October 3, 1966
Page 24759
Mr. YOUNG. On September 20, 1966, the distinguished junior Senator from Maine [Mr MUSKIE] spoke before the second annual conference on urban regionalism held a Kent State University at Kent, Ohio. Officials of Kent State University have taken leadership in seeking effective means for regional planning and development and are to be commended on their outstanding contribution toward that end.
In his speech before the conference Senator MUSKIE clearly outlined the problems facing our metropolitan areas. More important, he clearly and concisely defined the new roles which must be played by Federal, State, and local authorities in helping to solve them. It is one of the finest statements that I have read on an issue which is rapidly becoming of paramount importance and with which the Congress will be deeply concerned for many years to come. It will be of great help to all Senators and Representatives to read the penetrating remarks of our distinguished colleague, and I ask unanimous consent that his speech be printed in the RECORD at this point as part of my remarks.
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
ADDRESS DELIVERED BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE TO THE SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON URBAN REGIONALISM, KENT STATE UNIVERSITY, KENT, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 20, 1966
I deeply appreciate this opportunity to be with you again.
Last year I applauded the establishment of Kent State's new center for urban regionalism. It seemed to me to be a dynamic approach toward understanding and solving Government problems on a regional basis.
Since then you have been busy in promoting this cause: the new urban library and information service which can be helpful to State and local administrators; the plans for a training institute for transportation management; the school for newly elected councilmen begun last fall; the development of your regional planning commissions and the proposed work on water pollution and transportation problems.
These will lead, I hope, to even more comprehensive ventures in coordinating local resources.
In 1861, John Stuart Mill had this to say about the capacity of local governmental authorities to do their work:
"In the first place, the local representative bodies and their officers are almost certain to be of a much lower grade of intelligence and knowledge than parliament and the national executive; secondly, besides being themselves of inferior qualifications, they are watched by and accountable to, an inferior public opinion. The public under whose eyes they act, and by whom they are criticized, is both more limited in extent, and generally far less enlightened, than that which surrounds and admonishes the highest authorities in the capital; while the comparative smallness of the interests involved causes even that inferior public to direct its thoughts to the subject less intently, and with less solicitude."
It has been said that Mill "combined enthusiasm for democratic government with pessimism as to what democracy was likely to do."
And so, despite the foregoing pessimism, Mill emphasized two advantages of government by local authorities over the central government: (1) "They have the compensating advantage of a far more direct interest in the result;" and (2) "however inferior the local public may be to the central, it is the local public alone which has any opportunity of watching them (local authorities), and it is the local opinion alone which either acts directly upon their own conduct, or calls the attention of the government to the points in which they may require correction."
Although he was not speaking of the Federal system specifically, these and other observations by Mill a hundred years ago reflect both the problem and the importance of making the Federal system work.
He believed that "if only on the principle of division of labor, it is indispensable to share them (the duties of government) between central and local authorities."
However, he saw a higher purpose to such a division in "the importance of that portion of the operation of free institutions which may be called the public education of the citizens." And, he said, "of this operation the local administrative institutions are the chief instrument."
As we concern ourselves with the workability and improvement of the Federal system, we ought not to forget that it was conceived as a resolution of what Mill has described as the age old "struggle between liberty and authority." As such, it is something more than the efficient distribution of the chores of Government.
Wilhelm Von Humboldt, in discussing the sphere and duties of Government, has said, "The Grand, Leading Principle is the absolute and essential importance of human development in its richest diversity."
Intergovernmental relations involves people: their health, their homes, their jobs, their rights as citizens, and their security as free men. When our governments do not apply their laws or allocate their resources effectively -- when they do not bring the full force of their programs to bear on social and economic problems, it is the people who suffer, and it is the Nation which loses.
During the past five sessions of Congress, we have developed the most impressive package of Federal legislation since the depression to attack poverty, ignorance, economic distress, urban blight, discrimination and other human problems. But the success of this legislation is only as good as the machinery which carries it to the people in the fastest, most effective way possible.
