CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
December 10, 1969
Page 38198
S. 3228 -- INTRODUCTION OF BALANCED URBANIZATION POLICY AND PLANNING ACT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill entitled the "Balanced Urbanization Policy and Planning Act." I ask unanimous consent that the text, and a section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the RECORD following these remarks. The bill was prepared by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, of which I am privileged to be a member. I am introducing the bill at the request of the Advisory Commission for purposes of discussion and further study.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the bill and section-by-section analysis will be printed in the RECORD, as requested by the Senator from Maine.
The bill (S. 3228) to provide for the balanced urban development and growth of the United States, introduced by Mr. MUSKIE, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Government Operations, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD.
(See exhibits 1 and 2.)
Mr. MUSKIE. In one respect, this bill serves as a follow up to title IV of the "Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968" -- Public Law 90-577 -- which deals with coordinated intergovernmental policy and administration of development assistance programs. More directly, it addresses the problem of urban growth documented in the report of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations on "Urban and Rural America: Policies for Future Growth" and in the survey of "The New City" by the National Committee on Urban Growth Policy.
These two studies record the fact that the present pattern of urbanization is compounding the problems of our metropolitan areas. It is widening the gap between rural and urban America. It is exacerbating racial tensions. The prospective addition of 115 million new Americans to our population between now and the year 2000 plus the forecast that practically all of them will be urban residents accentuates the need to grapple now with the dynamics of the urbanization process.
Let me cite a few of the basic trends that underscore the need for an overall national urbanization policy.
First, the largest metropolitan areas have experienced the most rapid growth in recent years and will continue to do so if present trends persist.
Second, within these areas, however, the most rapid growth has been in the suburban and surrounding areas in which industry is more frequently locating.
Third, with the heavy increase in the black population of our central cities during the past two decades, 56 percent of this sector of our citizenry now reside in these large municipalities, in contrast to only 25 percent of the white population. The bulk of Black Americans today are either rural or core city citizens, while the bulk of white Americans are suburbanites.
Fourth, the Nation's smallest cities and villages outside of our metropolitan areas are growing at a much slower rate and are far more frequently bypassed by the mainstream of national economic growth.
Fifth, in terms of employment, governmental services, and public finance, the great central cities as well as the smaller rural communities and counties share the increasingly more difficult task of maintaining a healthy level of economic activity and of providing jobs and adequate education for their residents.
Sixth, both the large central cities and rural jurisdictions with declining populations encounter a more costly task of providing public and private services.
Seventh, a continuation of the present pattern of urban growth in suburban areas foreshadows an extension of sprawl, and disorderly and wasteful use of land.
Finally, Federal efforts to facilitate coordinated and planned development are not enhanced by the separate planning requirements that now exist in more than 135 Federal grant-in-aid programs and by the 37 planning assistance programs now authorized by the Congress.
These findings prompt me to pose the question: Can we begin to fashion the instrumentalities and procedures which will facilitate the development of a sound, sensible, and consistent urbanization policy? As I see it, continuation of muddling through must be rejected, for that is what has brought us to where we are now. At the same time, the development of a meaningful urbanization policy faces numerous hurdles. Yet, if we continue to ignore the need for such a policy, we must also ignore the consequences of the existing urbanization process.
In very human terms, that means ignoring the concentration of more and more people in large urban centers.
It means overlooking higher costs of public and private consumption in these areas.
It means being willing to risk the heavy social and psychic toll that living in heavily crowded areas presents.
It means the probable addition of even more fuel to already incendiary conditions in the ghettos.
It means widening the gap between the declining economies of core cities and the expanding ones of their suburban neighborhoods.
It means a further widening of the economic, educational, health, and opportunity gaps between rural and urban America.
In short, a policy of more of the same means a continuation of these and other distorted, out-of-balance trends.
Mr. President, after weighing all these factors, I am convinced there is a clear need for a national policy for guiding the location and character of future urban growth. Given the nature of this undertaking, such a policy must involve the Federal, State, and local governments in collaboration with the private sector.
It must deal simultaneously with the problem of central cities in metropolitan areas, while planning for a more balanced geographic distribution of our future urban population.
It must lead to the development of machinery and processes within these governments for coordinating existing policies which affect urban growth and for developing new ones to guide future urbanization.
In terms of direction, it must involve a strategy which gives consideration to the declining economic base of our cities as well as to eroding of our rural economies.
