fD

cn

3

m

CO

CL

rr

H-

-Tj

03

3

h-'

rt

crs

P

ro

3

M

3

i-t>

fD

H-

o

00

3

M

H- OO

cn

l-T)

M

n

ro

03

o

Ou

rt

3

ft>

H-

3

<-t

O

n

03

3

H-

h--

rt

M

(IQ

O

H-

i-(

cn

P

3

c

fD

cn

rr

N

1-1

i-l

O

>-{

^-^

h-"

M

cn

h-"

rr

fD

O

fD

Q

i-ti

fD

P

P

fD

ro

P

n

3

GO

no

TO

3

f.

3

rt

rt

fD

C

H«

n

1-^

CL

w

3

fD

C

H-

h- '

cn

(D

1— '

3

P

3

rt

3

rr

P

rr

<

P

fD

c

3*

3

rt

0

OO

3"

rr

fD

fD

rf

cn

P

P

(n

en

fD

ID

rl

1— '

H-

r'

ID

<

CO

S

H-

CL

O

3

p

(D

fD

O

T3

fD

l-l

V ■

O

■o

OO

3

H-

3

i-h

r^

rr

f-Tl

=i

CL

^

(D

o

1— '

cn

r-1

m

r)

O

3

n

<

P

3-

fD

n

3

53

a

rr

fD

rt

o

H-

3

O

ja

r^

rr

M

cn

cr

3

•

3

CL

CL

r^

c

H-

M

fD

ID

"3

fD

cn

(D

H-

rr

r-

cn

fD

1-1

•

I—-

r-1

H*

P

33

c

3

fD

cn

P

H-

O

f.

^.-^

fi)

3

P

3*

o

3

3

P

rr

O

n

fD

3

H

CL OO

I—'

w •

^

C

rl

rr

3

fD

O

cn

fD

h-- 00

ID

cn

OO

■* •

t— '

P

cn

p

P

CL

H-

0

fD

o

^

fD

C/^

rr

3

■ •

<

rt,

rt

P

n

(T>

rf

H-

H-

H.

fD

3-

3

p

P

rr

rt

O

N

rr

(D

CL

I-'

cn

H-

fD

3

fD

t^

(A

3"

1-1

H-

3

CL

fD

rt

(D

•3

rt

rt

00

t-

n

:to

P

rt

i-l

H-

o

O

o

p

c

rr

?r

^

O

O

C

o

-i

, 1

fD

fD

fD

1

M

cr T3

p

=:

O

p

v:

Cfl

fD

rr

H-

p

rr

M

fD

rf

P

H-

cn

X

■~^

P

O

O

cn

3

3

3

H-

00

a.

o

3

i-ti

l-i

1— '

^

ra

O

fD

fD

M

3

r<

00

00

P

p

H-

K-

3

n

rh

cn

cn

3

rr

IT)

h- '

h-t

H-

fD

CL

P

P

3

tu

fD

rr

rt

00

i-l

h^

C

P

P

O

r|

r>

M

3

fD

o

c

h-'
P

OO

rt

H-

3

t.

rt

O

3

o

P

H-

n

3

^

1— '

1— '

n

rr

c

VO

w

fD

CO

p

■~J

P

M

CJN

rr

rf

H-

O

P-

i-h

^t

3

VJ

fD

n

fD

OO

rt

o

•3

p

3-

O

fD

3

r<

r*

fD

rt

p

cn

3

3

rt

CL

rr

CL

p

H-

O

rt

3

C3

fD

00

rt

3*

en

o

■3

o
cn

fD
CL

M
3
P
O

rf
fD

CL

o

O

w

03
(13

n

03
(t>

■rt
rt

03

1^

M
to
3

CO

H
>
-3
W

214

(-' en
(u rr

P CD
CI- rt
(D
C

03 T)
ft) O
• M

n

H-
fD
CO

83

0

■ cu

f^
O
M
fD
03

l-h

<-.

Zt.

rt

03

cr

>

a.

i-i

03

=?

1T3

H-

W

fD

o

fD

3

V!

ffi

fD

rt

3

1

O

0)

?:

HJ

w

U.

03

<

m

3

O

&;

I--

H-

H-

rt

13

(D

c

rt

3

i_j.

rf

H-

v:

fJ

.13

11

3'

(J

f-»

M

(D

fro

fD

H-

tn

^

03

(t)

(U

n

o

03

fD

O

O

0)

•

o

H-

T)

rt

q

rt

3

T3

m

O

u

M

03

^

H-

5^

fD

1-1

rt

3

(b

M

fD

O

H-

3

H-

CO

fD

03

3

uv

3

3

rt

rt

03

•<!

'O

rr

M

fD

H-

f3

rt

rr

0)

(13

M

U3

3

03

O

03

O

3

03

rt

f-(

H-

3

u-

M

3

(ti

fT3

M

rt

ro

H-

en

U-

03

3

O

B

rt

C

q

3

3"

U3

rr

H-

i-h

n

•v>

fD

D.

fW

ro

P

t--

C

03

i-t

3'

1-!

VJ

cu

a-

03

rt

i-i

03

I-!

H-

3

3

H-

3

tu

(D

(D

(D

H-

(Tl

rt

tn

CO

3

a

o

i-(

r^

O

fW

H-

H-

rt

(W

(-'

Hi

03

3

M

3

H-

O

03

H-

03

03

f+i

3

0>

VD

O

03

<

I—-

3

H-

i-u

rt

~J

*;

3

M

o

fD

3

H

O-

O

H-

4>

03

3

3

03

3

ro

fD

UQ

<

^— ^

03

1— '

03

a-

•o

n

i-l

0)

rt

1

rt

i-h

o

h-'

O

O

O

n

H-

fD

zr

O

c

11

03

Hi

t

03

f-(

=1

03

fD

f1

03

rt

rn

rt

rt

03

(0

T)

rn

fD

w

t-'

3"

f1

rt

03

01

rt

O

H-

03

03

C

rt

n

03

3'

3

1

3

a.

1

fU

a.

rt

3
CL

ft)

O fD

1^
f9 3

n 3

fD

3
rt
fD

f
3
3

a.

03
fD

o

CO

o

•n

3 3
rf 3
(D G-

e

0

3
II
fD
H- 3
M 03

O

O t

3 3-

•a p.

M O

(D 3^

3 H- ' 03 rt >

3 3 H- O

D- 3 O

G- 3
O

M C S

3 03 3

03 fD H'

03 n

H- TI 3
i-t> I— '

3 S

3 O

O

3

n
o o

h+l c

rt el-
s'

fD <-i
fD

M C

3 I
0

n H-

l-i M

ft) H'
3

rt S

fD 3

03

3

Cl rt

rt O 3

3-
3

G.
3 fD

H- fD

rt 3

H- rt

f:i O

3 1

G-
03 fD
rt Ml
3 fl3

3
fD rt

m

3
3 S

O- 3"

G n

01 D-'
fD

■d

0 o

3 XI
3 O
H- 03
03 fD

1 G-

T) 03 cr5

O rt H-
CIO

fD O 3

t1 3 3

03 CW M

-a H-

O 3

h-i T3

p. cu

n n

vi rt

03
fD

rt CO

rt rt

H- 3

3 It

OQ fD

3 s:

3 O

G- C

3
3
G-

n

O- I-i

fD H-

< rt

fD H-

3 C rt >
H. -3 3"

rt fD cr

rt rt H>

(D C M M
fD fD
03 H--

<

fD

O O

I-i
fD
<

fD
K

O 3
"3 M

3

fD "3
3 M
rt 3
03 3
3
O H-
i-h 3
OQ
i-i
fD
I

t-(
I-I fD
fD OQ
OQ H-
C O
M 3
3 3
rt M
fD

I-i
G- (D
fD 03
< O

rt
03 O
fD

03 cr

03 fD

fD
03

c
cr

3

fD

C
I-i

o o

■O fD

3
fD n

3 9

rt 3
03 I

TI

I-i

O
"3 rt

O rt

03 tD

fD O-

03
i-ti

03 O

fD I-i

rt

rt

H-

3 .

tJ

o

I-I

o

o

3

T)

03

O

rt

03

3

fD

M

G-

N

3

O

3

3

01-

(D

G-
fD

^

tti

3

fD

3

3

m

rt

fD

a

3

a.

fD

3

rt

rt

3*

H-

cr

03

H-

H"

v;

H"

fD

3

s:

t1

3

•

03

I-I
o
■o
o

03
fD

a-

M

M
CO

H
M

o

M 3

O 3

n v;

3
•3

N "d

O fD
3 3

H. I— I

3

n
o
3

03

rt
i-(

C

n OQ rt

3 3"
3
G- 03
fD
<
ft

■-c) rt

O
3
03

03
O

cr

fD
fD
3

o
I-i

fD
3
rt
fD

O

i-n

3

W 3

fD 3

00 H-

H- 3

o 00

3

3 n

M o
3

M o

3 fD

■3 i-i

03 D

n

rt 3
G-

fD
3- 3
3 -3
rt O

H-
03

3
3
G-

3

I-i

rt

t. 3-

3 3

3 03

G.
<

O 3
^ fD

o I-i "<:

H- fD 3

03 OO t-i

rt C O-
I-i M

H- O

3 <

O. fD

3 t1

I-i f-i

H- I-I- I

3 O-

OO 3

rt
3-
I-i
O
3^ C

o CO

C 3-
03

o

> 3
<

3 fD
fD H-i

o o

3* -3

3 3

3 O
O

rt (D 3

03 3

|_. H-

O 3 03

I-n 3 03

G- H.
O
C 3

03

fD H~
03
O
3

n

: — 1.

H

3

3

CO

3

r^

3

c

3- CO

I-I

C

I-i

3

I-i

u.

fD

fD

3

H-

3

I-i

3

H-

3

3

3-

3

V!

I-I-

O

03

O

03

3

3

M

3

H-

rt

H-

M

3

Cro

3

3

fD

3

I-I-

03

3

M

rt

03

3

3

rt

G-

n

h-i

3

G-

3

3

I-I

*<

H-

03

rt

3-

(-■•

3"

3u

rt

C

3

rt

H-

3

3

3"

rt

rt

03

H-

3

03

3

3

O

3

n

rt

•

l_i.

3

M "3

H-

M

H-

c

M

O

O

i-n

O

G-

03

o

C

■^

n

3

H

rt

3

3

fD

3

3

3-

I-I

M

n

n

M

rt

3

■o

fD

I-i

I-I-

H-

3

3

3

rt

H-

rt

I-h

03

03

03

O

O

rt

H-

XI

ft

03

•

rt

H-

3

3

3

(-!•

H-

O

03

O

rt

G.

O

3

3

I-i

3

3

rt

I-I

3

H-

3

03

(T)

3

rt

H-

I-I

3

O-

H-

03

n

f^

<

I-i

O

3

I-I

O

3

3

t-t

3

C

H-

3

3

3

a>

M

3

rt

1

3

03

CO
o

3

3

03

H-

n

3
1— '

M
3
3
3
rt
3
G-

ft
P>
9

00
m

o

c

H

(0

CO

H-
CO
CO

•a

9

3
(0
CO

o
pi

215

C/3

H
>
H

h--

n

r<

W

0

o

D

c

3

C^

3

rt

n

P

C

H-

3

tn

H"

(U

(D

H-

M

•a

«

3

o

<

h--

i-(

H-

p-

ft)

1-1

n

X)

o

'^

O

3

i-l

=3

»

rr

ft)

M

H-

3

rt

D

rt

ro

OQ

6)

l-t

H"

3

O

0)

D

O

rt

C

H-

cn

Cu

<

rt

M

fD

W

H-

CO rt rt

> fD •<

c

CU

M-

n

0

-a

m

cn

3

3

i-i

3

i-i

3

(D

a.

O

H-

re

<

M

rt

CO

T)

p-

rt

rt)

C

H-

i-t

P

n

i-t

o

D.

n

o

i-(

c

fO

o

(D

w

s

H-

3

3

3

h-'

rt

3

3

u.

O

lu

3'oy

fD

cn

3

cn

CU

3

•

H-

cn

1-i

BJ

H

rt

n

01

ft)

3

fD

CU

cn

»)

a.T3

M

DJ

cn

cn

O

CO

3

^*

H-

1-1

>

fD

rr

rt

a

K

3

1-1

cn

<

fD

rr

fD

rt

H-

h-'

T3

U-J.

O

cn

t-'

O

O

3

o

i-h

r-l

-d

rr

i-i

m

rt

Ca

=r ^

cn

(«

n

re

O

S

rt

CD

H'

n

p-

Oq

i-t

U3

H-

M

O

o

o

3

01

(-■

3

<

c

CL

M

re
n

3
O

13
CO

CU

o

>

3

i-i

a.

re

rt

V

»)

cn

n

cn

fD

re

P?*

rt

a.

i-h

(W

rt

O

o

O

-I

(D

n

h- '

n

re

cn

0

o

o

i-h

I-I

3

O

CI-

i-(

M-

cro

3

i-(

n-

Ca

0

^j*

rt

s

re

fD

rt
3-

cn

•a

rt

(-'

3-

D

M

03

rt

3

tn

re

3

H-

cr

3

re

TO

re

3

•3 a

i-" re

m <

3 re

• o

■3
3
re

3

o
c

re

n
o
3
"3
f-l

re
3-
ro
3
cn

<

re

H- 3
cn re

rt
■3 1-1
1-1 O

re 13
'O o

CU M

M H-

H- rt

3 C"

TO 3

1-1 O H M 2;

3"

re

[u cn 3

cn n

Cl. rt

fD H-

< re

M- TO re cn

SCO
re 3
rt H-
>-! i-h

O t---

"3 n
o p

(-' 3

H- n
rt re

3
to
3

■3 O

n -v

O H-

t— 3

re TO
n

rt TO
cn c

O C rt

hti re »

M 3

3

re 3

>-i re

3 cn

o o

rt rt

< -

re tn

TO 'Tj

I-i C

O rt

S C

rt i-{

3" re

3 >
D
rt i-<

H- re

O "3

a. 3

3 TO
Q C

tn H-

rt cn
n

6) a.

rt re

re <

TO re

3
re
cn

re o
cn V

• H'
3
TO

3- 3

CD re

cn

n

o

O

(-■ 3 re

H- O

a- 3
o

re
re cn

TO

Hi

>

03

cr

rt

1— '

o

-d

[—1

c

n

3

re

O

re

re

h- 1

re

1-1

rt

O-TO

TO

■3

to

TO

rt

c

H-

TO

H-

to

3

H-

3*

(U

rt

3

H-

tn

-■!

3

cn

re

t-l

0

<

h- •

rt

H-

I-'

i-t

03

re

to

3

3

to

o

H-

rt

re

TO

rt

■3

o

Q.

cn

cn

H-

3

H-

I-t

3

re

rt

c

0

rt

to

O

O

rt

3

0)

o

3

3

3

■3

I-t

■rt

rt

3"

?:

a.

