80 
capable of acquiring and/or controlling large tracts of land in_ur- 
banizing areas for the development of new communities. Since there 
already exist several of these mechanisms established in other States, 
erhaps their enabling legislation would offer a guide as to how the 
egislative findings should be phrased for Massachusetts. The enabling 
legislation for the recently established New York Urban Development 
Corp. offers what is probably the most copious set of findings. The 
statute begins by emphasizing a long list of problems, including persis- 
tent unemployment for the State, the problem that unemployment in 
turn creates, and the inefficient and obsolete facilities G.e., industrial, 
commercial, and community facilities, the existence of blight and the 
trend toward blight in many areas). The various problems just listed 
are then linked with causes, such as lack of adequate planning and the 
inability of the private sector to solve the so-called ‘urban crisis.’ 
Finally, the legislation states, as a matter of public policy, that New 
York can begin addressing these problems by creating a— 
State urban development corporation which, through the issuance of bonds and 
notes to the private, investing public, by encouraging maximum participation by 
the private sector of the economy, including the sale or lease of the corporation’s 
interest in projects at the earliest time deemed feasible and through participation 
in programs undertaken by the State . . . and by municipalities and the Federal 
Government, may provide or obtain the capital resources necessary to acquire or 
construct . . . industrial, manufacturing, commercial, educational, recreational, 
and cultural facilities, and housing accommodations for persons and families of 
low income... (and that all of the above) are public uses and public purposes for 
which public money may be loaned and private property may be acguired and tax 
exemptions granted and that the powers and duties .. . are necessary and proper for the 
purpose of achieving ends here recited.*1 
Certainly the conclusions drawn from the New York Legislature’s 
findings (that pact italicized in the above quote) emphasize the very 
key words that have been stressed throughout this part of the paper. 
However, there remains some question whether enough was said in the 
findings to support the assertion that some of the currently proposed 
activities by the UDC are in fact “‘public necessities” that are required 
for the ‘‘public use and purpose.” It was mentioned earlier that the 
UDC is now planning for three new communities, at least two of 
which will be located in urbanizing areas away from the urban core. 
Yet, nearly all of the legislative findings for the UDC were focused 
upon the urban core areas, and nothmg was made explicit about 
problems with development in urbanizing areas. 
Other legislation has been more specific about these geographic areas. 
In fact, the findings for the proposed legislation by ACIR are explic- 
itly and exclusively devoted to urbanizing areas. In their report, the 
commission persuasively and concisely stated their findings in the five 
following statements: 
1. Local planning and development controls are inadequate to cope with the 
pressures on land and its development in rapiciy growing urban areas. 
2. Efficiency and economy in the provision of public services, both in capital 
outlay and operating costs, depends upon a sound method of acquiring land and 
for the planning of its use for future public and urban development uses. 
3. Public acquisition of land, the planning of its use, and the establishment of 
sound development standards would help preserve one of the State’s primary 
resources. 
» McKinney, “Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated,” Book 65, pt. 1, Unconsolidated laws, sec. 
6252, p. 188, pocket supplement 1969-70, emphasis added. 