Such a policy must also focus on both the form and quality of urban growth and come to grips with the enormous task of building and rebuilding which will occur during the final third of the century in order to accommodate the 115 million Americans which will be added to our population.
The Balanced Urbanization Policy and Planning Act is intended to initiate a process at the national level for hammering out a balanced urbanization policy. It is also designed to establish a complementary program of comprehensive planning assistance and requirements.
Title I states the purposes of the bill, and proposes definitions used within the measure. Responsibility for coordination and policy guidance is fixed in the Executive office.
Title II of the proposed legislation assigns planning, programing, and coordinating responsibilities in the urban growth area to the Executive Office of the President. The President is required to submit annually to Congress an urban growth report. The report would include data highlighting basic urbanization trends, a summary of key problems arising from those trends, an assessment of Federal progress in meeting these problems, and a review of related State and local policies as well as those of the private sector. The report would conclude with Presidential proposals relating to ways and means of achieving more orderly and balanced urban development. Funds are authorized for the Executive officer to carry out its responsibilities under this title and a new Joint Urbanization Committee of the Congress is established to serve as a major focal point of legislative analysis of the President's report.
Title III revamps the 701 comprehensive planning assistance program and seeks to develop an intergovernmental system of planning and coordination that buttresses the development of a national urbanization policy. Among the more innovative features of this title are the following:
Comprehensive planning assistance is confined generally to general purpose units of government, and one set of areawide multijurisdictional agencies within a State is used -- unless no overall State assistance program is established;
Comprehensive planning must be consistent with that of the next larger jurisdiction -- which complements the intent of title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968;
Functional plans must be consistent with comprehensive planning and not inconsistent with the functional plans of the next larger jurisdiction;
Responsibility is placed upon the States if they choose to take up the challenge laid down by this title, but direct Federal-local action is permitted to localities and areawide jurisdictions if this responsibility is rejected;
An attempt is made to place the allocation of funds on a formula basis, rather than on a statewide distributive basis of project-by-project; and finally,
Immediate responsibility for administering the program is assigned to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but operating within broad guidelines to be established by the Executive Office of the President.
Title IV is designed to deal with the lack of uniformity and clear definition of the numerous planning requirements found in Federal grant-in-aid programs, and with the failure, in many instances, to identify the jurisdiction responsible for planning. In an attempt to bring some order out of the confusion in this planning requirement, title IV codifies and makes uniform the definition of comprehensive planning and standardizes the functional planning conformance requirements in five program areas -- water, sewer, and other public works facilities; public health services; transportation; open space and recreation; and water resources.
Mr. President, the pressures confronting our cities and many of our rural areas are inextricably linked. The issues facing us on both fronts must be joined. Long-range solutions must encompass a grand design for fostering a pattern of urban growth that will be balanced geographically, economically, socially, and environmentally.
This legislation is intended to initiate a policy process and a planning program that will begin to hammer out the components of a national policy on urban growth. Without such a policy, we will remain shackled to the past and will bind ourselves to the nightmarish prospect of a metropolitan urban future and further decline in rural America.
EXHIBIT 2
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE DRAFT BALANCED URBANIZATION POLICY AND PLANNING ACT
TITLE I -- GENERAL PROVISIONS
Declaration of purpose
Section 101 declares the purpose of the Act is to establish procedures for developing a national urbanization policy, to provide greater coordination in the administration of Federal urban and economic development grants, to provide assistance to States and localities for developing comprehensive coordination and planning agencies and activities, to consolidate comprehensive planning requirements for grant programs, and to systematize other planning requirements.
Definitions
Section 102 contains definitions of 12 terms, including "comprehensive planning," "functional planning," and "planning and development district."
Presidential responsibility
Section 103 makes the President responsible for providing policy guidance and review of the administration of the Act, and for promulgating, implementing general rules and regulations, with particular regard to maintaining consistency among the comprehensive and functional planning requirements of this Act and similar requirements of Section 401 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. The latter deals with "Coordinated Intergovernmental Policy and Administration of Development Assistance Programs."
TITLE II -- DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL URBANIZATION POLICY
Findings and declaration of policy
Section 201 (a) finds that rapid urban population growth and urban development, together with a decline in farm population and migration to the cities, has created an imbalance between needs and resources which threatens the Nation's achievement of satisfactory living standards.