O

0

H-

re

?:

to

rt

CO

M

i-h

s^

03

H-

cn

n

O

(D

cn

^

H-

I-I

o

a.

CL

Cl.

h-i

CL

3

re

S

n

re

re

re

3

cn

M

o

1^

•3

ty

►-T1

C

rt

re

c

H-^d

03

re

re

3

to

TO

M

rt

I— 1

1-1

to

H>

rr

H-

D-

H-

03

rt

1-1

rr

rt

h-i

cn

n

3

3

re

re

^

H-

1— 1

f-l

03

3

re

tn

CL

cn

fl)

re

1— '

H-

3

c

.«,

O

3"

rt

XI

3

rt

tr

re

H-

c

03

TO

3

cn

<

to

O

H-

I-I

■3

H-

H-

re

3

I-t

re

TD

O

rt

3

h- '

cn

•

(D

03

1-1

t.

rt

H-

o

rt

cn

O

re

re

1— 1

^

to

•

n

1-1

a.

to

3

rt

re

••

1-1

re

re

cn

rt

3

tn

O

rt

03

1^

3'

R

H

o

f-l

m

M

re

03

3

3*

o

O

3

rt

■3

cn

<

H-

3

/3

<

re

0

H-

cn

cn

c

H-

I-I

I-t

a-

1-1

re

H.

I-I

3

rt

re

0

to

^

fl

o

03

re

3

o

^

re

3

rf

O

3

3

rt

re

cn

3

H-

3

re

3

re

<

Q.

3

to

o

re

3

re

tn

H-

rt

I— '

re

<

rt

cn

rt

ft

03

cn

cn

to

to

03

re

h-i

O

h- '

h-i

H-

rt

n

o

C

3

re

rt

O

n

i-ti

to

-d

ft)

C

I-I

rt

o

h-i

M

CL

to

re

TO

H-

1— '

VO

03

h- '

to

O

O

H-

^

3

o-

H-

rt

<

3

n

U1

avj

rt

re

re

^

*

c

1^

^

CL

I-t

O
i-h

>

cn

re

n

rt

§

o

re

tn

0

3"

re

re

rt

o

c

re

3

3

•3

t— *

3

rt

<

y^^

o

c

n

r<

H-

t-'

1— 1

rt

H-

o

to

^

^n

H-

H-

M

3

-3

0

^

O

U

<«

rt

rr

n

k-^

^

3

s

to
3

h-L
O

3
re

v.^

rt

3-

to

3

3

O

O

tn

rt

to

H- TO

3 C

O H-

M D.

c re

CL M

3 3

TO re
cn

TO

I-t to

O 3

K CL

?^

to

r-l

re p- TO
cn

n

to

rt

re <

3* CL

re
n <

o re

3 M

rt O

i-< "3

O 3

M re
cn 3

3 I-I
re re

- I-i
o

>-( -3

re o

to H-

to rt

3 H-

O

n 3
rt o tn

■3 O 3

3 O
H- (^ I-h

3"

re

IT3

I-t
o

■3
O
cn
re
a.

a

M
CO

H

M

o

I-I rt CL > rt

re 3" re o 3*
< re cn rt re

re 1-1 TO

« re 3

TO to

O C rt

t-ri M H-

to 3

M rt TO

O H-

O O O

to 3 1-1

M H-

O rt

I-h H-

•3 n

M cn to

to to M

3 3

cn re to

• »* r^

re

H- to

3 CO

n »

1— '

c to

c- 3

H. CL
3

TO

O M

I-h 3

<

VO I-I

--J o

W 3

to re

c 3

rt rt

3- to

O M
1-1

H- O

N C

re to

I— '

O H-

•-l rt

H- ^
rt

re cti

r^ O

H- 3

to 3

n

I-h H-

O I-I

I-t

H "3 rt

3- I-t O

re o

(_■. CL

rti re re

1-1 n

n

<

re
I— '
o

■3

TO
C
H-

CL

re

to l-r,

o 3 c

I-h I-t
cn

h- ' M- O

O TO O

--J 3 3

'-J I— r-

t-n 1-1

to H- o

3 0 1-'

CL to h^

3 —

n
re

H

3*

re
h

re

rr
I-t
O

n
o

c

3

n

1-1

re
o

rt

re

w

3

to
o

rt

re
a.

ft

ro

CO

%

CO

cr

in

pi

cn

P

c

Tl

CO

f_

cn

o

<

m

O

rt

03

rt

n

(D

cn

OJ

cn

W

fn

o

in

rt

rt

1^

3

M

H-

fD

n

(t)

3

o

(D

o-

3"

(W

M 13

W

!-<

i-(

n.

H-

O

M

f-!

Oi

3

cn

W

cro

3

H-

n

3

(D

a

03

o

3

CL

CT

3

H-

■-d

H-

"O

3

S

M

O

n

CR

H-

w

3

(t>

rr

3

>-(

•

3"

cn

3"

3

ft)

rf

H-

•n

T

3

I-!

>-(

3

o

m

Ji

U

ro

M

i-(

rn

H-

fi

<

(-f

<

rr

H-

H

ro

C

(L

U3

rr

r

i-i

s;

cn

O

^

CD

(D

3

?r

ft

H<

3

W

TO

■-d

-r

rt

(-1.

3

o

ro

CI.

(-1.

rt

3*

n

3" cn

tn oc

■3

cn

•3

H

il

rt

B3

e;

O

CU

r-(

O

n

rt

rt

m

CD

fti

CD

s:

H-

u-

cn

H-

3

<

•

3-

H-

ro

rt

cn

S'

O

M

(t)

i-{

[U

^

3

ei.

tL

(D

tTQ

<

1-1

c

ro

O

CD

M

c

0)

o

■Td

•3

cn

■3

B

M

(tl

Cu

Cu

3

i-i

3

rt

(D

3

H-

O

rt

3

i-ti

t"

(N

?r

&)

3

cn

cr

rt

rt

3-

o

H

rt

CD

O

O

fD

3

3"

»

cn

W

3

fD

rt

rt

Cu

fu

f^

ft)

fD

fD

"3

H-

3

00

•

fD

<

■3

3

rt

fD

n

(T>

i-i

00

3

o

(-'

O

CD

f-i

ID

3

O

B

M

O

rt

o

"3

o

3

ft)

3

3'

(D

3

H-

D3

rt

H-

>

O

H"

n

rt

CW

CD

(U

V

ri-

fl

H-

rt

3

ft)

H-

3

D3

a-

rt

ft)

n

rt

rt

O

c

fD

fD

c

H-

M

I-i

00

Oa

cn

rt

fD

"3

fD

fD

C

cn

M

rt

n

H

rt

CU

h-'

ft)

o

fD

CO

3

fD

I-I

3

fW

3

D-

B

O

H-

H-

H-

c

3

i-ti

3

tn

3
fD

n
rt

tL

ft

rt

ED

H-

m

3*

3-

rt

3^

3

3

(D

CD

o

3

O

OQ

<

— 1-

cr t-^

Cu ft)

cn (TO

fD

fD
<

fD

CL cn M

M O

n cr ^

PJ fD f-t

(-' o

T) -3

o
3

rt

3-
ft)

O
cn

CU

CO

Ml

o
l-s
n

fD

o

I-!

00
M ft)
M 3

n

CU ^
M

C/) 1— '
O fD

CO

cr H.
fD tn

CD I-i

H O

ft) -3

B O M

CO cn tn
- ft)

(X CL

M fD

O D i-n
S 00 (t)

m CD

i-d

3 3
o

ft)

CL

CD

3

"3
M
O

•3
O
CO
(b
CL

M C

H- 3
O '
3

3 H-

CD 3

O

D" H-' &
O C

a. M

cn Q H-

CL ?r

fD

OQ n M
I-i ^

3 rt rt

Cl H. O

I

fH CD

TS

H-

CD

C/0

M

3

c

rt

rt

cr

CD

rt

M

3

rt

fD

vD

H-

fD

I-i

-J

rt

S

3

C/l

rt

H-

cn

■« •

fD

tL

•

CL

fD

O

i-(

rt

e,

c

0

CD

n

rt

H-

rt

ft)

CD

3-

I-i

M

fD

-3

rt

M

M

O

fD

CD

CO

3

CL

H-

fD

tn

H-

<

M

cn

fD

B

M

rt

rt

o

C

O

■3

f-t

3

fD

cr

fD

fD

3

I-i

h§
O
tn
fD

CL

m
o

H

M

o

H
3*

fD
3

H^

ft)

ft)

O

I-I

i-h

I—"

•

i-i

fD

H-

0

00

O

•3

c

0)

1

1

3

3 t.

tn CD ^
?r cn fD
(D
o o

I-i I-I "3

ft fD fD

O W 3

O rt

3 fD C/^

CL -a

w

cr n

. .^ fD

rt rt f

H- =r M

O ft) 3

3 CL
CD M

fD cn

H- 00 rt

3 H- C

cn CL

VD CD

•^ rt n

Ui c o

• ^ 3

fD 3

H-

rt CO

O cn

H-

o

3

CD

Cl

s;

I-I

I-i

>

H

c

fD

H-

(D

fD

n

3-

rt

CO

CL XI

OO

rt

fD

cr

H-

fD

c

C

o

oo

H-

M

^-N

z

I-i

3

M

I-I

B

1— '

fD

H-

to

CU

fD

rt

VO

<

rt

rt

3

CO

fD

^

CD

^

H-

CL

U)

CL

O

rt

C

*w^

0)

rt

3

c

3"

3

O

cn

fD

■3

fD

C/2

O

fD

1— 1

3

rt

I-i

i-h

CL

B

CD

PJ

fD

-3

fD

3

cr

rt

00

n

M

<

3

*-■

fD

c

11

D

fD

fD

fD

1— '

H-

3

M

(-L

cn

r-'

CD

rr

3

O

W

rt

H-

K-

-3

W

rt

3

fD

n

3

3

i-i

3"

CL

a

00^

fD

fD

fD

O

M

3

CD

c

W

-3

rt

CO

00

tn

1— 1

Q)

I-!

•

o

fD

4

I-i

O

O

<

CO

fD

n

i-n

fD

na

•

CD

fD

H

I-i

I—"

cn

tn

O

3'

3

w

•

tn

fD

O

3

»*

tn
rt

CU

I-I

3

Z

CD

CD

n

rt

3

t3

3

CL

rt
fD

1

rt

O

OQ

cn

rt

>

H

H-

3-

o

3"

o

fD

rt

fD

3

•

cn

tn

f.

rt

rt

H-

03

M

3

M

rt

I-h

rt

M

fD

fD

•

M

Z

O

3"

CD

n

03

rt

03

CD

3

h-"

f^

H-

03

03

rt

M

H-

►tI

fD

M

7a

CD

O

fD

O

m

CL

CL

o

O

c

3

iTd

I-i

—

M

n

rt

03

fD

H-

tfl

I-i
fD

3

n 00

N

o

C

O

3

M

3

3

3

P-

H-

rt

3

cn

fD

00

o

H

i-t

o

l-h CL H

O (D :3*

i-t < (D

ri)

ct M r'

rr o Co

to "a 3

3

O 05 IT3
O

TO

cn n

rf O

(ti O

c

M 3

CU O

3 H-

Cu M

O 0)

O

z
to

s

•-<
o
1-1
?r

rt

n:

O

C/3

n

H

3"

H-

P

rr

o

3-

O

i-'

rr

P

3

rt

cn

M

cn

rr

cn

(D

?^

CD

ft)

a

n

H-

n

re

P

o

M

m

<

TD

i-i

r)

M

3

P

p

TO

3

<

rr

l-[

Cu

H-

n

H-

H-

rr

cn

cn

o

1-1

O

H

cn

O

3

3

O

H-

3

3-

rr

3

cn

(D

P

cn

3

cn

O

P

H-

rr

hh

I-t

O

P

TJ

fD

3

M

3

cn

CD

►T3 ta

<

rt

3

M

P

M-

C

CL

p

r-l

r-t

c-

3

ra

O

<<;

(T

D-

J3

H-

3-

a

3

O

p

m

05

H

3

H

3-

2

rr

C

fD

•

P

0<3

Mi

h-'

m P

S 3

o •
<-i
?r

p- H

3 3-

OQ ft)

O
3

P
rr
(D

cn

n

C i-(

3 H'

3 (D

CD <

3 P

C^ M
P

rt cn
H- v;

O cn

3 rr

cn ft)

3
i-ri

O P

1-1 3

D.
M

P S

3 p.
G. M

a

(D
X

O

o

rr CI. H

3-
(^

t-
P
3

G
cn

C^ fD

P

rr >

P D-

cn

O

3"

P

■a cn

U- 1

p

3

c
cn 3

fD P

P V:;

OQ

fD n
o

a. o

►■! (-■
fD
I H-

cn

217

-o

i-n

H

<-t

O

3-

o

r-l

3

fD

O

C

r'

cn

1— '

p

fD

P

3

a.

rr
fO

CL

cn

■xi

rt

M

o

P

fD

M

rr

OQ

H-

(D

H-

n

cn

v;

M

M

P

P

n

3

rr

o

O.

H-

c

o

3

C

3

O

cn

H>

CD

rf
O

h-"

n

s

o

H-

M-

M

3

M

H- X)

I-'

o

I— '

H-

fD

fD

3

cn

fD
3

c-:i s:

O fD

C P

3 7^

n fD

M. 3

M fD

M

fD l-ti

r^ n
O 3

<

i-t
O
3

3
fD

3

CD
3

CL r<

P p

rt 3 fD

p. CU
O ri

3 a

CO cn

fD cn

Cl rt

» p

rt
P CD
3
CLT3

SOI-'

p. Lj.
M fD P-
M o 3
rt -O
cr cn p
n

3" rt

p

CD cn

P

(D

CL

c

(D

fD

cr 05

<

p-
cn
o
I-t

a" CD p-

3 fD cn

p- 3 M

rt P

rr r^ rr

fD fD P-

CL 1

F

C

rt

O

>

tn

P

>

3"

rn

3

P

P

H

Im

cn

fD

PJ

n

rr

3

r(

fD

o

O

p

fD

y

P

fT

P

CL

rt)

3

^-t

^

rn

ro

3

cn

cn

rr

P

cn

rr

P

3

pj

«•

cn

P

fD

CL

cn

p-

p

p

3

1— t

p-

P

p-

p-

p"

fD

<

rt

rr

CL

p

3

t.

3

Hi

cn

\^

<

O

fD

cn

O

fD

3

IN

CD

<

p-

0

r(

m

Pi

C

f.

rn

CL

•

«

(D

n

o

pj

P-

C

cr

P-

o

cn

P

■3

<

o

■3

P

cn

fD

O.

pj

^

P

rt

rr

1-1

p-

X!