One of the most far-reaching developments in the growth of America during the twentieth century is the emergence of the metropolitan community. It has put extraordinary demands on our Federal system -- for economic development, environmental improvement, and the development of our human resources.
When our Constitution was drawn up, only 5 percent of our population was urban. We were a sparsely populated country of less than 4 million. One hundred years ago twenty percent of the population lived in cities. By 1900, the urban share had jumped to 40 percent of a total of 76 million people. Today, over 70 percent of our Nation is urbanized and we have a total population of 195 million. Projected to the year 2000 -- and this is the date we should really be thinking about in order to plan for the future -- we will reach 300 million people and 85 to 90 percent of them will be crowded into our urban and metropolitan areas comprising a total land area of less than 15 percent of the Nation.
Whether we like it or not, this is the trend, and we must start now to cope with it.
There are other population trends which should be noted. The largest increase in recent years has been among the groups which require the costliest Government services: the old and the young.
Since 1940, for instance, the number of persons over 65 has increased 100 percent; the number of young people below 20 has risen 70 percent.
Their demands are special; their requirements for education, health services, job training, leisure activities, improved housing, and police protection, to name a few, will place a heavy burden on Federal, State and local governments of the future.
Where population growth in general has centered in urban communities, it has particularly concentrated in metropolitan areas of 100,000 or more. In fact, 90 percent of our urban population lives in such areas. Furthermore, over half the population of all standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's) lives in the suburbs of our central cities and this percentage is on the increase.
Here in northeastern Ohio, you have five standard metropolitan statistical areas, all but one of which have a population over 100,000. Together they contain over three and three-quarters million people and in time will develop into one of the Nation's super metropolises. Your region is expected to experience a 26 percent expansion by 1980, most of which will occur in the suburbs and the fringe areas.
Obviously, the more people there are, the larger the demand for public development and services, but the particular nature of our population growth -- our increased crowding into the cities and the suburbs, our larger numbers of elderly and young, many of whom are poor -- will put a special pressure on our Federal system.
What can our Governments, Federal, State and local, do to meet this challenge?
More than anything else, they must put aside their traditional and ofttimes petty differences and competitive conflicts, and cooperate. Resources and programs must be coordinated. State and local planning concepts must be respected. Reasonable lines of administrative and political authority must be drawn. And modern management techniques and competent manpower must be employed.
THE FEDERAL ROLE
The most important role which the Federal Government can play is to preserve the autonomy and support the flexibility of State and local government. This is the real meaning of federalism. This role is carried out through the grant-in-aid system by which most of our Federal aid money is distributed. In over 70 percent of our Federal programs, the States administer the funds to their local governments. In the others, local units determine the degree to which they wish to participate, and the application of the aid.
The Federal grant-in-aid system, by providing necessary resources, has strengthened and augmented the authority of State and local governments, for public development, while at the same time assuring that minimum national standards will be met.
More than anything else, this task needs cooperation, not conflict, between all levels of government.
State and local officials face a numbers game with Federal aid: 170 programs, administered by 21 Federal department and agencies through hundreds of bureaus and regional, State and local offices. Many of these programs are overlapping and conflicting. Many should be coordinated.
Nowhere in the Federal Government can State and local officials take their problems in a package and get an across-the-board analysis of what they need, what they are entitled to, and what planning must be done to get the full benefit of available Federal aid. There is no overall Federal policy of putting programs together and funding them on a coordinated development basis. This reduces the effectiveness of Federal grants-in-aid.
But we are beginning to do something about this -- slowly, but with assurance.
Last year we passed the Economic Development Act, which provides for regional commissions of Governors and Federal members to study major needs and to recommend plans for program coordination and priorities.
The office of Economic Opportunity and the Agriculture Department's community development program are similar efforts to develop coordination of Federal programs affecting the poor.
The new Department of Housing and Urban Development now has a Special Director of Urban Program Coordination to pull together Federal resources to help our cities.
And the demonstration cities program, with its comprehensive planning requirements, is a significant step toward intergovernmental cooperation.
