31. 
helping low- and middle-income people (especially inner city blacks) 
realize their full economic potential. 
The role of State government in new community development 
One reason that countries in Europe and elsewhere have gone so 
much further and been so much more successful than we have in the 
development of new communities is the more active role played by 
government. To point this out is not to minimize the need for private 
involvement. Rather it is to stress the need for cooperative involve- 
ment of all levels of government and private industry.*! The risks in 
building a new community are tremendous for the private developer 
who must go it alone, and to date the record of achieving public 
objectives has not been too good.” The enormousness of the under- 
taking, the lack of eminent domain power, the total lack of early 
return on a large initial investment and the inevitable uncertainty of 
doing something new are only a few of the considerations. The great 
risk is one of the primary reasons that large investors have been 
reluctant to back private efforts to build new communities. The 
private developer, though, is an essential partner without whom new 
communities probably could not be built at all. Government involve- 
ment is needed not to substitute for private action but to attract it. 
Considerations for State involvement in private efforts to build new 
communities * 
“The risks are high and the potential benefits minimal . . .” is 
the conclusion reached by Hichler and Kaplin in their comprehensive 
study of new communities currently being developed in the United 
States.* They consider the possible benefits and costs that could 
result from public involvement (through capital improvement pro- 
eraming, grants-in-aid, or direct subsidies) in the development of 
new communities throughout the country. They present three argu- 
ments against the use of public funds for these purposes: 
1. New communities only help the middle and upper income 
group in society; 
2. Public funds would only help to finance poor investments 
(i.e., ones for which a private developer would be unable to 
secure private financing) ; 
_3. New communities do not achieve any valuable social objec- 
tive. 
These conclusions may be justified insofar as they refer to priva- 
tely developed new communities of the past. |But strong arguments 
can be made to support the contention that a public-private partner- 
ship in new community development could overcome each of the three 
assertions made by Eichler and Kaplan. 
Critucism No. 1. New communities only help the middle and upper 
income groups in society—Certainly it is true that most new commu- 
nities developed in the past have been directed toward the middle 
and upper income markets due to the financial constraints imposed 
on the private developer. But the addition of public funds for housing 
subsidies, job training programs, industrial location incentives or 
61 This point is made by Samuel C. Jackson, Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan Development of Hous- 
ing and Urban Development in a speech before the annual meeting of the Federation of Rocky Mountain 
States, September 1969. 
‘2 Edward P. Eichler and Marshall Kaplan, ‘The Community Builders’? (University of California 
Press, Berkeley), 1967. 
8 This section is based on a study prepared by New Community Planning Associates, “New Com- 
munities: A Public or Private Venture?’ December 1969, Boston, Mass., mimeo 
& Kichler and Kaplan, op. cit. 