P

3

fD

fD

p-

o

>

3

P-

P-

o

CL

3

ri

CL J3

p

f;

p)

D-05

O

<

fD

fD

rr

C

P-^

p-

(n

P

3

p-

3

P-

3

fD

3

P

n

rf

05

rr

Q.

P

rr

o

p

3

O

r.

O ^

1^

C

p-

P

fD

cn

c

3

rr

n

CL

o

o

P-

O

3

cn

n

i— )

P

r-

•>

3

a.

3

a.

fD

O

p

05

v;

p-

■3

3

n

jy

n

pi

3

Pi

r(

fD

3

O

n

rt

I

M

U

p.

o

rr

3

P

CL

pi

p-

UJ

p-

i-ri

3

I-t

i-(

P- -3

fD

c

P-

P-

p"

CD

Irt

3

Pi

P

3

c

3

rt

3

o

Hi

P

fD

w

o

cn

1— '

rr

cr

rr

3' 05

•<:

rr

) rr

in

rt

1-1

rr

(D

M

n

n

pi

li'f

P

3

P

Pi

r!

p. -3

n

i-ti

rr

^

1

Pi

rr

P

rt

O

fD

n

1-1

p-

O

n

rl

--J

P

O

fO

rt

(D

n

CO

O

N

C

(D

*-

P

l-(

P-

c

rt

n

O

fD

3

rr

n

1 H.

M

0

h--

cn

0

o

CL

CL

o

n

i fD

M

W

3

P

•

rr

3

cn

P

o

3

H

' 3

0

3

^

0

n

cn

n

..*

=!

r^

art

n

U.

CO

Cu

fD

o

P-

rr5

m

P-

(D

P

*<

H

rr

I-t

3

o

o

3

rt

1"
1

p-

1

c
cn

0

fD

fD

3

■3
ri
fD
1

3

<

fD
t\

CL

fD
CO

:j-

•3

M

r.

p-

r^

O

P

p- -0

-0 -3

n

H

p

M

p

~-i

N

3

<:

3

P

ri

P

li

o

cn

P

?:

ft)

n

<

fD

CL

rr

P-

rl

p-

3

fD

^

r^,

^

c:l

M.

r|

rr

<

?r

<

p

cr

3

fD

rl

P

fD

P

p

ri

>

fD

p-

3

pj

rr

o

ui -a

ri

rf

rt

O

CP

(D

3

O

o

0

p

•3

fD

fD

pi

P-

3

05

fD

n

3

p

I-t

ID

►3

cn

rl

P

P-

fD

n

O

3

M

p-

M

O

^

P

W

1—1

3

3

r|

<

P

P

p

P

CL

3

fD

3

P-

H.

■3

rr

fD

fD

cr

3

— '

3

(D

O-

<

tL

<

rr

O

P

cn

M

CL

cn

U.

<

P

h^

fD

P-

cn

t-'

•

•3

p-

cn

fD

O

<

O

rt

fD

fD

rt

3

Hi

p-

P"

?r

fD

O

cn

n

p-

05

^

o

3

O

CL

o

f~l

Hi

o

H

<

P

1

■3

^

•

-(

O

^

f— *

P

rt

<

rr

ri

Zs

CL

3

P

o

cn

fD

rr

^

fD

u-

>j

O

n

p-

3

hJ-

o

n

fD

fD

0

fD

3

7^

3

p-

p-

CL

i-i

O

cr

rf

rf

P

cn

<

fD

CL

P

fD

3"

>

>

rt

cn

rr

•3

p

■3

fD

05

(D

CL

O

05

P-

p-

O

Y-'

rr

P

<

(D

3

"a

P-

Hi

fD

3

o

•

P

H-

ri

fD

3

^

ri

3

05

3

P-

o

rt

P"

n

p

cr

O

■3

n

*#

3

3

3

O

^

CL

p'

C

^

P

H

fD

■3

o

p-

CL

CJ*

C

S

3"

a

P-

3

3

rt

■3

o

P

p '

^-N

rt

p-

fD

o

cn

rt

ID

O

rr

n

P-

P"

^

rt

3

fD

p

TT

n

VO

O

3-

'J^

rr

J

O

rr

r;

CL

;J

^^

i-l

rr

ri

c

Hi

cn

fD

>•

a.

cn

p

p '

p.

•

O

rt

<

rr

3

^^^

rt

M

3"

P-

rr

P

CL

^

cn

O

fD

3-

rr

r|

1

S

fD

CD

rt

O

f3

O

CO

fD
CL

w
o

M

o

2

W
3
P
n

rr
fD
CL

o
l-t

o
o

o

M
O

o

o
1-1

a
o

o
^^ f-i

O rt
O ET
3

(T n
o

to

H

21!

3

p

o

n

cn

>

3

o

O

rf

OQ

a

w

3

C

f^

en

T3

D.

3

"3

rt

1-1

H-

o

(-■

CD

ft)

ro

H-

05

M

^

w

ft)

3

ro

cn

en

CU

3

0.'

•

l-l

m

3

CD

ft)

H-

D.

l-(

CU

<
fc

•3

ro

CQ

V

i-i

o

o

ft)

CD

[U

w

"3

i-(

M

rt

CD

n

tn

ft)

>-!

•<

*#

rt

H-

H-

ft;

3

3

CP

c

CW

(jq

c

H-

H-

a

CT

O

O.

ft)

O

c

ft)

w

rt

rt

M

3"

H-

PJ

3

3

ft)

CL

cn

H-

rt

n

>

3

O

o

OQ

3

H

w

3

ro

i-n

cn

H-

n

O

cn

rt

J

t-i

H-

rt

3

cn

ft)

H-

1^

rt

ft)

n

ft)

CD

CX

rt

3"

M

ft)

3"

CD

f^

ft)

cn

M

CD

03

M

cn

cr

3

rt

ft)

tx

h-'

OJ

ft)

ft)

r-t

3

G

ua

ff

cn

H-

ft)

ft)

cn

H-

cn

M

3

rt

>

w

CD

£2-

rt

■3

cr

<

H-

n

h-'

H-

O

ft)

H-

cn

3

•3

cn

O

P)

3'

i-(

1

vj

H-

H

cn

3"

fD

n

o

M

r)

CD

13

3

t— '

D.

ft)

rt

C

H-

cn

3

CD

W

■tS

CD

O

1— '

f!

H-

ft)

O

"O

v:

o

l-l

s:

rt

o

•

f-i

?r

o

i-i

o

c

X)

to O

rt O

p. CD

O M
3

CD

CD 3

3 P-

i-t
I-i (t>
CD OQ
(^ H-
O O
O. 3
H- CD
i-t> t--
H--
n i-h
CD O

•3 O H

O 3'

3 (t)

C M

n

CD

3
3
H-
3

tK) H'
3
CD CR
3 ti)

a. !13 rt

<

cn

N cn

o

c

a. n
3 ^ o

c

O 3

Hi n

cw

O
3

P)
i-t
P-

Ml
H- '
1

3 H-
cu cn

c

cn
(D

C/3

H

O

rt

rt

M

H

rt

Hi

H-

?r

r'

O

3'

o

3-

O

0

3

H-

03

ft)

■3

fD

l-(

rt

h-'

3

rt

3

C3"

3

I-i

M

CL

3"

Cu

fD

I-

fD

O

fD

TO

ft)
cn

3
rt

03

3

cn

CX
C

o.

cn

03

M

H-

CX

c

n

O

H-

1— '

(t>

OQ

n

cr

o

fD

3

fD

0<3

3

o

C~)

3

03

D-

cn

H-

O

3

O

H-

tn

1 — '

cn

rt

3

3

rt

rt

H-

O

I-I

M

M-

H-

cn

rt

03

3

-~J

CD

D:

O

cn

fD

fD

h-'

ijo 00

rt

3

cn

<

04

1 — •

»*

C

C

i-j-

03

N

vO

h- 1

M

O

O

rt

rt

o

-4

03

03

(0

Hi

3

H-

O

3

Ul

3

ft

•

O

t.

O
3

rt

fD

CL

O

>-!

H-

o--^

H-

s:

3

'•*

H-

M

03

fD

M

3

H-

rt

M

3

03

1— '

03

H-

£1-

M

3

CL

t-"

o

O

>-!

fO

H-

rt

03

fD

oo

H-

Hi

cr

M

n

O

O
fD

cn

cn

Hi
fD

fD

S

03

CD

3

<

I--

cn

I-I

I-I

cn

i-(

3

fD

03

O

fD

fD

ft)

(D

I

rt

o

3

1

CD

3

C

3

rt

- —

-

cn

Cl-

-

(D

--

-

o

1— '

hti

CD

S

rt

rt

cnSs

rtJfD

rt

cn

I— 1

o

o

O

CD

3

H-

O

O

3"

H-

3

I

o

3
rt

n

n

H-

D.

ex.

fD

00

o

M^

fD

<

H-

cn

fD?

f

yD

cn

il

H-

H-

cn

fD

<

J-C~l

03

M

^j

cn

O

"3

r-t

rt

H-

3

fD

■3

o

3

03

U)

H-

M

M

H-

H-

00

rt

n

h- '

3

CX

3

<«

O

cn

P

fD

3

3

H-

3

03

3

C

3

3

cn

OQ

H-

I-h

3

H-

n

o

i-h

cn

>*

It,^

cn

3

cn

o

C

1-i

OP

O

•*

■3

H-

rt

M-

cn

3

cn

(D

o

fi

ft)

ft>

O

03

03

3

H-

cn

fD

00

CD

N

rt

f-(

0)

n

rt

OO

O

fD

O

M

n

O

n

3

3

rt

fD

3

I-i

1— '

3

cn

o

3

•

H-

o

H-

30

<

03

•

3

H-

v^

rt

ft)

<

03

O

03

s:

-a

i-ti

3

V ■

cn

H-

3

03

rt

^

03

O

OQ

CD

rt

O-

1— '

1— 1

H-

cn

<-\

Ml

3

H-

cn

rt

o

fD

cn

3

CD

CD

o

(X

fD

h-'

3

cn

fD

H-

3

3

^

cn

O

03

H-

rt

CL

rt

CL

Cl

H-

n

3

cn

03

03

^

cn

cn

o

03

CU

3

O'

03

cn

rt

w

cn

Hi

M

&

CX

M

S

c

O

3

C

00

H"

H-

n

H-

cr

ft)

fD

m

03

C

I-i

O

cn

o

rt

ex

>-!

rt

O

H-

fD

fD

3"

3

3-

H-

(T.

^■^

■3

03

rt

G.

n

<

H-

■3

<

<

X)

H-*

rt

H-

fD

rt

CD

3

t-i

H-

H-

c

as

fD

<

I-'

fD

M 00

fD

cn

ft)

a"

3

1

M-

H-

Cu

O

=r

M-

s:

1— '

3

rt

3

■3

(D

o

H-

H-

H-

O

rt

1

3

3

O

3
00

fD

cn

cn

O

1

3

H-

3"

>

O

cn

03

s:

cn

cr

3'

cr

H-

fD

fD

cr

M

1-1

H-

fD

M

fD

3

fD

oo

3

0)

cn

Hi

o

fl

H-

Hi

fD

3

fD

Hi

H-

rt

n

03

3

|-(

rt

t-l

rt

O

H-

•

ri

o-

3

O

c

00

CL

o

c

fD

?r

n

cx

fD

ft)

■-ci

CL

03

w

3

Hi

Ou

03

o-

O

c

5^

H.

rt

H-

M

M

H-

00

1— '

rt

o

fD

H-

H-

CX

fD

3

»*•

cn

00

O rt O

Hi O O

3

cr "o

fD I-I

cn
c
o

O X)

I-i fD
O 3

cn "3 03
o

cn

fD fD
CX
» M

03

cr 3

C CL

03

fD

M fD
fD OO

n cn

3- M

03 03

3 rt

O H-
fD O

3

li
O
■3
O
tn
fD
Cl

M

cn

M
CO

H
M
O

(-3 "3 O

O 0) O

3 cn 03

cn cn w

(D fD rt

ti CX 03

< M

03 H-

3 3 03

O I-I

^ I— fD

O 03

> -vj

n 4s g

rt " 03
3

03 03

I-I 00

C fD
3 3
00 fD

I—

rt 03

S' o

rt

03

t.

f P
03 CO

3

CL 03

h-i

cn
O

3

03

o
rt

fD
CL

w

•-

CO

fO

iTd

o

o

cr

(D

c

e

o

D

2

ft

rt

CL

3

o

n

M

CO

cr»

(u

03

CO

<

?r

n

.M

03

W

o

o

P

3

rr

M

0

H-

(U

S
0)

CL

P

n o H

►t3 03

3 n

O

n

fD rt

CT- O H

N 03

03 cn 1-1 i-d H- >

cn

cr I-i CL >

1-13 3"

rj CL

fD O

o

o

3 H-

ft) O 3*

O 3

M rt tD O cn

rr

H- P O 3

H- (t>

o 3

3 03

<

g

< O

fD 3 fD

3 a.

cn 03 < !-• o

P

M rt p.

rt t-"

OQ H-

rt cn

fD

3

H- 3

3 3

(D

O rt H- H- rr O

rt

(-■ H- 3 H-

H- 33 M

1-1 3

rt

i-(

c

f-1 cn

H- cm

O

C fD O O g

fD

- O OQ 3

(0 3 3

03 H-

C") 03

3

3

o

3 rt O

^ rt

H- rt S ^ ID

3

3 rt

£U a- rt

3 cn

O H'

O

H-

3 O

03 rt <

H^ 3*

3 fD _ H- 1-.
o cn ^,- D 3 fD
h-i • > t\3 n Ij"

tD

P » P fD

M ft)

• rt

C

1-1

rt

3 3

?r fD fD

03 fD

3

3 1-1

C i-(

(D

3 tS

^

fD

H- fD 1-1

3 fi

rt

CL cr cn p

£U (n H-

1-1

n o

3"

3 f-^

3 3

cn

C JCL M tD

•

P rt 05

C/2

i-i fD 3

H- 3

03

CL

rt 03

CR O O

CD

CL \i C 3

CL cn c fD

H

tD

rt

M CD

cn

fD

03 3

3 1-1

03 M

ro H 035^3 a. tn

fD fD CL 3

C~!

(u hj r'

3"

<

(-■ 0-. Xl

1-1 tD

cn 3" 3 M (t) H-

< CL'-^ n

O

1

cn H' fD

fD

rt 1x1

D

fD

o r- cn

CD 3

fD CL 03 <:

fD v:

!-<

&J OQ

O M

(— '

1— '

n c

1-1 03

fD

rt 3 03 fD

M O Hi

M 3 H-

n

03

cn

O

o cn

H- 3 W

cr 3

1-1 O cn

O 3 O rr

O

ft! 3 tn

o

a 3

O

■3

3 fD

n o- -3 "

fD rt

03 C rt f) C/3 c/l

■3 11 p

1-1

CW P- M

03

fD 3

3

Hi >.