Still there is no overall Federal policy or mechanism for combining Federal aid to help States and localities attack their problems on a broad basis. Nor do we have any formal machinery for developing a close liaison between the Chief Executive and State and local leaders.
This is why I recently introduced legislation to establish a National Intergovernmental Affairs Council in the Executive Office of the President, headed by an Executive Secretary directly responsible to him and assisted by a "working secretariat" independent of the agencies, to ride herd on those Federal agency conflicts and to help State and local leaders with their broad development programs.
In short, our goal must be to develop Federal aid as a service to States and localities, rather than as a game of chance, where too often the affluent and the astute win the game, at the expense of the needy and uninformed.
THE STATE ROLE
What role can and should the States assume?
In effect, the State is a regional form of government. It has a broad potential for resolving the disputes and conflicts between local jurisdictions and for bringing order out of the chaos of fragmented local government with its overlapping, uncoordinated districts and authorities.
Unfortunately, the States have tended to view the urban crisis as if it either did not exist or was not their responsibility. The effects of reapportionment may make a difference.
Some States have already begun to move toward helping local communities with urban development problems. Some have established a State office of urban affairs to give technical assistance on problems of local government finance, structure, organization, and planning. This office advises the Governor and legislature in the coordination of State and Federal programs affecting urban development. It serves as a clearinghouse of information on common problems of local government. It provides special assistance in the techniques of managing urban services.
The State of Ohio has responded to the challenge. The Ohio Legislature has created legislative committees on urban affairs to deal with the problems of municipal incorporation, annexation, and metropolitan-wide councils of government. It has enacted laws providing for interlocal agreements for maintaining public services, voluntary transfer of functions, and the coordination of State water resources, among other measures to encourage local coordination. It has provided for the establishment of regional commissions and has encouraged regional planning. This is very encouraging, but it is only the start of what must be a national effort.
Local governments are finding it increasingly difficult to finance mounting public needs. Federal grants-in-aid, spread out over 170 programs and allocated to thousands upon thousands of governmental units, although helpful, are not enough, particularly with respect to the larger urban areas. The local property tax, which still provides 87 percent of local revenues, tends to grow at a slower rate than the gross national product and is not providing enough to meet the increasing public demands generated by our tremendous growth.
The States should move to tap our expanding economy through a large application of broad-based taxes that are more commensurate with the growth of the States.
They should take the initiative in financing their own grant-in-aid programs for the benefit of metropolitan communities.
More than half the States now have grants to local governments for public education, health, hospitals, welfare, and highways. A lesser -- but growing -- number make payments for fire, police, water, and housing. But none of these have reached the dimension that they should for effective impact.
This trend in State assistance must be accompanied by greater equalization of local fiscal capacities. This is being done in the Federal sector. The States, too, can administer grants and provide tax-sharing in a way to minimize differences in the ability to provide services. To minimize the differences in service levels, more than half the States now weigh local tax efforts and community educational needs when distributing educational grants.
Effective State-local collaboration will never be a reality unless the States come to grips with the unequal fiscal capabilities of their municipalities.
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
So much for the state partner. What contribution can the cities make the partnership of cooperative federalism?
First, they must join with states in seeking to reduce the haphazard array of functional authorities that overlap and conflict with the operations of general purpose governments.
A similar effort should be made to blend city operations into a metropolitan fabric of planning and coordinating through various devices: councils of government; joint city-county administration of certain services; and inter-local contracting of others.
The proliferation of districts, authorities, and other special purpose units which work independently of local government authority, often without popular control, ought to be halted and reversed.
Consider for a moment what the jurisdictional crazy-quilt of counties, townships, municipalities, and special districts mean to the individual voter. In a recent report on local governments, the committee for economic development cites the case of the citizen of the city of Fridley, Minnesota, a city of 16,000. In order to exercise his informed vote, the voter must keep abreast of developments in the 11 jurisdictions for whose support he is taxed. He must consider layer after layer of jurisdictions -- from his own city, his own school district, his sanitary and sewer districts, his soil conservation districts, his county governments, his airport commission, his mosquito control district, the state of Minnesota, and the United States of America -- and this is typical!
