42 
not include all the costs of developing complete new communities 
(e.g., infrastructure, industrial development, commercial develop- 
ment, recreation, and open space) which would probably total an 
additional $5 billion. The initial cost to the Commonwealth of the 
Governor’s proposal is estimated at $2 million yearly—most of that 
money would go to finance the agency itself.*! Additional money would 
be available for housing loans if the legislature agreed to raise the $50 
million borrowing limit on the Massachusetts Housing and Finance 
Agency (at least 25 percent of the housing built through the housing 
agency must be low income and it has so far committed $22 million). 
The new corporation would be in a good position to push for the full 
utilization of existing State and Federal subsidy programs. New com- 
munities would be developed by the State development corporation, 
although residential and commercial development could be subcon- 
tracted out to private developers. Ultimately the new communities 
would be subsumed by the existing municipalities in which they 
were located. 
Coordinated State investment in capital improvements could 
reduce the actual costs of a new community (ie., transportation 
planning could be coordinated with new community development to 
eliminate the need for additional costs for roads). Federal, State, 
regional, and local moneys could be pooled under this strategy. 
The program seems to be financially feasible. 
Public benefits 
Along with the problems of finance and land assembly, existing 
building codes, development standards and land use controls pose 
substantial barriers to a program that has as its general goal the 
successful development of new communities with a full range of 
housing, facilities, and jobs. Short of complete, new, statewide en- 
abling acts, the creation of a development corporation with local 
override powers is the best way of insuring that local standards 
will not impede the development of balanced new communities. The 
development corporation strategy insures coordination of planning 
and investment decisions at the State level. It insures a wide range 
of housing types and (as compared with strategy No. 1) gives the 
State government a greater measure of control over comprehensive 
planning for urban growth in the Commonwealth. 
STRATEGY NO. 3 
Providing for the establishment of new community development 
districts. 
Description 
This third strategy is derived directly from a proposal made by 
Marion Clawson to establish “suburban development districts.” ® 
District boundaries would follow ‘natural features,’ and the size 
would vary from 10 to 20 square miles. The basic power of the new 
community development district would be an authorization from 
the State to acquire all land within its boundaries through purchase 
or option. However, the power of eminent domain would only be 
granted once the development district had acquired 70 percent of 
the land it needed by direct purchase or by purchase of options. 
a1 “Who Will Replace Housing—The State?” Boston Globe, by Janet Riddell, Dec. 16, 1969. 
2 See “Operations Handbook for Mortgage Loan Financing of Multi-Dwelling Housing and New Con- 
struction,” MHFA, July 1969, 
%3 Clawson, op. cit. 