>< fD

H- Cn

3 H- 03 O rt rt

H- rt cn

H. 3 CJ

cn

< M.

cn

tD

1— '

^ n

3 •

cn CL rt < 03 03

3 3" cn ?r

Tl

M 00 rr

rt

fD 3

fD

3

H- fD

1-1 O H-

TO

"O' fD tD tD rt rt

OO fD rr

r*

(_i p.

03

M cro

rt

rt

n o

fD r-i 03

O r^ fD fD

P Hi

iu 1-^ <

M

o

•

rt O

O V^- <r^

•3 n

r^ IT) M H-

p Hi rt O

2J

rt W fD

■O 03

C

cn 3

O O

1-1 o

rt M 03 D t- O

fD fD 1

H-

N

3

TS

>• o

3 '<J c;^

fD 03

03 03 3 CR 03 c

■3 CL O

O i-i n

O

03 a-

H

3

3 rr

■o cn

rt 3 C- 3 H-

O fD M fD

3 to O

3

3

03

3-

03 H-

fD :r c

03 rt

H- rt CL CL

M 1-1 fD

• < 3

(D

a- s

fD

3 n

3 03 G.

1-1 03

O C 3- fD

p. p 00 l-i-

H- 3

03

a-

D. cn ^

fD M

3 cn fD c:

n M H- cn

ft) H-

3

03

03

CL

tD cn T;

■< H

S: rr

03

3

1

•

> tD (-'

1

H- rt

CW

■ (X

1 03

3 ft)

fD

^ 3

0^ fT^

1

I n

O H- >

03 >

O

N ^ 1-1 "O cr c~i

1— '

M P P <

>

0 3

n

o

0 o ro -1 o f^

fD

fD 00 I-I P

^

3 n

rr XS

3

3 H-- cn O H-

OQ

00 (T) fD i-l

c

CO H- r-j

H- 1-1

i-»-

fD H- 3 TD 03 rt

l-i-

H- 3 M-

(A

H- VD H-

< C

^

n : — ^ C H 1-^'

M

cn o cr o

CL -~j rt

H- 13

Cq

h-' ^ rt cn o n

M

i-'*^ fD C

0

ft) -e- H-

ft O

•

tD H- 03 3 D

P

p H- cn

"l

r^ >• O

H- cn

CR 03 3 M tj3 I-'

rt

rt rt 3

ft) P

fD 03

H- 3 (K) cn

H-

H- p 00 fD

r

CL o 1— 1

cn M

cn CL rt D

O

O cn X

/

3

M 1-Ti 1-ri 3" ^.

3

3 ?r cn H-

z

0) Q, tJ

i-n rt

03 ID 1-1 O fD O

•

rt cn

a

CTO i-(

03 O

rt l-" 0 I-I 03

Hi C rt

i"0

CU X> ft)

H-

H- D 3 3 cn

tr 0 CL H-

1

o
■a
o
cn

tD
Cl

c

p. "I P

M 1-1

O 3 rt O

p n H- 3

M

3 fO cn

fD fD

a • rt cr 1-1 (-•

cn O fD OO

P!

• cn

aw

cr ft) fD tD

fD tD CL

c cr

c

CO to 05

CL X. 1—1

'ij

3 H.

rt M

3* T] C O H-

cr p

0

D 1—'

O 03

O 3 CO "O O tn

0 ^3

r<

cj- M

rt

3 1-1 rr n 3 I— '

3 3 CL

H

1— 1

"O fD

M rt 03 O -O D

P rt

n

v: s

03

D- cr rt 3 1-1 rt

Hl^ 3* 3

<

03

Cfl o

fD fD H- fD H-

fD tD cn

s: cn

CO o

cr rj 3 cr o

CL H- tD

H-

• 03

tD t-' OQ tD 3

tD 3 P-

M D.

CA

O 03 3

1-1 rt 3 "3

H" fD

rr

i-h O 3 ^ cn cn

P I-I rt 1-1

i-ti

!U

o 03 CL tD H- or

l-i O fD O

W
CD

Cr fD

M

r^ cn p < O

Cl 1-1 -3

(D 03

rt rt C^ 1-1 tD C

C 1 o

rt

cr 03 cn - H-

n cn

fD

1 H" tD CL

ID P

M

- — -

D-

- -

_ _

- ■

pi

CO

?: n ro cn >

cn H-

s: 03 n rr s- >

M
O

03 o 3 rt 3

C cn

p 3 fD 3- D

cn 3 as D

H-

rt CL i-j fD tn o

1

3 O rt fD

CL rt

tD rt o

1

n H- rt fD 3

fD O

r^ p p n cr P

1

O rt fD <

I-i H- O tD cn

1

3 ft CL 03 H-

■t3 n

3 M 3 P fD rt

rt fD • 3 1-1

!-' O

P cn 3 P

1

H- fD D- O

03 M

11 P 3 rt M

1

3 -^

3 1-1

?r o p p (0

C O H t- 3

• CD

. rt Lj. I-i fi N

fD 3 rr O fD

CO

H- O tD O

W

D- fD O 3

T)

< 1-1 N P 3

3

' tr* 03 rt

O

Tl H- O rt fD

P

03 M h- ' 03

3

H- rt O 3 fD

O

li

3 3 h-

CL

3 H- O fD CL 2

rt

1

D- rt -a

fD I-I H-
C f"l O 3

cn H. c-i. -0

rt

P fD P P

M cn cn T3 rr 3

rt I-I o .:d

o cr M o CR

(D

CL

to 3 fD D

3-

O tD 1— ' 05 P T)

n n

P 1— ' r-1 CL 3

TJ r' rt rt

rt

cn o M P 3 .::

1

M fD cn

zr

rt S p 3 H- 3

1

03 cro h- •

fD

P 3 "- 3 rr

1

3 H- s: 03

M 3" CL o P-

n

3 cn 03 C

C/1

P- O cn n

1-^ M cn

rt

■3 CR P < rt D

3 03 ^t,

03

h-i cr o o o 3

OQ rt o

rt

P rr n n z:

i

H. 1-1

fD

3 H- t-i- O

1

<

< 3 H-

1

(S

H- 013 .— '

n

rt

1

H-

0)
rn

219

:3

H

p~;

C/3

^

l-J

>

hrj

i-J

-^

c

•t;

00

f— ;

K

o

►rj

U2

l-i

r^

' — ;

■p:

:^

c

LO

C^

LO

,— s.

w

p

CO

nd

O

o

r

Hi

M

n

pi

K

^

■~J

^

<
n>
1-1

3
o

rt

H
>^

tn

H

(D
3
P
(D
cn

CO
(D

H

>
H
W

220

tn fD

rr CU
fD tn 0)

o ro D

3 i-fi rr

M 3

rt tJ
l-j. X3
O P-
3 3

tu O

•a
■a

3
00

ro
tn

-a

1-1
o

o

3*

o tn

3 o

TO 1-1

rt H- >
3- 3

•

OQ

rr CQ
O H-

m

3

■z

tn

H- CI

o

3 M

s:

sj

n I--

rr

rr

c

3-

Ca

CUX)

0)

tn

fD i-i

H-

O

O

tn

tn -a

O

rt O

^

t-t,

CO cn

y

O

rr fD

H-

f-i

ro CL

rt

t, -

rt

r^

H-

fD

n

D. H-

(D

09

c
1

fD rt

(D
TO
rr H-
3" tn
(D l-J
[U
rt
P-
<

3

aj fD

■a to

3" rt

cn rt

(t) (D

fD

01

O TI
m I— ' fD

W
> 3
n
rr ^

rt tn
M 3" rr
Ui fD C
O CL

fD i-n i-r>
O
<-i
fD ft)
O 'O
to

M o
rr H

3

P tn

rt rr

H- H-

< 3

fD TO

CO fa

rt 3

to CL O
rt O

fD ro O

< i-i

l-h to &

C h-' H'

rt C

C >
rt

to cn

3" rt

3

i-d CL

i-( v;
O

n o

fD 3
cn
cn

to

3"
fD

fO
I-+I fD
M. <

CL

to to
rt rt

i-!
O

o

rt)

CL

c

r-i

fT: n

o
l-tl

rt

3-

n

cn

c

>

n

o

tn

a

<

fD

^

ID

ft)

to

I-"

r-(

t,

(_j.

0)

3

to

o

rr

O

cn

t-^

(D

i-<

CL

—

o

i-i

cn

o

(D

rt

tJ

3"

o

3

^^

fD

i-h

H-

r^.

^tl

c;:'

rr

fD

H-

cn

3

O

H-

O

CL

(D

O
3

3

O

to

(D

M

r-ti

U.

fD

CL

>;

t— '

rr

to

\o

t,

v;

cc

•^

to

1^

tn

rt

M

3-

to

fD

^

Cl

M

i-h

tn

M

H

to

O

rtl

3-

.-'

I-i

cn

TO

rt)

CL

O

rt

H-

fD

to

tn

CO

c

rt

M

rr

cn

to

fD

to

to

fD

M

rt

rr

fD

M

H-

rt)

H-

to

<

cn

t.

3

rt)

•xl

cn

0

CL

M

C

^

n

to

fD

?r

c

o

3

cn

H-

cn

3

3

•

3

rt)

h

H-

TO

H-

3

X)

rt

TO

rt

1— '

rt

O

to

fD

O

TO

3

fD

Mn

fD

3

tn

r-n

rt

H-

<«

H-

,->

3

n

fD

(JQ

to

rt)

1-1

rt

a

\*

O

to

rr

3

cn

o

K

hd

to 3"
rt H-

< a

rt) -

(?-

tn
C
tir
3

H-

rr
rt
rt)

CL

O rt

O K

3 O
tn

H- T)

Cl m
rt)- to

ri 3

tn

rt -

rr H
3" 3"
rt) rt)

rt)
TO
CL 1-! H-

• CL cn

rt
rr
(D
rt)

3
O
S

--( ^
rt)

< H-

H- rt
rt) tn

3 fD

TO TO

H-

H- tn
rt I

rtl

rt)
<

cn
rt)

CL rtl

tn to

S rt rr

to to 3

< rr i-(

H- rt) rt)
3

TO "O i-ti

h- ' to

•a to H-

to 3 H-i

tn rt)

cn to CL
rt) cn

D- rt

iti o

to

3*
"rtT-

rr H-

3- r-<

rt) CO "O
rt 'O

i-n r-t

H- O

i-( <

cn rtl

rt

cn

C

cr

C_l.

rtl
n

rt

o

rt)
TO

cn

<
fD

to

'3

r-;
o
<

to

D- Z c^ cn

TO 3

3 O-

to rt)

rt ^1

H- •
O
3

H

to zr

3 rt)
CI.

to
■3 n
rt

3"
fD

to

3 O

3 to

H- M
3 M

TO ro
a

o

i-ti i-ti
o
1-1

n
n
rt)
cn
tn

O 3

3" M
3

r-!

W rt)

H- i-n

r-( rt)

o r-;

3" rt)
3

in CL
O C
o 3

(D "3
rr (D
v; rt

rt
cn H-
rt) O
rt 3

3 3
rt

O

O

03 -^ rt

rtl ^ to

i-h - 3^

rt)

cr i-<

c to

rt 3
O-

n

cr
rt)

^tl
O
r-t
rt)

cn
rt)

>

n

to
cn

cn

3 H- rt

cr rt
-I- S

rtl n to

n o

rt c

cn

3" i-n

rt> o

I-!

p- to

cn

TO tn

O rt)

CL

cn

n

3

i-(

1-^

rt)

r-(

to

rt)

^-

rt)

p-

?r

<

I--

3

rt

rt)

P-

rtJ

p-

rt!

rt'

C

o

f-1

£

3

to

fD

p-

1— '

M

h-'

O

3

f:

H-

O

TO

TO

PC

to

3

P-

rt)

I-;

3

■o

W

M

rt!

rt)

rS

1—

^

to

^

c

p

CL

-o

rr

rt

to

to

o

P-

O

3

rr

cn

<

CL

p-

to

rt)

o"

O

M

o

o

3

cn

n

po

CO

o

rtl

M

to

;3

3

p-

3

3

to

P-"

3

CL

P-

o

rD

rr

rt

TO

I — ■

rt)

r-

rt)

p-

<o

X

fi)

CL

cn

-J -3

O

•

pj

Un

fD

cn

to

n

rr

rt

to

P-

(-;

O

rr

rt)

3

O

^

r-i

rt

p-i

>

rt)

rtl

O

to

to

P-

;i;

cr

M

3

■3

CL

p-

rt

to

M

cn

<-i

cn

a

M

rr

O

cn

cn

C

CL

>*

rt)

rr

&

C

O

^

n

to

w

rt)

^

rt

rt)

o

CL

c

3

cn

rtl

•

r- .

ft

s:

v;

to

M

p-

T

to

M

M

n

M

3

rt

M

o

p-

CL

g

cn

K

•3

5

zr

c

o

r-(

p-

cn

c

O

cn

rr

rt)

M

cf

cn

3"

CL

to

p.

rt)

-3

3-

O

h- '

CL

1— '

3

H

to

o

v;

fD

3

i-ri

3

3

to

cr

to

3

P-

rtl

P-

rt)

3

l-tl

M

cn

TO

o

rt)

cn

3

to-

rt)

r-i

rt)

in
.-(
o

O

cn
rt)

CL

H
O
M
CO

o rtl

3 H-

rr TO

3-

rt rt

3"

rt! a
p.

■3 cn

rt! rr

Q r<

3 P-

P- o

rt rt

TO n

n o

to 3

3 3

p-

3
TO

T3
ri
O

n

rt)

tn
cn

M
3
<
P- rt)
r-i •

o

3

3 H

fD 3

3 rtJ

to

to >
p- n

rt
W
O O

to I-i
r-i ro

CL to

rt
to rt)
3 CL
CL

3
to

L_l.

o

r-l

■3
O O
I-i I-i
rr ^
P-

O cn

3 '^

cn

O rt

l-tl rtl
3
to

pi n
M o
<
a. rt)
rt) I-i
< p-

rt) 3
P-i TO
O

■o to

3
rt)
3

rr cn

O C

O

cr o

rt) rt)

n cn

O cn
3 P-
rt) <
rt)
rt
3" cn

Nj r-i <

Ul to fD

O 3 r-!