Section 201 (b) further finds that Federal programs already have a significant effect on population distribution, economic growth, and urban development; that the purposes of separate programs often conflict; and that a concerted effort is needed to coordinate existing and future programs within a system of planned development and priorities in accordance with a national urbanization policy.
Section 201(c) declares that it is a continuing Federal responsibility, consistent with the responsibilities of State and local government and the private sector, to undertake the development of a national urbanization policy to serve as a guide for specific decisions at the national level which affect the pattern of urban growth and provide a framework for development of interstate, State, and local policy.
Section 201(d) further declares that the national urbanization policy should (1) favor patterns of urbanization and economic development which offer a range of alternative locations and encourage the wise and balanced use of physical and human resources; (2) foster the economic strength of all parts of the nation; (3) reverse migration and growth trends which increase disparities among States, regions, and cities; (4) treat comprehensively poverty and employment problems associated with urbanization and rural decline; (5) develop means to alleviate present trends which accentuate racial segregation; (6) indicate how the Federal Government can help revitalize existing communities and encourage large-scale urban and new community development; (7) assist general governmental institutions in achieving balanced urban growth; and (8) facilitate better coordination of Federal programs so as to encourage desirable urban growth patterns.
Urbanization policy, planning, and coordination
Section 202 provides that, in order to develop the national urbanization policy, a number of functions shall be performed within the Executive Office of the President. These include the preparation of an Annual Report on Urban Growth; the collection and evaluation of information on population growth and movement. urbanization, economic growth, land use patterns, and natural resource conservation and development; a continuing assessment of Federal efforts to develop and implement a national urbanization policy; an estimate of the needs of interstate, State, local and private plans and programs affecting that policy; an evaluation of the relationship of Federal programs and policies to interstate, State, local and private plans, policies, and programs; and an estimate of needs of Federal programs which affect those non-federal plans, policies, and programs.
Urban growth report
Section 203(a) requires the President to transmit the Annual Report on Urban Growth to Congress not later than February 20. This Section specifies what the report shall contain, including data describing urban growth characteristics and identifying trends, a summary of key problems arising from those trends, an evaluation of Federal progress in meeting the problems and carrying out the urbanization policy, a review of interstate, State. local, and private policies and needs affecting the policy, and recommendations for implemental steps, including legislation.
Section 203(b) authorizes the President to transmit to Congress such supplementary reports on urban growth as he deems appropriate.
Section 203 (c) provides that the Annual Growth Report and supplements shall be referred to the two Congressional Committees on Government Operations and on Banking and Currency, the Joint Urbanization Committee, the Joint Economic Committee and other standing committees as the presiding officer of each House designates.
Authorization
Section 204 authorizes funds to be appropriated to the Executive Office of the President to carry out the development of the urbanization policy and preparation of the Annual Report on Urban Growth.
Joint urbanization committee Section 205(a) establishes the Joint Urbanization Committee, composed of eight members from each of the Houses, three of whom from each House shall be members of the minority party. The Committee is to select its chairman and vice chairman from among its members.
Section 205(b) provides that the Joint Committee shall make a continuing study of the Annual Report on Urban Growth and its supplements, and study ways of coordinating programs in order to further the national urbanization policy.
Section 205(c) requires the Committee to file a report with each House not later than April 20 of each year. The report is to contain the Committee's findings and recommendations on the President's recommendations in his Annual Report on Urban Growth. The Committee may make such other reports from time to time as it deems advisable.
Section 205(d) spells out the powers of the Joint Committee or its subcommittees.
Section 205(e) prescribes how the subpoena may be used and oaths to witnesses administered. Section 205(f) authorizes the Committee to appoint and fix the compensation of staff and consultants, and Section 205(8) authorizes the use of staff of other committees or subcommittees of either House.
Section 205(h) establishes the method of payment of the Joint Committee's expenses.
TITLE III -- GRANTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND COORDINATION
Short title
Section 301 provides that this title may be cited as the "Comprehensive Planning and Coordination Act."
In Section 302(a) Congress finds that an effective national urbanization policy depends upon Federal, State, and local cooperation in developing a system of comprehensive planning and coordination. It finds that development planning has tended to be too narrow and inadequately coordinated rather than comprehensive, and that comprehensive planning and coordination agencies and processes are needed to coordinate functional, project and agency program planning. It further finds that development needs may best be coordinated at the State and local levels through State and local comprehensive, policy-based planning processes and adequate governmental structure to implement the planning and coordination. Finally, Section 302 (a) finds that Federal assistance programs can best be coordinated through the Executive Office of the President, using the powers granted in Section 202 of this Act and Title IV (coordination of development assistance programs) of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968.
