84 
play, education (and access to each), intellectual and artistic develop- 
ments, social contacts, personal as well as community facilities and 
services.” 1 To a large extent these phases constitute the platitudes 
of planners, words that have little operational value. Alonso finds fault 
with them also, primarily because the empirical evidence to support the 
successful operation of these types of specially integrated and socio- 
economically mixed, intentional communities has not yet been forth- 
coming.!” 
Some sociological studies have been done, however, on precisely this 
issue for English new towns; unfortunately, the findings there are not 
yet conclusive.’ One thing is clear; it is difficult to generalize from 
the data available. It seems that many of the scholars who have studied 
the subject proceeded with a predisposition about the value of such 
community developments. However, these are the types of opinions 
and studies which must be reconciled if the legislative findings are to 
have sufficient substance to withstand judicial scrutiny. 
(iv) Government sponsorship of new communities will promote and 
permit a more efficient production of public facilities and services.— 
The last assertion is associated closely with the first, except that most 
of the emphasis here is on the output of the development. This includes 
such things as lower development costs, both because of economies of 
scale and because of more intensive use of services (e.g., higher density 
means smaller sewer length allotments per capita). 
The development is efficient not only because costs can be reduced 
but also because some of the benefits can be increased. The fact that 
large tracts of open space can be preserved for recreational and con- 
servational use under planned unit development is but one example 
of these benefits. 
Also lower development costs would ultimately help reduce the 
significant costs attendant to the provision of housing and facilities 
for low income families and persons. 
On many of these claims, however, most of the critical attention is 
generally placed on the costs (or marginal costs). This is a conceptual 
weakness which Alonso has sought to correct by stressing productivity 
along with costs. His position is that even though new towns may have 
a lower per unit cost, the marginal per capita productivity will be much 
lower than that of larger cities.1% Like his arguments on land costs, 
although they may seem sound and compelling, they are probably 
more applicable to development in rural areas rather than urbanizing 
areas. 
b. Costs 
The cost side of the ledger includes such items as cost of capital, 
tax revenue foregone, and the costs of managing an advanced land 
acquisition program.'’S All of these items are crucial, and it is clear 
that they must certainly go into any legislature’s cost-benefit equation 
before it decides to establish its own new community development 
program. They are, nonetheless, much less important to the legislative 
findings than the benefits. In fact, if any costs are to be emphasized, 
they should be those associated with current development patterns, 
so that the legislature can show how these costs would be eliminated 
10$ Shoup, op. cit., p. 101. 
105 Alonso, op. cit., pp. 20-25. 
1 Wilmotte, “Social Research in New Communities” JAIP, p. 387, November 1967. 
107 Alonso, op. cit., pp. 7-8. 
108 Shoup, op. cit., pp. 47-52. 