- 0-3

O

I- G 3

vo cn rr

-~J rt)
O

v_-' Co

- 3

CL

s:

P- ^D

n y

3* rt)

3"

to
cn

rt)
3
to
O

to to

TO I-i

cn cl
rt)
Ml

O P-I

r-t to

to CL

cn c

rt cn

to rt!

rr

rt! X)

p- to

CL 3

03 cn

3
to
3

3- fD

to

rt)

CL

3 to

o

o

3
rr rt
rt) 3

(/> M 'O
to r^

rt s; ra

3" 3-

l-i '-s rt!

rt) > 3

fD o cn

rr P-

<

rt)

fD ro

3

m

3
<

P-
r-l
O
3
1-1 3

rt) rt)

3
O

fD

v; C rt

p- to

^1 p-
rt)

rt) Cl p.

n 3

SOX)
rt rtl to
D
to rt

<

rt)

pj cn

O rt

I-i cn to

CL rr rt

rt) to rt)

I-i rr 3

• rt) rt)

rt^

rti

<

o

>

>

>-t

rtl

rt)

<!

o

Pi

I-i

TO

3

rt

o

rt!

H

rt)

■fD

o

o

p-

rr

I-I

S

to

rt

rt

to

cn

to

t-;

rr

3-

cn

rr

to

to

P-

p-

to

p"

3

0

■3

"O

h-'

o

a-

3

to

3

O

cn

t-i

TO

I— '

pj

rtl

cn

P;

rt)

P-

rt)

C'

rt

to

3

cr

a.

3'

cn

rtl

rt!

0"

m

p-

to

p-

3

^

n

3

r^

n

CQ

to

3^

^

o

cn

rt!

; — '

!^

to

•3

cn

^

CD

cn

r-i

cr

-JTO

rr

O

D

3

U!

n

•

TO

rt!

-3

■

—

I-;

3

o

to

rr

^

3

rt!

0

i-a

n-

cn

cn

c

rt

rr

cr

to

3-

pj

to

cr

rt)

p-

I-I

1— '

n

rt)

p-
cn
3"
(D
CL

o

2

3
to
n

rt

rtl

CL

a

S

H-

(D

CO

CO

n

rt

o

0

<

CO

H-

H-

1-1

P

OQ

H-

3

P-

W

CD

cn

3"

H-
3
ere
o-
o

D

a

rr

O

t-h

(JQ
3

n
pi
3
o

H'

H-

rr

^

n

H

CJ

3

O

tJ

r—'

3-

rr

O

cn

1 — 1

rt)

H-

h-'

'w

—

O

C

r-i

•O

CO

>

0

CI.

O

r-!

D.

H-

■o

o

I-'

<

3

O

X)

m

H-

no

cn

0

3

cn

ro

cn

CI.

O

n

rt)

n

I-!

M

O.

C^

H-

CO

cn

rr

3

CD

tB

M

H-

IX

3

o

n

CU

<n OQ

Ca

c

o

H-

M

CD

?:

1— '

cn

(D

H-

H-

1— '

0)

M

n

D

!-(

h--

1— '

H-

rr

fD

TO

Q

H-

[D

(W

O

cn

<

V>

H-

o

rt)

cn

3

n

M

M

rr

o

ri

0)

p

H-

3

0

(TO

rt

3

3

c

H-

H-

C

1—

3

cn

O
3

m

rr
rr

ft)

n

1

Cfl

w

3

c;

-c

o

rr

r—

0

o

r(

3

cr

rr

c

'Cn

r—

rr

H-

rr

3

n

rr

o

1 — i

rs

n

a.

hJ.

^

i— '

G

. —

n

H-

h-

tr

a

D-

rr

3-

•>

v:

M

(D

0

i:

m

cn

rr

DJ

W

o

1 — 1

3-

M

^

cn

cr

iJ

ro

rt>

a-

rr

o

3

ti

i:

ro

.^^

>

cn

P-

cr

3

<

\~t

c

<

h- '

H-

H-

?^

en

H-

fD

cn

m

H-

fD

cn

CTO

K-

3*

h- '

O

H-

O

1-^

"^

i-(

CD

^

n

O

0

'^

I—"

o

O-

1— '

a

o

3

"*

H-

r<

rr

l-(

tn

n

m

M-

a.

H-

(1)

H-

QQ

O

H-

w

(-'

ID

H-

3

3

rr

o

X

cn

ai

ra

3

I-" -a

3

3

m

n

o

f1

n

rr

c

rr

O

ra

t

=3

H-

1

U)

H-

1

<

•

rr

fD

fD

n o
o O

3 rt

cn

H
M

221

cn

O
ri

TO

to

to t-'

0

3

3 rt)

O

a.

Cu OQ

O-

o

)-( cn

i-ti

po

rt) r--

O

M m to

ri

tn

C rr

M

to o

^

i-n

rt 3

■~J

to

H-

Ln

O i-rt
3 O

"O

rt)

r^

1-1

CU

O

o

•

rri rt

-o

3-

o

n rt)

cn

o

1^

Cu

3*

!_.. 0-

M

to

rr fD

cn

3

H- CD

o
rt)
en

3
O
rr

n H-
to OO
M 3

to

to rr
l-i H-

rt) o
to 3

CD

cn

K

■o

S

N e;

rr

H-

1^

to

O H.

a

rr

rt)

rr

3 CD

rr

3"0

rt)

H- n

fD

to

i-(

3 0

cn

"-!

CD

00 3

i-i

rt

fD

cn

fD

CU

CL

H-

i-n H.

<

rr

3

O 3

H-

rt)

cr

r^

2

■<

C

rt)

t.

CP3

3

cn 3

C

rr

H-

3- to

Di

H-

3"

3

o o

3

O.

rt)

n

)-( rr

Q.

rt)

0

rt) fD

1— '

o

M

M D-

rt)

H.

o

•a

to

3

3

c

o

3 to

rri

fD

3

ri

CL

O

cn

rr

to

cn cn

r^

H-

rr

rt

n

to

fD

rt)

to to

(D

3

CD

CU

1—' rr

3

a

O C

rt)

H-

to

3 rr

3

cn

3

^

(JQ rt)

rr

c

rt)

•

cr

to

to

3 rl

(_i.

n

cn

to o

rt)

r.

s*

< ja

n

0

H- c

rr

r^

rr

00 P»

CU

O

to f^

rt

to

cr H-

O

3

a-

K- 3

o

rt)

rt) 30

O

rr

CU

r'

i-n

to

<

CL

H

3"

3-

r^

o

rt)

^

H-

H-

S

to

m

to

o

CU

a.

rr

rl

o

a

rn

to

rt)

^

rt)

O

o

rr

M

i-(

Q

O

cr

rt)

ri

)-••

Cj

3

0

rr

H*

cn

rt)

3

cn

t-'

rt)

i-ri

h- '

00

oo

o

cn

h- '

=3

C

<

1— '

Ml OO

rr

cn

to

3

H-

rt)

rt)

O

>n

to

><;

rr

r-i

OO

<-i

rt)

rr

Z

M

cn

a

H-

to

rt)

n

cr

to

2

cn

to

rr

)-<

rt)

3

O

ra

i — '

3

rt)

<^

rt)

CU

S

3

to

r(

rt)

00

3

rr

rr

to

OO

?r

o

c

H-

n

rr

c

K*

o

cn

cr

n

0

rr

3*

h- '

1— '

Q.

m

H-

O

3

to

to

K-'

■

I--

cr

3

rr

rt)

cr

h-"

3

to

J-).

CU

H-

>«

H-

tn

)— '

0

• ■

h-'

rt

H

rt)

o

3

h-"

cr

rt

3-

o.

n

■

to

rt)

rt)

to

0

CD

cn

rt)

O

M

rti

3

rt)

3^

3

rt)

1— 1

a.

H-

0

n

to

rr

tn

c

rr

o

n

Ml

cn

o

cn

3*

3

rt

0

a

rt)

fO

n
rt)

H
3

1

r-t

ri

■?

I-'

cn

S

H

rt)

t-"

H-

rr

to

3^

<

to

3

to

X

rt)

H-

3

ro

rr

rt)

cn

cn

rt)

•a

h-i

S

to

^O

to

rn

3*

CD

~~J

M

3

o

to

CD

ts2

O

CU

<-t

cn

rt)

n

CL

in

to

I-!

t-'

to

^

M

rt)

0

C

cr

0

OO

o

rr

■■<:

ri

■o

c

to

3"

rt)

M

h-"

h^

O

to

I—*

to

to

r(

H'

3

rt

H-

H-

rj

3

w

O

3

rt

rt)
Ml

rt)

to

3

h-'

rt)

"p*

a

CD

rt)

rt

rl

to

D-

"

3

fD

O

rt)
3

3

to

Cu

to

3

3

a. 00

rt)

3

rr

to

c

rt)

O

D-

to

?r

3

3

H-

rt

rt)

rt)

cn

3

H-

3

H-

to

O

OO

rr

o

^

3

^

K-^

3

H-

^

>

cn

O

CU

rt)

n

•

i-h

rt)

1

rr

O

n

00

cr

rt

rr

H

T3

)-(

c

o

v;

Si

rr

3

H-

H-

H-

o

fD

Q

rr

LU

-■«

to

J

a

rt)

rt)

(TO

3

M

h-'

rr

r-j

h- '

CU

to

ro

•

H-

p-

c

3

vTO

to

3

cn

CL

tn

*-■•

rt)

rt;

rt)

•

cn

Ml

u.

<

1 — '

o

o

rt)

to

)-(

o

to

)—'

H

rr

a

cn

O

C

n

rt

■3

rt)

i-l

o

to

3

m

3

H-

3-
rt)

m

rr.

cn

3

3

rt'

m

ro

H-

rr

r.

3

i-t

3

3

to

o

r.

to

<

OO

X)

•—

n

to

M

Cl-

rr

rt

Td

to

^*

rt)

H-

r(

r)

CU

o

H-

&J

a

3

rr

O

n

H-

n

3"

to

H-

rn

a)

rt)

3

•3

c

u-

I—'

n

c^

Ml

ft)

^

H»

CU

cn

M

r?

~.

r(

rt)

•-1

_-.

rn

<

to

r.

t— .

rr

rt)

a

3

;

rO
r-(
O
73
O

cn

rt)

CU

w

a

M

cn

o

P

to

Irt

irt'
CU

D-^ :^

s:

O

s

CTQ

CO

H
>
H

222

CO

K

O

^

o

t-<

O

H-

(-'

n

O

cn

to

CI

H

o

o

i-fi

Cu

ID

o

>-t

rt

cn

3"

P

o

tti

3

3

(D

to

cn

fD

fD

w

pj

?f)

3

ex

ri

to

rt

H-

H-

H'

o

rt

H-

rt

fD

fro

c/:

5";

03

H-

l-i

H-

C

cn

CD

3

rt

^

rt

rt

CD

i-ti

w

C/5

1— '

H-

C

O

rt>

H-

'<

fD

H-

to

to

t-ti

D.

=1

3

(ti

rt

o

3

P-

^

H-

rt

cn

3"

o

OQ

3

x:

Cl

n

3

ta

>-(

o

o

to

n

rro

s;

i:

3

H-

to

rt

n

c

3

c

H-

o

rt

M

O

^

cn

rt

^

n

rt

c

M

H-

cn

to

fD

^

o

3"

(-■

O

n

(-1-

O

H-

3

CL

n

OJ

to

fD

0

to

O

cn

cn

cn

33

M

3

<

n

a

cn

fD

rt

u.

M

(X

rt)

rt

rt

■a

H-

<-i

W

fl!

ca

(-'

•

^1

o

<

rr

<

n

t-t

TO

0

cn

fD

3

to

ft)

m

0

fl)

e

TS

rr

3"

rf

M

3

Ci

H-

to

M

fD

^

H-

no

o

n

cn

a.

cn

rt

rt

3

to

O

c

xs

m

m

rt

n

cn

cn

3

H-

n

&)

I—-

to

S

H-

a. Id

3

3

H-

rt

1— '

0

<:

Q^

to

ft)

h- '

U.

3

fD

to

c

fD

t"!

3

1— '

Ca

ft)

t,

^

M

to

CL

H-

3

P

cn

H-

a.

a.

rti

3

cn

1-!

s»

D.

rt

r'

(H

fD

CD

c

fD

to

cn

»

cn

a.

3

•

cn

fD

a.

»-<
o
■a
o
cn

fD

CD
M

cn

H
M
O

m

3
to
o

fD
3-

VU/^M

Warren Colby ^3 February ''975

223

B. Statpment before ^nltnnst,?ill Sub-Cormi-^tee on L^nd Use,

Those of us in the agricultural field feel a little bit like the
Green Grenlin in the first cartoon. H^lf of the "tate's agricultural
land having been lost to farming in the last twenty years, ve think it
is time this group set aside for now its discussions of how to settle
the problems of v'ho is to cover up v/hat land ^nd give p long hard look
at the land itself and what it is capable of producing for us and our
descendants.

The food and ener""y crunch has throv.Ti a '.•'hole new light on the
need for guarding our resource production near the markets, and the
Governor's Commission on Food has spelled this out in considerable
detail .

It v.'ould seem to us that any rational land use planning should .
start vdth the land itself and its nrimiary division into tvo categories.
One, land which is capable o'f" producing an annual renewable resource
on v.hich v;e or our descendants may recuire, and two, land v/hich m.ay
safely be covered with the v;orks of man v.dthout serious loss of resource
potential.

Logic \'.'ould seem to indicate this approach due to the irreversi-
bility of land use decisions involving ^evelopmient on resource lands.
Farmland can grow up to v/oodland -^.v.r^. "^crests can be returned to farm.ing- — .
these are reversible, but when farm.land is covered v;ith developm.erit, our
options are gone. So are those of our grandchildren. 5^ee Cartoon 2.

Another point of aioparent logic would seem to derive from, our
scand.alous lack of o'^'QV. stiace land in or n'^^'r our urban areas. Lack
of appreciation of the hi.iman need for onen s'^ace ^Ti<^ the resultant lack
of provision for its retention has resulted in social claustrophobia - in
our cities where open space is nov; retrieved only at great cost.

European nations have done m.uch better v/here m.ultiple use of
onen lands for farm, and forest P"'^oducti'^''^ v."ildlife wj^t°r suo'ol''/', air
purification, and recreation am.enities have been successfully c^-mbined
v/ith a high degree of sophistication, "e believe that these matters
should be addressed by this comm.ittee in the hope that we m.ay avoid
repetition of the trends and practices which have caused the deterioration
of our congested areas.

224

We have discussed Lnnd Use Planning and regulatory activities
in certain other states. May I point. oUt that there are other approaches
being t^ken in other states more similar to Massachusetts that v;e should
also look into. Mev/ Jersey, Maryland, New York, New Hampshire, Connect-
icut have had land use study groups sim.ilar to this v/hich have come up
with interesting reports, proposals, and legislation which may have more
iram.ediate application to our most pressing problem.s.

