11 
programs are necessary and desirable. However, to date, these plans 
have not been synchronized, nor have they been analyzed to insure 
that they are consistent with each other or compatible with local goals 
and aspirations. Thus, because many agencies and departments at the 
Federal level are pursuing separate programs without adequate coor- 
dination, State governments are in a difficult position. They are forced 
to deal with a variety of separate agencies, each with its own programs 
and priorities and each with its own needs and objectives. 
Although several proposals have been made to impose a somewhat 
ereater degree of organization on Federal programs and agencies in- 
volved in planning for urban growth and development, support for 
these measures is far from assured in the near future.* If a national 
urban growth policy is not adopted, State government will probably 
remain the only level of government sufficiently well structured to 
exert control over and bring order to conflicting local and private 
interests; or if one of the several national urban growth policies that 
has already been proposed is adopted, State government will still have 
a crucial role to play since most of the recent proposals rely heavily on 
State involvement. In any case, it seems that State governments will 
continue to bear most of the responsibility for guiding and directing 
urban growth. 
State governments possess several critical qualifications that allow 
them to play a particularly constructive role in urban development. 
States have the power and the financial resources to move broadly on 
several fronts simultaneously. States have had experience with far- 
ranging programs (highways, recreation, water resources development, 
and welfare programs, to name afew) that have had, and will continue 
to have, a significant impact on the development of urban areas.° 
Moreover, “the State occupies a unique vantage point, broad enough 
to allow it to view the details of development within State boundaries 
as part of an interrelated system, yet close enough to enable it to treat 
urban problems individually and at firsthand.’ ° 
In the past, the extent to which local governments, especially in 
metropolitan areas, have leapfrogged the State to seek Federal 
assistance for urban renewal, planning and area redevelopment pur- 
poses, suggests that many State governments have been unable or 
unwilling to play a major role in guiding urban growth and develop- 
ment.’ It would probably be foolish to suggest that all State govern- 
ments are presently equipped to deal with the complexities of the 
urban development process. However, because State governments 
already possess the legal, administrative, and political powers nec- 
essary to guide urban development, and because the political and 
4 For a discussion of national urban growth policy in the United States, see Lloyd Rodwin, ‘‘Nations 
and Cities: A Comparison of Urban Growth Strategies’’ (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co.), 1970. 
5 The impact of state agencies in Massachusetts on urban and regional development is described in “‘State 
Agencies and Regional Development,’ a study prepared by the Area Development Center, Boston Uni- 
versity, for the Massachusetts Department of Commerce and Development through the Massachusetts 
Regional Planning Project, October 1966. For an inventory of Massachusetts State programs affecting 
urban development see “Myventory of State programs,’’ Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration 
and Finance, October 1968, 3 volumes. 
6 Council of State Governments, “State Responsibility in Urban Regional Development”’ (Chicago: 
Committee on State Planning of the Governors Conference), 1952, p. 18. 
7 The present degree of Federal participation in State and local affairs reflects previous failures to antici- 
pate needs. This failure in a sense created a vacuum into which the Federal Government moved. Since World 
War II, the growth of divect relationships between the Federal Government and cities, counties, and other 
units of local government has been of increasing concern to State Governors and legislatures. The tendency 
of Federal agencies and of local governments to bypass the States has been “deplored.’’ On the other hand, 
the Congress has contended that inaction on the part of State governments should not be permitted to 
deprive a local government of Federal aid. (Channelization of Federal Grant Programs for Urban Develop- 
‘ment,’ 1966 State Legislative Program of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 
Washington, October 1965.) 
57-242—71——_2 
