46 
eligible for Federal funds (e.g., Title IV: New Community Develop- 
ment) as well as for State subventions. MHFA could become involved 
as easily under this strategy as under strategy No. 2. 
Public benefits 
The benefits accruing under this strategy are the same as those 
that would accrue under strategy No. 2. The comprehensive nature of 
the planning for future growth is sacrificed somewhat, since the 
development corporation would be responsible for planning for the 
entire State at all times. But, perhaps, this third strategy is more 
realistic and more politically acceptable. The State would still be 
responsible for formulating a coordinated and synchronized overall 
public improvements program and it would be the State government 
that identified what high growth areas in which new community 
development districts should be established. 
CONCLUSIONS 
In Massachusetts it is fairly obvious that the multiplicity of 
localities (351 cities and towns) creates financial hardships and politi- 
cal fragmentation. A strong county system or metropolitan council 
of governments might provide a more efficient government. These 
possibilities have been discussed elsewhere.*! Given the strong tradi- 
tion of local government in Massachusetts, however, it seems unlikely 
that governmental reorganization will occur in the near future. 
Urban expansion, though, is occurring now and will continue at a 
vigorous pace. The new community development strategies proposed 
in this chapter offer possibilities for channeling and coordinating 
urban development. Each of the three strategies is politically and 
financially acceptable, although the third strategy seems most. 
desirable. 
The State development corporation holds out the greatest promise. 
for meeting public development objectives (e.g. providing more low 
and middle income housmg in locations which correspond to job 
opportunities, preserving open space) yet the new community develop- 
ment districts are a reasonably good second choice. Empowering 
regional planning agencies to act as industrial and economic develop- 
ment authorities is a third possibility—although regional planning as 
it is currently structured in Massachusetts is less efficient than it. 
might be.” 
The two most critical problems facing any attempt to create new 
communities in Massachusetts are (1) finding ways of financing the 
operating costs of a new community during the development period 
(assuming that capital construction can be paid for by State bonds 
and State agency programs), and (2) overcoming the political opposi- 
tion offered by longtime residents to the creation of a new community 
expected to grow to 50,000 people within the boundaries of an existing 
town. The first problem can be dealt with rather efficiently by staging 
and managing the development process in order to keep a positive 
“ For example, see Massachusetts Legislative Research Bureau re ort on regional goy- 
ernment and report on substate regionalization, Office of Planning aa Program paarainee 
tion, Massachusetts Department of Administration and Finance, 1969. 
MG REE DD, Marsa chusetts Reexamined,” a report prepared for the 
ts) ommuni a i 
Susskind, Apel 1970, y rs by R. Stephen Browning and Lawrence 