Nov; is not the tim.e to go into details, but v;e would very r.uch
appreciate the tim.e and opportunity to go into these m.ore thoroughly.
\!e are prer^ared to provide background m.aterial to your sta"f^"r and to
work v/ith them in preparation for a more .com.prehensive presentation.

C. HEARIMGS OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES At© AGRICULTURE CQ-IilTrEE

FEBRUARY 25, 1975 225

452. Petition of Steve T. Chmura relative to extending the law relating to mineral
resources of the CormDnwealth.

463. Petition of Richard R. Silva, David J. Lane and Norris W. Karris relative to es-
tablishing a coastal protection fund for the purpose of carrying our pollution
abatement programs.

648. Petition of Robert D. Wetmore relative to extending the law relating to mineral
resources to the entire Carmonwealth.

815. Petition of Henry A. Walker relative to establishing a division of coastal zone
management within Department of Environmental Quality Engineering of the
Executive Office of Environmental Ajf fairs.

959. Petition of David J. Lane and Richard R. Silva for legislation to establish a
division of coastal management within the Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.

1549. Petition of Thcmas F. Brownell and Robert I. 0^^ens for legislation of civil for-
feitures for violations of environmental laws.

1970. Petition of Raymond F.Rourke relative to ascertaining the will of the people in
which soft drinks and malt beverages are sold.

2143. Petition of Terrence P. McCarthy for legislation to regulate the coastal conveyance

of petroleum products and establishing the coastal protection fund.

2146. Petition of Andrew S. Natsios, George R. Sprague and Edward L. Burke relative
to autl-iorizing conservation ccmnissions to enforce certain provisions of law
relative to removal, filling, dredging or altering land bordering on waters.

2973. Petition of Joseph A. Sinnott that the State Geologist be authorized to make borings
and field tests in the southeastern section of the Carmonwealth for the purpose
of determining the extent, quality and availability of coal deposits in such sectior

3168. Petition of Richard E. Kendall and William M. Bulger for legislation to expand the
liability of damage caused frcsn oil pollution.

3354. Petition of Bruce E. Wetherbee and others that provisions be made for the payment

of royalties to the Ccmrronwealth from drillers of subterranean fossil fuel, minerals
or other natural substances of value.

3908. Petition of Richard E. Kendall and William M. Bulger for legislation to establish
the Massachusetts oil pollution control fund.

3909. Petition of Robert H. Quinn and Thonas W. ?1cGee relative to requiring a review
and a report of all public lands held for natural resources purposes.

1030. Petition of William M. Bulger and Richard E. Kendall for legislation to establish
the Massachusetts oil pollution control fund.

1031. Petition of John W. Bullock for legislation to provide for control by the
Ccrmonwealth over off-shore oil deposits.

1071. Petition of William L. Saltonstall, William M. Biilger, John F. AyLner, members of
the House of Representatives and others for legislation relative to the management,
use, protection and developrient of coastal zone resources.

HEARINGS OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE CaMITTEE

FEBRUARY 27, 1975

226

H. 644. Petition of Robert D. Wetmore for legislation to regulate developnent of

regional inpace in order to ensure responsible develoorent and adequate con-
ser^/ation of the land, air and water resources of the Carmonwealth.

H. 647. Peti-tion of Robert D. Wetmore that the Secretairy of Environirental Affairs be
directed to prepare a coiprehensive land use plan for theConmonwealth ,

H. 808. Petition of Richard J. Dwinell for legislation to protect land and water in the i
j counties of tlie Ccranonwealth and establishing a state land use program. j

H. 1734. Petition of Garen N. Bresnick and Pdchard E. Landry for legislation to establish
a ccnpreliensive land use planning program.

H. 1967. Petition of Charles F. Flaherty, Jr., for a change in the law relative to en-
vironirental impact.

H. 1971. Petition of James E. Smith, Charles F. Flaherty, Jr. , John F. Cusack, Jaires G.

Collins, John G. King, Carlton M. Viveiros, and John E. Murphy, Jr. , for legis-

^ lation to require energy inpact statements prior to the construction of public
buildings.

H. 2553. Petition of Henry A. WalJker relative to protecting land and water in the counties
of the Coraronwealth and establishing a state land use program.

H. 3905. PetJ-tion of John S. Ames III, for legislation to clarify the law relative to
conservation restrictions.

H. 3906. Petition of Fred F. Cain that the Department of Public Works be exempt from

the law relative to the removal, filling and dredging of certain coastal areas
and relative to environmental inpace.

H. 3907. Petition of Francis W. Hatch, Jr., John S. AmesIII, Ann C. Gannett, Barbara E. Gra\
Jonathan L. Healy, K^illiam 0. Robinson, Robert W. Gillette, George R. Sprague and
William L. Saltonstall relative to the establishment of the land resource iranage-
ment act for the purpose of protecting water and land in certain areas of the
CcsTmonwealth.

S. 1076. Petition of Joseph F. Timilty and Elain Noble for legislation to cleirify and
amend certain environmental statutes of the Ccmmonwealtli.

S. 1080. Petition of B.Joseph Tully for legislation to extend the time that Lo>7ell Tech- .,
nological Institute of Massachusetts shall report the results of a study of
the econonic effect and environmental impact of the construction and operation
of an oil refinery in the vicinity of the cities of Lowell and Lawrence and the •
towns of Dracut and Methuen.

*

227

D. STATEMEHT PRESEIITED TO THE LEGISLATIVE SUB-C0M'4lTTEE

STUDYIITG L;.ND USE PLAIHIItTG BY
JOmi D. B/iRRUS, DIRECTOR OF GOVERIIMEilTAL RELATIOHS
MSSACirj SETTS FARM BURE.'.U FEDER:;TIOiI
M;.RCH 13. 197?

I dislike to use the word "crisis" in a discussion of this
nature, because this has been an over v/orked tern. However, there
can really be no other interpretation given to the economic conditions
facing the Massachusetts farmer.

Thus, when land use discussions are held, it would be folly to
talk about only the preservation of farm land and open spaces v/ithout
giving attention to significant factors causing conversion of such
lands to some other uses.

ilo group of people are more concerned v;ith land use than the
agriculturalists, who, for years, have been strong advocates of
conservation measures. Their livelihood has depended upon wise land
use measures.

How, with society's pressures competing so aggressively for
alternative uses of agricultural land, it is, in many instances,
impossible for the land oimer to withstand these pressures and,
thus, excellent land for food production has been irreversibly lost
and the prospects indicate such a trend will continue.

At a time when there is a clear and deep concern publicly
expressed for adequate food for, not only, Massachusetts consumers,
but for the world's population, it would seem, prudent for any group,
studying land use planning, be it Federal, state, county or local
governxiont, to expend considerable effort exploring all the factors
relating to a viable agriciiltural industry.

228

There arc too many oxanples of good farnland goinc out of
agricultural production and into a condition which will preclude it
from ever being econonically feasible to again be put to agricultural
use. I think of tracts of prime land in the Coriiiecticut valley being
converted to shopping centers - housing developm.ents, etc.

It would seen wise in any planning program relating to land
use J that serious efforts be made to eliminate this sort of
irreversible conversion of farm land.

Non-productive, poor agriculturally potential land can be
converted into many uses 5 one after another as the need m.ay arise,
but there is no i;ay the land, which has been changed by the removal
or covering by comment of the top soil, can be again converted to
agricultural production.

This, I believe, makes the treatment given to the agricultural
lands in land use planning unique.

It deserves very special attention.

The Report of the Citizen Task Forces on Envirorxmental
Re-organization in 1972 dealt with the problem of conserving land
for various environmentally sound uses.

I quote from one paragraph addressed to conserving the environ-
ment x;hich is as follows:

"The Task Force holds that we should so manage each enviroriment
that a sustained yield is maintained within the limits imposed by
the physical enviro;ii".ient and the opportunities for using it as
perceived by man. The product may be corn, tobacco or cranberries.
It might be pasture or x/oodland. It could be watershed protection

229

or vilcllife production. It could be food tliat i;ill be carried
off shore for nariiic organisns. It could bo si:.iplc open space for
aesthetic values, Wc r.ust necessarily regard these products as
part of our basic ocononic wealth."

At this tine I would nerely like to repeat what is sor.ie tines
overlooked or forgotten in discussions of economic wealth -
Agricultural production is the creating of ne\/ Tiealth fror.i the
ground - unlike nost other elements of our economy which r.erely
transfer wealth throughout the system. This is another imioue factor
vrtiich must have consideration. Othersj here, will discuss the
economic factors at length.

The Task Force on uo-organization identified the critical
problem of maintaining valuable lands -: "Privately ov.med lands which
are being Tianaged to produce food, fiber, viator and v/ildlife are of
real value to the entire community. Yet as urban and suburban
developments spread, whether by sound planning or haphazard sprawl,
the present land assessm.ent systems, inheritance taxes and liability
laws work to take these lands out of production and into intensive
income uses. Farmers and forest owxicrs are induced to sell by a
combination of high taxes and lucrative offers for their land. The
comnunity loses not only the products of the land but also tlie
variety of amenities that go i/ith open pastures and cropland,
forests and riarshes. Loss of these natural and open environments in
a suburban setting reduces the over-all environmental quality,
attractiveness and resale value of the suburban developm.cnt."

230

Hot only are economic issues causing the conversion of farn land,
but the burden of meeting the myriad of governmental regulations and
impositions can, in many instances, lead to loss of good productive
land.

The Task Force on Environmental management recognized this and
stated -: ^W regulatory scheme which is primarily designed to govern
industry and coriiaercc often does not take into account the special
set of circumstances under which agriculture is called upon to operate.
Sometimes regulations are adopted which are inherently impossible to
observe or even are doi-niright absurd from a farming standpoint.
Others are overly restrictive or sim.ply inapplicable because
operational requirements of agriculture have not been considered
fairly, if at all."

Thus, it becomes equally important to see that regulatory
action by governxient, local zoning regulations and land use proposals
by governm.ental agencies do result in a negative reaction to preserving
farm land.

Clearly, no one would cut a factory in half by placing a public
way through the building, but the same concern may not be shov/n to the
farmer's "factory" v/hen a highway is placed through his productive
land.

Housing developments which suddenly appear on easily
developable sites because a governmental unit does not want to expend
some extra money for site preparation are another example of short-
sighted planning.

231

The Report of the Governor's Conr.iissioii on Food in 197^
addressed the problem -: "I-fcat can be done to prevent the rapid
conversion of our best agricultural land to other uses and to put
nore land into food production?

"Solution - The development of a comprehensive land use plan
for Massachusetts that incorporates the agricultural preserve concept
and provides tax benefits for maintaining land in agriculture and tax
penalties for chajiging land from, agricultural to urban use.

"In order to accomplish the solution, a cabinet level land-use
policy council should be created ;;itb. the responsibility for
developing a ccm.prehensivc land-use plan for the comimonvrcalth within
throe years. In the m.cantir.e , conservation district boards of
supervisors should be requested to place top priority on the
preparation of ccirity agricultural land use capability maps so that
v/e can consider the agricultural capability in any proposed change
in land use, and so that \ro can devise prcgram.s for preserving a
prescribed percentage of our best agricultural land in a uay that
will 'orotoct the oouity of land corners."

The Commission on Food made it very clear for the necessity to
have and r.aintain a viable agricultural industry in this state.

j'uiothcr factor \;hich emphasizes the "crisis" conditions t/hich,
I believe, now exist in the agricultural industry is the co;itinuing
loss of service industries and businesses relating to agriculture.
There can be no other result frori a less of farmiors bclov a certain
point thaai the complete loss of these service businesses.

232

Thus, those left in agriculture below this point i/ill be miable
to continue because of lack of service.

It is no\r tine to cone to grips vfith the problem of the
"endangered species" the Massachusetts farmer.

The "hand that feeds you" may not be around to "bite."

1

233

MASSACHUSETl'S FOREST FACTS

Massachusetts is one of the most densely populated states in the country,
inhabited by nearly 6 million people. It is an urban-indus trial state with a
total lanri area of 5,013.100 acres, 2,902,200 of them (59^) being classed as
productive comnercial forest.

FOREST LAJID O'.JITERSHIP:
(a) Area -

Public - 365,i+00 acres 13;:^

Private -

Forest Industry 30,100 acres 1a

P'armer owned 253,600 acres 9f

Other private 2,li+8,600 acres 77°'

1005

(B) Number of Owners*

3 - 100 acres - 28,000

100 - 500 acres - 1;,000

More than 500 acres - 250

* (Estimated from Census data)

(C) Number of 'Massachusetts Tree Farms - 362

Number of I-iassachusetts Tree Farms acreage - 98,000

TliE TII'SER RESOURCE:

(a) Net Volume of growing stock and sawtimber on commercial forest land
Softwoods - 3,535,200,000 Bd. ft.

(^•Jhite Pine, Hemlock, Other)

Hardwoods - 3,056,800,000 Bd. ft.

(Oaks, Maples, Birches, etc.)

Total 6,592,000,000 Bd ft.

(Of the above total 2,3^8,100,000 Bd. ft. is in material less than
sawtimber size.)

Average annual net cro-'.'Tth

(growth on sa-vrtimber + ingrowth - cull and mortality) = 120,000,000 ■

Ed. ft.

(B) Current estimated savtimber annual harvest - 115,000,000 Bd. ft.

GROUTH POTEUTIAL:

Massachusetts' woodlands are capable of producing 3 to ^ times the
volume (and value) of wood fiber presently produced. Through management,
cull and poor quality trees can be removed in favor of healthy, vigorous
species of high quality. Full stocking can be attained.

BvIPLOYivffiKT:

Wood manufacturin;-7 and forest industry employs an estimated 3^,500
people in Massachusetts or 6)1 of the total employment in the state.

234

representing an annual payroll of kh -5 million dollars. An estimated
$168,000,000 in product value is created each year.

ASSOCIATED VALUES:

Other associated forest products values include fuelwood, mulch,
maple syrup and Christmas tree production v/ith estimated annual product
values of $3,500,000.

The Massachusetts paper making industry,* estimated in I967 as
contributing 500 billion dollars to GKP, is a separate aspect of the
wood fiber economy with very little tie in to commercial timber
production in the state. *(The Economic Importance of Timber in the
United States - Dwight Hair, U.S.D.A., Forest Service, 1963).

EI!VIROra/ENTAL VALUES:

The non-timber, extremely difficult to measure, values of the forest
far exceed the measurable board foot, wood product values. Included in
this category are the influence of Massachusetts' forests on:

(1) water quality, quantity and flow rate of domestic and industrial
wat er .

(2) climatic changes effected through interception of precipitation
and solar radiation and by the influence of trees on wind and
temperature.

(3) biologic values wherein trees intercept dust and cleanse air of
impurities, reduce COp levels and increase 0.

{h) engineering values wherein trees prevent or retard soil erosion,
reduce glare, muffle sound.

(5) architectural values of trees used to create privacy, screen
objectional viev/s, etc.

