Cuarpter III 
New Community DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES 
INTRODUCTION 
Constitutionally, the States are the ultimate holders of the police 
power and “are the legal masters of local governments and far superior 
to localities in their ability to raise revenues.’’! Politically, State 
governments are at least one step removed from the interjurisdictional 
conflicts which so often impede areawide planning for metropolitan 
growth. For these and numerous other reasons, any rational policy 
allocating responsibility for the development of new communities 
would more than likely assign a wide range of powers to the State 
government. 
Unfortunately, direct State involvement in land-use planning, 
development control, and the creation of new communities has 
tended to be minimal.” On occasion there have been recommendations 
made for greater State action in promoting local development; part 
of a recent report to the National Governor’s Conference contains a 
section entitled, ‘“‘The Challenge of Orderly Growth,” which spells 
out the kinds of State policies needed in the areas of zoning, land use, 
planned unit development, and new community development.* 
Various States have already taken steps to insure a greater degree of 
State involvement in overall planning for urban growth.* 
Increasing dissatisfaction with the pattern of metropolitan develop- 
ment has generated still more proposals for modifying existing arrange- 
ments and creating new concepts and instrumentalities. This chapter 
does not deal with proposals that call for the abolition of local govern- 
ments, but rather with various supplements to local action on issues 
of urban development proposed; and in particular with the issue of 
new community development.’ Proposal to (1) facilitate metropolitan 
area planning for regional development, (2) create new agencies, short 
of metropolitan government, (3) generate private development incen- 
tives (all of which would provide for greater state control over the 
new community development process) have been suggested in a report 
for the National Commission on Urban Problems.® 
1 Rdward Banfield and Morton Grodzins, ‘‘Government and Housing in Metropolitan Areas” (New 
York: McGraw Hill), 1958, p. 151. 
2 The exception to this statement is, of course, New York where the New York State Urban Development 
Corp. is very much involved in the development and planning of new communities. 
3 The National Governor’s Conference, ‘‘The State and Urban Problems: Staff Study for the Committee 
on State-Urban Relations of the National Governor’s Conference,’’ October 1967, pp. 68-79. 
4 Some States have already taken steps to control certain types of land. Wisconsin, for example, in 1962 
began a major open-space acquisition program. Since then, such States as New York, New Jersey, Pennsyl- 
vania, Connecticut, and California have also adopted laws to preserve recreational areas. In Colorado, a 
county must submit any proposed zoning ordinance to the State planning director for advice and recom- 
mendation. Similarly, Michigan counties are required to refer an adopted ordinance to the Michigan depart- 
ment of economic expansion. Substantial attention has been given in Connecticut to the development of 
regional planning agencies covering the entire State and to the integration of State and local development 
activities. (“Fragmentation in Land Use Planning and Control,” prepared for the consideration of the 
National Commission on Urban Problems, Research Report No. 18, by James Coke and John Gargan, 
Washington, D.C., 1969, p. 57.) 
5 For a discussion of proposals calling for substantial reorganization of metropolitan government see, 
ACIR ‘‘Alternative Approaches to Governmental, Reorganization in Metropolitan Areas,” June 1962. 
6 “*Fragmentation in Land Use Planning,’ op. cit. 
(35) 