Section 302(b) declares that the purpose of this title is to provide assistance for comprehensive planning at the interstate, State, regional, and local levels; to encourage local governments to cooperate in solving area wide problems through comprehensive planning and coordination; to foster intergovernmental attack on problems of national urban and rural development; and to establish a method for exchange of development information among localities, the States, and the Federal Government.
Planning and coordination grants
Section 303 authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make comprehensive planning grants to carry out the purposes of Section 302(b). Activities comprising comprehensive planning include systematic collection of information on physical, economic, and human resource development programs and projects; collection and analysis of information related to population economic trends, urban and rural growth and change, employment, human resource trends and needs, State and local governmental organization and fiscal resources; development and use of common data basis for State, regional, and local planning; arranging for exchange of planning information among agencies at all levels of government; preparation and maintenance of a coordinated planning system, including long-range, comprehensive plans consistent with the national urbanization policy; undertaking of studies and surveys to facilitate program coordination; provision of technical assistance and training on comprehensive planning and coordination matters on an interagency, inter-program, and intergovernmental basis; and arranging for exchange of information with the Federal Government for the President's use in discharging his responsibilities under this Act and Title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968.
Eligible agencies
Section 304 provides that the Secretary may make comprehensive planning grants directly to certain agencies and indirectly to others. The channel for making the indirect grants depends on whether a State agency or planning and development district (PDD) agencies administer the planning assistance funds from HUD.
Direct grants may be made to a State comprehensive planning agency, regional councils of government with jurisdiction in two or more States, the Appalachian Regional Development Commission, a regional commission established under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, an Indian tribal planning body, and political subdivisions in Presidentially designated disaster areas. In addition, where a State does not have a planning assistance program channeled through a State agency, direct grants for comprehensive planning may be made to PDD agencies. Finally, where neither a State agency nor planning and development districts administer planning assistance programs, direct grants may also be made to a city or county comprehensive planning agency and to governmental agencies planning for federally impacted areas, for areas undergoing rapid urbanization because of new community development aided by Federal housing programs, and for areas suffering substantial reduction of employment because of the closing of a Federal installation or the reduction of Federal procurement.
Where a State has an approved State agency administering comprehensive planning assistance to PDD agencies and local units, then the following agencies may obtain their Federal funds for comprehensive planning only through the State agency: PDD agencies, units of general local government, and governmental agencies planning for federally impacted areas, for areas undergoing rapid urbanization because of new community development aided by Federal housing programs, and for areas suffering substantial reduction of employment because of the closing of a Federal installation or the reduction of Federal procurement. If the State does not have an approved State agency for administering the planning assistance program, PDD agencies may administer it. In that case, all planning moneys from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development must channel through the PDD agencies to all the local agencies who would otherwise have to get their grants from the State agency.
Proposals for grants
Section 305(a) sets forth the conditions that grant applicants must meet in submitting applications.
Section 305(b) provides that planning or planning assistance grants shall not exceed two-thirds of the estimated cost, except that they may be up to three-fourths of the cost for agencies planning for areas suffering substantial reduction of employment because of the closing of a Federal installation or the reduction of Federal procurement.
Under Sections 305(c) and 305(d), a PDD agency may receive a grant only if its comprehensive planning is consistent with the comprehensive planning of any interstate or State agency assisted by funds granted under this title, and a local government's comprehensive planning must be consistent with that of any interstate, State, or PDD agency assisted by funds granted under this title.
In order to receive a grant for a planning assistance program, Section 305(e) provides that a state agency must enter into an agreement with the Secretary of HUD which:
Provides that the Governor designates the State agency as primarily responsible for the assistance program;
Establishes the relationship among local, areawide, and State comprehensive planning agencies;
Assures that assistance will be made available to all types of specified areas;
Sets forth methods for relating comprehensive and functional planning within and among recipient jurisdictions;
Prescribes a reasonable cost-sharing formula for the non-Federal portion of the planning conducted by the State and local assistance recipients;
Provides for an adequate State technical assistance staff and program;
Assures that the grant funds will not be used to supplant existing State or local funds; and
Provides necessary fiscal control and accounting procedures.