(6) aesthetic or amenity values - recreation, nature study,
relaxation, etc.

(7) functional aspects of land use - greenbelts , open space.

Principal reference: The Timber Resources of Southern New England - U.S.D.A.,

Forest Service, 197^-

3/13/75
J.H. Noyes

• . • 235

F. MEMORANTQUM

To: Senator William Saltonstall and Members of the Land Use Sub-Committee

From: Constantine Constantinides, Chief Planner, Office of State Planning U^'

Subject: AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM FOR LAND USE PLANNING AND LAND MANAGEMENT

Date: March 27, 1975

Attached herewith for your review and comment is the proposed intergovernmental
system for land use planning and land management developed under the State Land
Use Project.

Two inter-related processes are presented. The first process, which could be
implemented in part through an Executive Order, involves an intergovernmental
approach to land use planning policy formulation and decision-making. The second
process deals with restructuring land management in the state. It establishes,
through legislation, a system for identifying, designating and regulating areas
of critical planning/environmental concern and developments of more than local
impact. Both processes involve the preparation and state certification of
regional plans or programs.

The narratives attached herewith represent sections of the main reports to be
published soon. Only five copies of the legislative package is provided in this
transmission. However, additional copies will become available in the near future.

It need be emphasized that the recommendations submitted here represent the results
of a study commissioned under the previous administration and therefore they do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the present administration — at least
not at this point in time.

By May 1st the following reports and research documents will be ready for circula-
tion:

Principal Reports

An Approach for Effective Interagency Coordination and Decision-Making
for Land Use and Related Programs.

A Proposal to Restructure Land Management (includes a legislative package) .

A Proposed System for Management Reuse and Disposition of State Real
Property in Massachusetts.

Research Documents

- Analysis of Selected Critical Land Use Issues within Central Massachusetts
(Res. Doc. #1).

- Selected Land Use Case Studies (Res. Doc . /^2) .

236

- An Analysis of the Impact of Key Land Management Techniques on Existing
Massachusetts Laws (Res. Doc. //3) .

A Study on Transfer Development Rights (Res. Doc. //4) .

- Building Moratoriums in Massachusetts: Their Uses, Effects and Legal
Implications (published) (Res. Doc. #5) .

Enc.
CC:ejs

237
A PROPOSED SYSTEM FOR COORDINAT [IIG LAND USE-RELATED PROGRAMS AND DECISIONS

A. Conceptual Framework

The basic goals of effective coordination of land use-related programs and
decisions, greater efficiency in the use of program funds, and improved partici-
pation at all levels of the public and private sectors in land'use planning and
decision-making can best be achieved through an integrated planning approach that
involves an essentially three-phased approach, as described below.
- PHASE I: Creation of a Lead Agency in Land Use

An essential prerequisite to the formulation of a statewide policy
for coordinating programs and decisions affecting land use is the
creation of a central state planning entity that will have lead
responsibility in land use and overall planning policy functions at
the state level. This agency should have legal standing and be directly
responsible to the Chief Executive and his Cabinet. Designation of an
independent line agency, or a' semi-autonomous entity (i.e., Commission),
is not recommended. Although an independent entity may provide a greater
degree of objectivity and freedom from political influences, these attri-
butes are far outweighed by the need to ensure that the state -planning
agency has the confidence and support of the Governor and his Cabinet,
, . and is, therefore, in a better position to induce discipline in the state
planning process.

Centralization of the state planning process in the context of this
study does not mean usurpation of the planning functions of line agencies.
■;. Planning functions in such areas as transportation, national resources,
housing, economic ■develop;?ent, energy, and air and water quality should
remain in the existing line agencies. However, in view of the fact that

238

land use is an interdisciplinary function and cuts across various related

disciplines, it would be logical to place it in the state agency that is
responsible for overall planning coordination, management, and policy
formulation. .

PHASE II: Formulation of Statewide Policies, Requirements, and Plannin;.
Guidelines

II
II

J

idelines'

The proposed statewide policies, requirements, and planning gu
should be predicated on and reflect both (1) specific land use-related
requirements and constraints on such programmatic areas as air and water
quality, housing, economic development, transportation, recreation and
open space, solid waste, and other public facility development; and
(2) general policy guidelines in areas not now directly addressed by
specific programs-~for example, population growth and dispersion, regu-
lation of critical areas of planning and environmental concern, develop-
ments of more than local impact (see report on "Restructure of Land
Management in Massachusetts"), public participation in the planning
process, and new comrauhity development.

As indicated above, lead responsibility for the formulation of statewide land

use-related policies, requirements, and planning guidelines should be assumed by the

state planning agency and be directly responsible to the Governor and his Cabinet,

with inputs and review by appropriate state program agencies, regional planning

commissions, local officials, and the public at. large.

PHASE III:' Preparation and Adoption of a Land Use (Developmeni:) Plan for
Each Region o£ the Comraonweal th

A third and equally significant phase in the proposed state planning

process involves the preparation and adoption of a land use (development)

plan for each region in the Commo'nwealth. The process of developing such

a plan should directly involve state, regional, and local agencies as well

as the public at large. However, the primary responsibility might be most

239
effectively located at the regional level. The preparation and adoption

of such a plan would be based upon the policy guidelines and requirements
formulated by the state planning agency and approved by the Governor and
his Cabinet (as noted in Phase II, above). Once developed, each regional
plan would be reviewed by the state planning agency and, after reconcilia-
tion of any state, regional, and local differences, would be officially
promulgated by the Governor with the consent of his Cabinet. Once adopted,
all actions by government agencies at all levels as well as by the private
sector would have to be compatible with the regional plan. Updating and
other revisions of the plan would follow the same process as the initial
development of the plan.

The option of a regional comprehensive plan has certain specific merits. First,
decentralization of comprehensive land use planning would facilitate the incorpora-
tion and coordination of local concerns and priorities. Second, it might help to
balance the concentration of state powers affecting local and areawide land develop-
ment. The regional approach to land use planning assumes that the state will coordi-
nate its own efforts and develop land use goals and policies that will be represented
or incorporated into the regional comprehensive plan. In addition, a regional
approach has the potential of a more broadly based citizen participation program.
In order for the regional comprehensive plan to effect state activities, it
would have to be adopted by some process that ensures that statewide concerns
regarding both the content and the legitimacy of the document have been met. No
authority should be transferred to the regions or given to the plan during what may
in fact be the prolonged transition period prior to the completion and adoption or
the regional plan. However, provision should be made for closer coordination between
state and regional planning during the transitional period, in view of the increasing
capacity to review and coirjnent on state activities given to the regional planning
agency through the development of such a comprehensive plan. In addition, it should
be noted that the regional comprehensive plan concept would not be a prerequisite

240 ■
for more effective coordination of laud use-related programs at the state

level.

The enabling approach to regional land management suggested in the second i

I

study report (Volume II — A Proposal to Restructure Land Management in Massachusetts) ,
if adopted, would provide for regional comprehensive plans that could serve as a j
basis for both the regulation of certain land uses and the direction of state
programs. An enabling approach is also suggested for regional plans in this
report, given the significance, cost, and varying degrees of difficulty of pulling
together such a plan.

The proposed three-phased approach has the following advantages:

- It establishes a lead agency in land use and overall planning manage-
ment, coordinating, and policy formulation at the state level.

- It provides a balanced, clearly defined, land use management process
based on significant participation by all levels of government as well
as by the general public.

It results in a plan that reflects the requirements and concerns of all
interested parties,

It reduces the duplications, inconsistencies, and gaps that currently
exist in land use-related activities.

What follows is a brief discussion of 11 key steps that should be included in
the proposed three-phased planning process described here. Figure 3 presents these
steps in a schematic form.

0/1

B. Key Steps in the Proposed Policy rurmulation and Planning Process

STEP 1: Creation of a Lead Agency of Land Use and Overall Planning
Policy at the State Level

- As recommended above, a central mechanism responsible for land

use and planning policy functions is essential and should be established

irrmediately through legislation, or by Executive Order and later to be

legitimized through an act of the General Court. Such an agency must be

vested with the process responsibility of formulating land use-related

planning activities, guidelines, and standards for land use-related

planning activities; planning management/coordination; and setting goals,

objectives, and priorities for the state in concert with state agencies,

regional planning commissions, local governments, and the public at

large.

- STEP 2: Define Programu.atic Land Use Requirements and Constraints

As discussed earlier, there is a host of state and federally funded
programs that directly or indirectly impact the use of land. These
programs range from essentially planning and/or regulatory programs to
• major construction programs. The purpose of this second step would be
to identify and describe the land use-related requirements and constraints
of these various major state programs. (A detailed description of areas
of duplication and conflict in federal programs impacting land use is
presented in Appendix A.)

Once developed, this information on land use requirements and con-
straints would be used in three ways. First, it would be reviewed by
the Governor, Cabinet, and state planning agency in Steps 3 and 4 (see
below) to identif-y and resolve any duplications, gaps, or other incon-
sistencies among (or within) state programs and policies. Second, it
would provide an important data base for the formulation of basic state
land use policies. And finally, the state program requirements and

242
constraints, as modified by the Governor, would become key guidelines
for detailed land use planning at the regional and local levels.

Responsibility for the identification and definition of basic
program requirements and constraints should be vested in the cognizant

program agencies, much as they are held responsible for the initial

'J
development and justification of budgetary information. Indeed, the

basic process of collecting land use-related requirements and constraints

would be essentially similar in both purpose and scope to the budgetary

process, and would serve as an important adjunct to the management of

financial as well as physical resources.

STEP 3: Consolidate State Programs with Impacts on Land Use

The input of the separate state-level program agencies that exercise
land use regulatory powers and constraints must be consolidated to show
their combined impacts on land use decisions. The consolidation process
would also identify major gaps, overlaps, and inconsistencies in the
implementation of these programs and would be performed by the state
planning agency. Some recommended methods for viewing these state-level
programs collectively would be (1) to map existing or future (if known)
geographic areas within the jurisdiction of a program, and (2) to develop
a time line for all key dicision points for land use within each state
program similar to the one drafted in Figure 2. Separate program area
jurisdictions should be readily distinguishable from the mapping process
to identify which programs overlap at what points. These overlaps would
in turn provide the basis for potential areas of policy conflict. The :
time line approach has another advantage in that it would focus on ,,
potential conflict areas by identifying at what stage certain land use
decisions are being or will be made.

243

STEP 4: Develop Policy Frarn work Incorporating Planning Guidelines
fox RPA's and Localities

In Step 4, the conflicts identified in Step 3 would be reconciled

and integrated into an overall policy framework. This framework would

reflect not only the collective impact of existing state-level programs

on land use but also the more generalized goals of the state for land

use policy making. The identification of conflict areas, gaps, and

inconsistencies would be fed to the Governor and Cabinet by the state

planning agency. The Governor would have ultimate responsibility for

resolving the existing problems and for formulating and promulgating ,

appropriate statewide land use policy.

The results of the reconciliation process would be fed back to the
state planning agency as the foundation for developing guidelines for
use in the development of land use plans at the regional level. These
guidelines would include the following, at a minimum: ,

— Compendium of relevant statewide policies and program requirements,

— Suggested and required content of regional plan.

— Suggested and required areas for research and data collection.

— Schedule of key decision points in plan formulation.

— Requirements for citizen participation.

— Mechanism for updating and changing the plan.

— Funding availability and constraints.

STEP 5: Review of Policy Framework at Regional and Local Levels

Prior to the finrlization of a policy framework, the regional and
local levels would have the opportunity to review the proposed policy
framework, consisting of a set of goals and objectives and the proposed
set of guidelines for land use plan preparation. The state planning
agency would oversee the circulation of materials to appropriate parties.

244
Comments might be solicited cither, in writing or through a public'

hearing at a reasonable interval from the time of distribution. All
comments coming from the regional and local levels would be fed back
up the system to the Cabinet under the coordination of the state plan-
ning agency. Final agreement would be made at the state level on the
substance of the policy framework, subject to the approval of the
Cabinet and Governor.

STEP 6: Prepare RT'-gional Planning Guidelines for Local Boards, Develop
Regional Land Use Data Base

Upon receipt of the state guidelines for regional land use plan
preparation, the regional planning commission would require specific
inputs from the localities within their jurisdiction. These inputs
might be in the form of existing plans or specific statistical informa-
tion. Wliatever needs are identified at the regional level, it is impera-
tive that they be reported consistently. Criteria for consistency must
be spelled out not only within a specific region but also among regions.

The state plaqning agency would oversee the development of a con-
sistent land use data base statewide. It would take a lead role in
evaluating existing information sources, definitions of terms, method-
ologies for measuring the projection of certain parameters, and so forth
The pros and cons of each would be presented to the regional planning
commissions at a meeting of their representatives. Regional representa-
tives would then agree upon an acceptable set of inputs to ensure con-
sistency in the development of regional land use plans.

245

STEP 7: Prepare Local Land Use Inputs into Regional Plan

Each locality would take an active part in the formulation of a
regional plan in two ways. First of all, it would respond to the
specific needs identified by the regional planning commission for
satisfying the guidelines and developing the land use data base.
Second, it would assist in framing the region's objectives, pcfiicies,
and standards regarding proposed or foreseeable changes. Each locality
should identify its own objectives, policies, and standards and poten-
tial problem areas for a later merging of these with the adopted state
land use policy framework. Existing problems and issues relating to
land use that are of greater than local concern should also be surfaced.
The participation of local citizens should be required in the drafting
of objectives, policies, and standards, and in identifying potential
areas of conflict between local and regional land use planning.

STEP 8: Prepare Regional Land, Use Plan and Updating Process

Each region would combine the materials submitted by each locality
within its jurisdiction into an overall plan that would reflect, to the
maximum extent possible, the realization of local policies and objectives
and the resolution of existing local problems and issues. Each plan would
be totally responsive to the guidelines for regional land use plan prepara-

tion.

A land use plan would contain, at a minimum: ■.■.■■ . .; /. ■_' ;i:;'-..^ • .
— A statement of objectives, policies, and standards regarding-

proposed or foreseeable changes in land use patterns. ;;■■•■,■■■ ,■.,■; •
— A list of current outstanding issues relating to development . •■•

and to physical and environmental deterioration.
— Major risks and jeopardies in realizing the objectives, policies,

and standards as perceived at the regional and/or local, levels.

246
— Procedures for developing a plan, with designation of required
inputs, areas of research, and a mechanism for citizen participa-
tion. 1
— Procedures for approving and implementing the plan.

STEP 9: Review and Distribute of Regional Plans

The state planning agency would collect all regional plans to be
submitted and review them to ensure conformity with the policy framework,
particularly the guidelines for the development of regional plans. Upon
acceptance by the state planning agency, the regional plans would be sub-
mitted to the Governor and his Cabinet for review. The state planning
agency would also oversee the distribution of copies of the plan to all
state agencies with land use-related functions as well as distribution
back to the regions and localities.