The CED report shows that there are more than 91,000 jurisdictions operating today in this country, and, not suprisingly, calls for consolidation of most of them.
The problem is compounded in the larger metropolitan areas. New York has over 1,400 local governments; Chicago is surrounded by 900; Pennsylvania has 6,201 local units. Here in northeastern Ohio, your metropolitan areas are involved in this problem. Pittsburgh has 800 local jurisdictions, perhaps the largest number of any city when compared to population and area. The Akron area has 54 local governments, the Canton area has 57, Cleveland has 135, and the Youngstown area has 105.
How can any consensus of good planning and consideration be achieved with such a mixture of authority and independent funding?
Second, the cities must join the States and launch an all-out improvement in property tax application and administration. Studies show that local governments may be losing billions of dollars a year because of inadequate recoupment of this source of income. There are too many loopholes, exemptions and special treatments, often benefiting the few at the expense of the many.
Many property tax laws are incapable of effective enforcement. Local tax personnel are often not professionally trained or adequately protected against overt outside pressures.
Any consideration of flexible Federal and State assistance to the cities should carry with it the obligation that these local units of government are getting the maximum return from their revenue sources.
Third, city governments can set up their own community development departments, to provide an effective liaison with State urban affairs agencies and with the Federal Department of Housing and Development in planning workable programs of Federal aid, such as that contemplated under the "demonstration cities" bill.
Fourth. -- And this is perhaps the most difficult task -- the cities must make a far greater effort toward metropolitan regional planning.
The "701" metropolitan planning program authorized by Congress 11 years ago has resulted in the establishment of regional planning agencies in about three-quarters of the metropolitan areas of the country.
Unfortunately, the scope and implementation of the plans had resulted, too often, in controversy and frustration and inaction.
In a national study, half the planning agencies felt that their powers were inadequate, their funds and staff too limited, and they received too little public support. While the other half were satisfied with their technical programs, only 20 percent felt that their metropolitan program was being accepted.
It should be a primary task of this conference to calm the fears of public officials and the voters over comprehensive Government planning. Go back to your communities and sell this program.
Tell the people that their tax dollars will go farther, their public problems will be earlier solved, if modern techniques and professional manpower are put to work in building the communities of the future.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I would like to share with you some observations drawn from a very thoughtful article by Professor Peter F. Drucker in the Washington Post on September 4th ("Our Destination -- Or A Whistle Stop").
"The core city," says Dr. Drucker, "is likely to present yesterday's politics, yesterday's issues and yesterday's alignments. The suburbs, representing the young people who are more highly educated and more prosperous, are likely to look increasingly toward tomorrow's problems."
He goes on: "Moreover, the core city will have to bear the burden of the metropolitan services but without the tax resources. These will be in the suburbs. Indeed, it is conceivable that deterioration of the core city will bring a mass exodus of business headquarters to the suburbs, which will create growing demands on the part of the core city that the suburbs become part of its tax domain -- and growing suburban resistance to the core city."
Finally, he says: "It is conceivable, therefore, that the geographic alignments in this country -- between north and South, between country and town, between agrarian and industrial society -- may increasingly be replaced by a split between the core city and the suburbs through all regions and all areas of the country."
These observations are particularly relevant to your work in seeking effective regional planning and development, and they raise issues which are paramount in planning and developing a viable metropolitan area.
At the turn of this century, President Faunce of Brown University, speaking at the centennial celebration of my home city of Waterville, Maine said: "Americans have succeeded nobly in building States, but they have not yet learned to govern cities."
His observation is still relevant, but with a greater urgency today. What makes cities seem ungovernable is the nature of their problems -- so close to the day to day lives and frustrations of their citizens. These problems -- so many of which have emerged as matters of national concern and responsibility -- now threaten to frustrate our ability to govern the Nation itself under the Federal system.