14 
tive performance of governmental functioning in the area.’ Another 
form of direct State action includes the establishment of rigorous 
statutory standards for the creation of new municipal corporations 
within the geographical boundaries of metropolitan areas, and to 
provide further for the administrative review and approval of such 
proposed new incorporations by an appropriate State unit. This 
form of State action is based on the assumption that it is difficult for 
localities to take effective measures in these matters, and that the 
State must step in to protect the interests of the greater ‘regional 
community.” 
6. The State may expand the scope of its activities and subsume 
many of the responsibilities traditionally belonging to local govern- 
ments. The acquisition of land or the purchase of easements for open 
space are examples of this form of direct State action. Such measures 
may be precipitated primarily by the inability of localities to act 
quickly enough in the face of rapid growth." 
7. The State may itself exercise local functions—it might wish 
to do so if local resources are inadequate or if certain functions cannot 
be performed efficiently by the locality even with State financial 
aid. For example, the State might act as a developer of new low- and 
moderate-income housing or entire new communities.!” 
How far and in what direction a State should go depends on several 
factors. One factor 1s the State government’s past experience in 
dealing with urban development problems. Some State highway de- 
partments, for example, have traditionally left many decisions to the 
discretion of counties and cities. Since this pattern has been well 
established, the States continue this arrangement, rather than assert 
more direct control over highway development. The historical pattern 
of State financial aid to localities often is correlated with the degree to 
which local mitiative has become a tradition. Some States have long- 
standing policies of granting considerable funds to localities for gen- 
eral operations. Since State standards governing the use of these funds 
must be met, State control over local policy is often achieved through 
the distribution of funds to localities. In Massachusetts, the traditional 
strength and independence of cities and towns must be taken mto 
account in the formulation of any public policy to deal with urban 
growth. This is not to say that the State, if it wished, could not recoup 
much of the power that it has delegated to localities, but it is quite 
clear that any program designed to reduce the power and authority 
of local government in Massachusetts would face stiff opposition. 
14 A unique example of this in Massachusetts is ch. 774 of the Acts of 1969 (H. 5581) which provides for 
the construction of low or moderate income housing in cities and towns in which local restrictions hamper 
such construction. Should a local zoning board of appeals deny a permit to build subsidized low or moderate 
income housing and such housing does not then exist in the community in minimum quantities established 
by the general court, then after a hearing into the facts and a review of the local decision, the State housing 
appeals committee can issue a permit. For a complete summary of the regulations see department of com- 
munity affairs memorandum, summary of 774, September 1969. 
“ 15 Bao Massaghenetts General Law, ch. 121A, dealing with the establishment of municipal development 
orporations, i 
16 See an act establishing a State land development agency submitted by the department of community 
affairs to the general court in 1969 and 1970. 
7 See pending legislation relative to the proposed replacement housing and community development 
corporation (discussed further in ch. 111 of this thesis). 