STEP 10: Vertical Review and Sign-Off — State Program Agencies, RPA's,
Localities

The state program agencies would review all regional land use plans

to ensure consistency with their respective regulatory powers. Each

agency would grant an approval if it determ.ines a plan to be consistent.

If a problem is identified, the dissenting agency should issue comments

I
I

I

to the region in question and to the state planning agency. The region
and the state agency should reach an accord on the problem and channel I
whatever changes they agree upon to the state planning agency for dis-

tribution. ' Simultaneous with the review by state program agencies, the
regions localities and local citizens should also have the opportunity
to comment on the substance of the plan. Written comments should be
directed to the appropriate region, with copies of these comments for-
warded to the state planning agency. Necessary revisions would be
incorporated into the plans.

I

247

STEP 11: Regional Land Use -Ian Promulgation Becomes Basis for All
Land Use-Related Planning in Region

The state planning agency would present the revised versions

of the regional plans, together with all comments received from state

agencies, regions, localities, and other interests, to the Governor

and Cabinet for final promulgation. Upon promulgation by the Governor

and/or Legislature, each regional land use plan would become the basis

for all land use-related planning in the region, subject to whatever

updating and changes may occur over time. The process for updating

and changing would be an integral part of each plan and hence would

be promulgated as well.

U

o

c

o

•H

m

4-1

CO

1— 1

T)

QJ

pj

•• 01

QJ

Ci

C -r-l

U

3

O t/1

rt

c

►J

•W CO

rH

•H

tJ pQ

(U

i-(

«

Oi

W3

01

eJ3 w

1

C

r;

■-< 01

U)

•iH

o

rJ e

t-1

c

•H

6 o

c

to

o o

rH

n)

CJ

i-i 01

1— 1

1— 1

<

Ph

248

c

CO

txO

d

en

•H

CJ

IJ

0.^

cd

c

•a

03

a ^

n

U

u

c

cx

0)

cq

o

oo

rH

Vi

t-l

(T1

Oi

o

(IJ

m

<+-!

>

rH

CJ

nj

«

CO

o

•p

C

CJ

n

O

c

n

•H

■H

t/1

to <~t

T!

^

<U

CJ

U

hJ

PS

-a

nl

•rH

o

1-1

<u

p

PQ

tn

u

u

c

cd

i-H

n

Q.

M

0

•H

a

C

o

M

>-.

•H

o

nj

0-

C

kJ

oi

C

«

<-l

o

P^

c

;=>

M

i-j

cn

!~t

■u

Cd

»-i

c

o

ex

cd

o

CI

rH

►-J

h^^

P^

U

rH

(D

<1)

td

U

j::

c:

«

■u

CJ

a o

•H

CJ

«

u

u

OJ

.:»

ex, o K

i)

e-^

s

I

hJ

•H

fcl

V4

•-H C

4J

Cd -H

«

C +J

•H

o td

Q

•H Xl

M a

X)

QJ G

C

Pi

-J^ ™

-a

-^

QJ C

CO

5

^J CD

CO

dJ

Cd

(U

•H

ex c

CJ

>

cu cd

n

OJ

u ^

>-i

Oi

,p^ P-,

cu

©

m

CO

iw

OJ

o

•H
O

c

C

60

0)

•H

on

en

cn

<

<:

B

Cd

S

^

■ ?

r*

Vj

OJ

CJJ

•H

o

>

u

CU

P-.

Cti

*^^

OJ

3
60
•H

CJ

2^

1

fcO CU

c 3

>-:

•H

t>N

O

c u

CO

o

O

a o

QJ

•H

C

Cd UH

•H

(—1

M

r-i

J-i

o

CU CO

•H

p^

^

QJ

r~i

U

M C

Cd

ex

o

C -H

o

o

»>

SH rH

o

rH

S

U CU

kJ

aj

R

Id -a

>

Cd

1-1 H

X)

a

u

Q 3

;2;

O

u-

cx o

m

©

1

C

o

o

TJ

00

C

o

Cd

(U

4J

CU

.rTU,

cd

CTJ

'^■"^

•H

JJ

H

CO

o

M

cu

C

rH

O

■H

CJ

;j

©

tj

OJ

c

•H

a

43

4-1

CJ

cd

CJ

CO

O

Vj

o

to

O

CJ

c

>-'

•H

!-4

o

c

G

•rl

r;

>

';-!

tj

o

<-M

rH

CJ

•H

13

4-1

C

^

Cd

H

H

to

cd

c

>H

o

to

•H

to

o

4_)

4J

)-,

Cd

c

Pv

iH

•H

D

Cd

0)

to

U

q

Q)

4J

•H
Uh

eri

CO

c

QJ

LJ

o

a rJ o

1

3

P.

CO

QJ

dl

tH

•H

c;0

CJ

r*

d

•H

OJ

C/1

to

<1

a

■u

i:

Cj

'0

^-)

o

>^

1

rH

o

CJ

(d

•H

Oi

a -

iH

o

o

4-J

rJ

Pk

Cd

T3

14H

^

C

O

u
o

Cd

&

^

rH CO

QJ

Q)

Cd r-^

•H

H

e QJ

>

Cd

o >

CU

Vh

•H QJ

«

t^H

CO rJ

0

QJ

QJ

iJ

e

QJ

e

cd

to

s:

•H

4J

•H

4-1

X)

CJ

en

C

cd

4-1

Cd

O

u

cd

Cd

x:

4J

4-1

CJ

'O

c/1

IM

QJ

CU

d

o

"^

J—t

cd

C4H

nQ

O

^-N

c

CO

•H

^j

CO

o

c

CO

o

QJ

c

•H

•H

C

c

CJ

•H

4H

c

O

M

•H

c

Cd

a

CX

o

CH

d

QJ

cd

CO

>

Uh

cd

V^

rH

0)

o

C-;

r4

CJ

Ph

r^

CJ

^— ^

Ph

e

<
p-

PS

d
Cd

CO.

CO CO

xi

d

•H

cd 4-)

O CJ

PQ CJ

cd d

CJ 3

A MODEL SYSTEM FOR RESTRUCTURING LAND MANAGEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS 249

The following model describes in narrative form how a restructuring of land
management system would operate.

Summary

The model system provides for state and regional regulatory authority over
private and municipal development. Regional systems would be created by legisla-
tive mandate, or, alternatively, regions would be enabled to create their own land
use management systems within the constraints, of the legislation and subject to
approval by a State Land Use Board, which oversees the system and performs an
adjudicatory function in it. The regulations are limited to critical areas and
developments of regional or state impact. Regions must have comprehensive planning
within a fixed period and make their regulations consistent with it or lose regu-
latory powers. The State Land Use Board would from the beginning have authority
analogous to that of the regions in cases involving issues of statewide concern.
Local enabling laws are not affected by the new legislation, but state regulatory
statutes, such as the Wetlands Protection Act and Chapter 774, are integrated with
it. State or regional land use permits are comprehensive, satisfying all currently
existing state and local regulations.

1. Creation of the System

State level. A State Land Use Board is created to interpret the legislation's
regulatory policy, to adopt procedural rules, to oversee the system, and to regulate
development and areas involving issues of statewide concern. The Board would have
a full-time staff, drawn from the Office of State Planning, to assist it in these
tasks. In its capacity as overseer of the system, it would review regional planning
programs and regionally adopted regulatory standards and criteria, and make other
binding interpretations on matters of policy and procedure.

250
The Board's administrative duties might be transferred to the Office of

State Planning, thus linking the land management and policy-coordinative systems.

Its adjudicatory role would be retained, except perhaps with regard to state

agency projects.

Members of the State Land Use Board would be appointed by the Governor.

The Board would not be part of the hierarchy between the Governor and the line

agencies.

Regional level. Regional level participation in the system could either
be enabled or mandated, at the option of the legislature. Once established,
enabled regional systems would operate in no way differently from systems created
by mandating legislation.

Enabling option: The existing Regional Planning Agencies, with the assist-
ance of the State Land Use Board, are enabled to design land use systems for their
regions, establishing a permanent Regional Land Use Commission and specifying its
powers and procedures. For either planning or regulation or both. Regional Plan-
ning Agencies may include as part of their proposed system the subdivision of the
regional planning district, or, with the agreement of the other Regional Planning'
Agencies involved, establishment of the Regional Land Use Commission at the Sub-
state District level in lieu of two or more separate commissions at the regional
level.

Representation guidelines would be established regarding interests to be
represented, one-man-one vote, and state level participation. i

The proposed regional system must be approved by the State Land Use Board
and then endorsed by regional referendum. The state has no power to promulgate
a system if regions fail to do so.

Mandating option: Alternatively, the legislation would simply establish I
Regional Land Use Commissions. Regional choice of alternative arrangements for
boundary changes, interface with existing Regional Planning Agencies, and
administrative organization might be provided.

'-> 251

It is possible that combined or separate legislation creating both a state
level coordinative system and a land management system will be passed. A coordina-
tive system would require regional comprehensive planning programs; the planning
program requirements of the coordinative and land management systems should be
the same, particularly with regard to the degree of detail required. If the land
managment system is enabled rather than mandated, and a region declines to partici-
pate, the planning program required for coordination could be the responsibility of
the Regional Planning Agency. Legislation to create a coordinative system should
provide for this situation.

2. Regulation

Regulatory approach. Developments of regional importance (DRI's), and areas
of critical planning concern (ACPC's) (defined broadly to include environmental
concern), would all be subject to regulations complying with guidelines adopted
■ by the Regional Land Use Commission. Those regulations could be administered by
Municipal Planning Boards or an alternative locally approved agency, through a
process employing hearings, discretionary review, and the power to attach condi-
tions (all in a manner analogous to Special Permit procedures) , and simultaneous
issuance of all local permits in a manner analogous to Chapter 774 procedings
(except also subsuming Chapter 774 and Wetlands Act jurisdiction). Appeals of
local approval or denial could be taken by any party with standing (including
the local chief executive) to the Regional Land Use Commission.

Developments of state importance would be regulated in a like manner by
the State Land Use Board. Under an enabling approach, ACPC's of statewide
significance would be regulated by the State Land Use Board until a regional
commission is in place, after which time the State Board's role would be simply
to hear appeals of regional determinations involving such areas.

252
Interim standards and criteria. Upon approval or establishment of the
regional system and its organization, the Regional Land Use Commission would
adopt interim standards and criteria for identifying and regulating critical
areas and DRi's, subject to review and approval by the State Land Use Board,
but limited to private development, and limited to existing local control tech-
niques. The State Land Use Board would adopt analogous standards and criteria.

Comprehensive planning. The legislation might provide that planning and
regulatory functions are either performed by a consolidated agency or assigned
to separate agencies. In either case, comprehensive planning would be required;
successful establishment of the planning activities and revision of the interim
regulations consistent with the policies and strategies of the planning program
would be required within a given period of time. Upon review and approval of the
comprehensive planning program and revised regulations, the regional system would •'
be fully certified for six years. Only constitutional limits on police power
would constrain regulations adoptable following certification, not existing
enabling laws. Planning updates and recertif ication would be necessary at six
year intervals.

Required comprehensive planning would be clearly defined in the statute.
The product of the planning process will not be master plans, mapping the so-called
"best use" of all land, but policies, priorities, and short-term implementation
strategies based on studies of regional land capabilities and suitabilities and
regional needs. Continuity between the plans of adjoining regions and consistency
with state policies and plans will be achieved during state level review.

3. Administration

Designation and regulation of critical areas. The authority to designate
areas of critical planning concern to a region or the state would lie with the
Regional Land Use Commission. Areas of certain types would be designatable only

253
after the regional system has been fully certified, except on an emergency basis.
The regions would have some latitude in deciding what groups have standing to
nominate critical areas, but municipalities and state agencies would be guaranteed
the right to nominate. Hearings would be required before designation, with the
usual procedural requirements; parties with standing could testify and submit
recommendations.

Concurrent with designation of an area, interim regulations and guidelines
would be established describing generally the type of permanent regulations
required to fulfill the purposes of designation. Local governments would then
adopt appropriate regulations using their powers under the General Laws or
extraordinary powers authorized by the Regional Commission. The Regional Com-
mission would promulgate regulations if local governments fail to act. Once
regulations are adopted, permission to develop in these areas would be administered
locally as earlier described.

Under an enabled approach, the State Land Use Board could act in place of a
Regional Commission to protect areas of critical concern to the state until a
region had established its own Commission.

Developments of regional importance. Acceptible standards and criteria for
identifying and evaluating developments of regional importance are a requirement
for certification of the regional system. Permit-granting authority for DRI ' s
could be lodged in local governments, with easy appeal for the Regional Commission
provided.

An option to by-pass the local level might be given to the applicant. A
public hearing at which the regional planning department, state agencies, munici-
palities, and other interested parties with standing are represented would be
required, and permission to develop could be appropriately conditioned. The per-
mission could be comprehensive, in the manner of Chapter 774. Developments of
statewide importance would be regulated directly the State Land Use Board.

254
A. Appeal [

Developments of regional or state Importance. In regions where primary
responsibility for DRI review Is delegated to local governments, appeals of local
determinations relative to DRI's could be taken to the Regional Commission. Develop-
ments of state importance would be reviewed directly by the State Land Use Board,
and thus no administrative appeal procedure would normally be needed. Final
determinations by Regional Commissions or the Board could be appealed in the courts.

Areas of critical planning concern. Regional Land Use Commissions would have
primary responsibilities to designate and oversee the regulation of areas of concern
to both the region and the state. If areas of concern to the state were Involved a '
Commission's determination could be appealed to the State Land Use Board. Judicial
relief of final administrative determinations would be available.

Critical area regulations would become part of local by-laws and regulations
(after Regional Commission or State Land Use Board approval), and thus relief
from local determinations under these regulations would be by means of the pro-
cedures normally applicable to local controls. However, the Regional Commissions !!
and State Land Use Board would be given standing to file appeals under those
procedures.

1

i

5. Public Developments

The system might or might not have regulatory authority over state agency-
initiated projects affecting land use. Such authority would best follow the
establishment of a state-level coordinative system, which would insure that agency
projects are consistent with regional and state plans and policies. Regulatory
review by the management system would then presume consistency and be confined to
an examination of details of site planning or alignment. 11

Developments by municipal governments or special districts would be
regulated in the same manner as privately sponsored projects. v^,

I
I
I

255
6. Enhancement of Local Capabilities

Consistency of municipal plans with certified comprehensive regional planning

programs would not be required, but, if such consistency were voluntarily achieved

municipalities would be enabled to adopt Ramapo-style growth phasing regulations

and to approve open space land for assessment at agricultural use value. Subsequent

grants of power to local governments might also be tied to Regional Commission

approval of local planning programs.