Section 305(f) required PDD agencies that apply for grants to conduct a planning assistance program to meet the same requirements as the State agency must meet under Section 305(e), except those relating to designation of the State agency, and cost sharing of the non-Federal funds. For the PDD agencies, non-Federal costs must be shared between them and the assisted eligible agencies.
Section 305(g) states that planning assisted under the title must cover, to the maximum extent feasible, entire areas having common development problems. The Secretary must encourage cooperation among all parties to achieve coordinated development, and duplication of effort must be avoided.
Section 305(h) requires grant funds to be used in addition to other funds available under federally assisted programs.
Powers of Secretary
Under Section 306, the Secretary is empowered to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out this title, in accordance with those promulgated by the President under Section 103. In addition, the Secretary specifically is authorized to make advance, progress, or other payments; provide technical assistance to eligible agencies; make studies and reports on comprehensive planning problems; consult with other Federal grant-administering agencies in order to determine how their programs are affected by this title; consult with the Secretary of Agriculture before making any planning grant to a nonmetropolitan PDD agency; and consult with the Secretary of Commerce before making such a grant to a PDD agency that serves as an economic development district. The Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce may provide technical assistance to PDD agencies assisted under the title.
Interprogram coordination and comprehensive planning service agreements Section 307 authorizes any State, regional, or local agency receiving any kind of Federal assistance funds to obtain certain services from comprehensive planning agencies, including planning review, advice, and information and technical assistance. Federal grant-administering agencies are authorized to allow grant recipients to spend functional planning grant funds to pay for such services.
Interstate compacts
Section 308 gives the advance consent of Congress to interstate compacts for comprehensive planning and development activities and to the formation of agencies to carry on such activities.
Appropriations authorized
Section 309 authorizes appropriations for the planning grants in the following amounts: up to $75 million for FY 1971; up to $100 million for FYs 1972 and 1973; and such sums as necessary for the following two fiscal years.
Allocations to States
Section 310(a) provides that 15 percent of each year's appropriation shall be allocated for State comprehensive planning, with each State getting a minimum of $50,000 and the remainder being allocated among the States on the basis of population.
Section 310(b) provides that 60 percent of the appropriation shall be allocated among the States for comprehensive planning assistance to eligible agencies, with each State getting a minimum of $30,000 and the remainder being allocated on the basis of State does not enter into an agreement to provide planning assistance, each PDD agency which enters into such an agreement will receive an allocation proportionate to its portion of the total State population.
Section 310(c) authorizes the Secretary to spend the remaining 25 percent of the appropriation as he deems appropriate for additional grants to eligible agencies; for research, technical assistance, publications, and demonstration projects (not to exceed 5 percent of the total appropriation) ; and for administration. He is further authorized under Section 310(a) to reallocate among eligible agencies any unspent State allocations.
Amendments
Section 311 repeals all sections of the existing 701 planning assistance statute except those authorizing non-planning grants to councils of government and grants for historic surveys. It also appropriates $1 million for each of the fiscal years 1971 and 1972 for these two programs.
TITLE IV -- UNIFORM PLANNING REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAMS
Findings and declaration of policy
Section 401 (a) finds that there has been a rapid increase in grant programs and planning requirements for such programs; that these requirements lack uniformity and clear definitions of comprehensive or functional planning, and fail to identify the jurisdiction responsible for planning; that they produce a variety of overlapping and inconsistent activities in data gathering and analysis; and that they limit effectiveness of comprehensive and functional planning.
Section 401 (b) states that the purpose of this title is to eliminate inconsistent and overlapping grant requirements by standardizing the definitions of comprehensive and functional planning and applying these definitions properly by providing a method of identifying planning jurisdictions and establishing the basis for developing and using common data and information bases.
Use of common planning information
Section 402 provides that Federal agencies administering grants that require comprehensive or functional planning, or require conformity to existing planning, shall require that such planning be based on social, economic, demographic and other data that are common to or consistent with those employed for planning related activities within the area.
Comprehensive and functional planning requirements
The remainder of this title amends the pertinent sections of existing Acts that deal with housing and urban development, water, sewer, and other public works and facilities, public health services, transportation, open space and recreation, and water resources, to make them conform with the definitions in this Act of planning agencies and comprehensive and functional planning.