5], 
‘(f) Because zoning generally does not emanate out of a plan- 
ning framework and almost always is unrelated to market behavior, 
it creates at times ‘‘artificial”’ limitations on suprluses in certain 
use categories restricting private, choices which, if made, would 
be in the public interest, and result in public benefits. 
2. Effectiveness of subdivision control 
Like zoning, subdivision regulations are directed more at controlling 
incremental lot development rather than providing a solid basis for 
evaluating and setting standards for regional development practices.° 
(a) Subdivision costs vary from town to town. These differ- 
ences. . . apparently reflect not the choices of citizens but 
different. skills and concerns of technicians. Efforts of the mem- 
bers of the building industry to operate in more than one juris- 
diction are impeded. Complexities appear to have increased de- 
velopment costs. 
(b) In many localities, subdivision codes do not agree with 
zoning bylaws, again adding to the frustration and cost of local 
Seielopers as well as thwarting the implementation of public 
policy. 
(c) Throughout the region, subdivision control is generally a 
“one shot” affair, with no appropriate public overview of contin- 
uing development. 
3. Effectiveness of eminent domain 
Mel Scott has pointed out that— 
as the scale of government activity increases so does its need for land on which 
to locate public facilities, such as schools, parks, offices, hospitals. . . . Similarly, 
governmental participation in urban redevelopment is becoming a larger and 
more important public activity . . . with the broadening responsibility of gov- 
ernment and the increasing complexity of problems facing urban areas, the power 
of eminent domain has become an exceedingly important means by which gov- 
ernment can guide physical development. Public activities such as the highway 
and urban renewal program have been made possible through the use of eminent 
domain.® 
The extention of eminent domain powers to include the taking of 
open land has not been evaluated by the courts in Massachusetts. It 
appears as if the constitutionality of enabling legislation allowing 
public entities to acquire open land for future development purposes 
or for “structuring” urban regions would be upheld by the courts.’ 
4. The effectiveness of development rights and scenic easements 
Constrained by the relative ineffectiveness of zoning and subdivision 
codes, many states have adopted an additional control: the right to 
restrict the development of land through the purchase of land develop- 
ment rights. In effect, what this means is that in return for compensa- 
tion, private owners accept a diminished version of their former fee 
simple title.’ 
There are some difficulties with this approach: 
(a) Legal difficulties in ascertaining public purpose justifying 
expenditure of public funds and use of the police power. 
5 Tbid., p. 27. 
6 Mel Scott, Effectwation of the Urban General Plan (Berkeley, California: University of California}Adult 
Extension Program), 1963, Section 2, p. 4. 
7 Bloise Morgan, “Certain Legal Problems Suggested by the Creation of New Towns in Massachusetts,”’ 
Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs, April, 1969. 
§Kaplan, op. cit., p. 33. 
