Hoyt, John S., Jr.

English

Research Papers in Economics

Staff Paper Series
STAFF PAPER P71-6 APRIL 1971
Regional Planning:
Common Sense or Nonsense?
John S. Hoyt, Jr.
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics
University of Minnesota
Institute of Agriculture
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101P71-6 April 1971
Regional Planning: Common Sense or Nonsense?
John S. Hoyt, Jr.*
Seventh Extension Library Workshop
Southern School of Agriculture
Waseca, Minnesota
April 5-6, 1971
*Professor in Regional Economics and Program Director, Systems Development,
Agricultural Extension Service and Department of Agricultural and Applied
Economics
(Staff papers are published without formal review within the Department of
Agricultural and Applied Economics)Regional Planning: Common Sense or Nonsense?
Why Plan?
-Because - if this conference had not been planned by someone ~
wouldn’t be here. You wouldn’t have known when to arrive, or where to come
to, or what to do if you did get here, or even how to explain to your spouse
why you were leaving home for 2 or 3 days. In short, planning not only
makes action feasible; it also--in a very real sense--provides a mechanism
for accountability.
Why Plan Regionally?
‘Becausewhen you open the faucet in your home you want pure water--
but you don’t want to have to pay an extra 204 a gallon to your local water
company because it costs that much to remove the pollutants discharged into
the natural water table by an industry in the adjacent county.
“Because if you don’t have a seldom requested book in your library
for a local borrower you?d probably like to know how and where to get it
for him--and as quickly as possible.
“Because the time-distance horizon of our current society has shrunk
so drastically and the public-services function of government has grown so
rapidly that the “local” community can no longer survive as an island unto
itself.
And it is because of this fact that America today--rural, urban, and
suburban--finds itself on the horns of a dilemma. Nowhere else in the world
does the combined public and private mix of social services--health,education,
welfare, law enforcementg ProPertY Protection and services, churches, sports,
recreation, and culture--begin to match those available in contemporary
American society. Yet we have our disadvantaged, discriminated, and
depressed areas and people. They are demanding--and America’s newly
awakened social conscience is demanding for them--an equal access to
opportunity. Not only economic and political opportunity, but social
opportunity.
But the voices clamoring for change sometimes speak with a strange
inconsistency. We--and our voices are among them--raise a socially
justifiable cry for more and better for all at the same time that we
demand “lower taxes,“ “fiscal responsibility,” “accountability” and
more “real” personal income to expend in the private sector.
Can we have both equal access to opportunity for all and economic
gain for all? I believe we can achieve such a goal.
But we need to restructure some priorities. Priorities that are funda-
mental to the concepts of American society; that were literally gleams in
the eyes of the Pilgrims and that are held as tenaciously today as they
were 250 years ago. Radical? I don’t think so, yet wait and see how the
two preceding sentences will be taken out of context by the opponents
of change.-2-
Notice that I said “restructure” not eliminate, abolish, or even re-order.
Structure means to organize in a logical fashion or, in another sense, a
physical thing of some ordered ahape and (implicitly)with a comforting sense
of rigidity or security. Our priorities are already reasonably logical and
ordered and their rigidity does provide at least an aura of security. It
is not my intent to threaten that security nor to abolish the structure--or
any part of it--that provides that security.
Neither do I believe that the implementation, in Minnesota, of the
Regional Development Act of 1969 is “the” solution to the dilemma which
I have identified nor is it “the” means by which all of the necessary re-
structuring can be accomplished. I am prepared to argue, however, that it
affords a process through which we can begin to tackle some of our problems.
At this point in these remarks I have a choice of at least two alternative
directions for the remainder of my comments. I could continue to philosophize
on the merits of regional planning and development and hope to make “converts”
of those of you who do not yet accept the,concepts. Or, and this is the
course I intend to pursue, I can set forth some facts that refute the
charges and allay the fears created by some of the more vocal commentators
on the contemporary scene.
There are those who argue that regional planning and development is such
an innovative and new concept that Minnesota should not be the “guinea pig”
to test it out--Let’s look at the facts:
On February 1, 1971 there were 560 regional councils in the United
States. They involve 80 percent of the nation’s population and 55 percent
of its land area. Some 308 of these councils were in metropolitan areas
(such as the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council) and 252 were in non-metropolitan
areas (such as the Arrowhead Regional Development Commission).
Prior to 1960 there were about 55 regional councils; between 1960 and
1966 another 180 regional councils came into being; and since 1966--in the
last 4 years--another 335 councils have been formed. The statistics make
it clear that the concept has been tested by others. They also make it
clear that the concept is gaining acceptance in a rather rapid way. In
fact, far from being an innovator at this stage of the game, Minnesota
could find itself playing “catch-up” ball--not only in concept but in
access to federal funding as well!
The rapid growth in these last four years that regional councils have
experienced has been due to two basic reasons:
1. Stimulation from the federal government in terms of legislative
and administrative requiremenjzsfor federal aid; and,
2. An increasing awareness on the part of local governments that
there is a need for regional cooperation and new solutions to
domestic problems.
Critics of regionalization raise a legitimate question when they ask
if regional councils are designed to replace local governments. The
answer is a clear “no” but it is a rarely accepted answer. Let’s look
again at the facts about what regional councils are--and are not--and
what they are doing.-3-
Regianal councils are serving to strengthen
ness and to improve working relations with state
This frame of reference is the most difficult to
and understandably the least acceptable to those
evidence andlor dollars-saved. These activities
rather than immediate, high-visibility benefits,
local government’s effective-
and federal governments.
document in concrete terms
who require visible
deal with future payoff,
Regional councils, as organized in Minnesota, are not operating,units
of government.
They do not provide direct services to the public. If they did, they
would probably not be supported by their member local governments. The
voluntary, non-governmental nature of regional councils is what makes them
acceptable to existing local governments. As presently structured, regional
councils are not a threat to local government powers or resources.
One of the most important changes in local government in recent years
haa been the growing awareness of the need forcooperative activity. People
are no longer restricted to the boundaries of a single city or countyj
whether rural, suburban or urban. The rapid growth and modernization
of our nation has brought with it a highly mobile, highly demanding public
which is involved daily with a number of local governments. Today’s citizen
rarely works, lives, shops and enjoys his recreation within a single
jurisdiction.
Then too the cost of local government is increasing, requiring that
local government officials pool administrative operations for economy and
efficiency.
Finally, many problems facing local governments cross jurisdic~ional
boundaries and can be solved only on a broader geographic basis. Such
problems include transportation, economic development, environment, law
enforcement, health protection, and many other activities. Local governments
have been forced to find new solutions to these problems. This has
resulted in a search for new cooperative mechanisms to more effectively
meet the needa of people on a larger and more coordinated basia.
The most promising development in our federal system and for local
communities, in the search for new mechanisms, is the regional council.
Regional councils are areawide organizations which involve cities, counties,
towns and often school districts within a total community. Their prime
purpose is to increase communication, cooperation and coordination among
local governments in planning and implementing programs to meet mutual
challenges and problems. Each local government has the opportunity for
full involvement in the policy-making and programming of the council.
Regional councils are advisory in nature and lack the normal govern-
mental powers of taxation, regulation and direct operation of public
facilities. Their purpose is to provide a forum for dialogue and joint
decision-makingwithin a regional context. Regional councils have no
direct power to implement these decisions. They must rely on the elected
representatives of member local governments to see that the decisions
become a reality.-4-
Regional councils operate through a planning/decision-makingprocess,
which includes essentially data collection, identification of area challenges,
review of means to meet those challenges, adoption of a plan for action,
and finally initiating the implementation of that action.
A basic regional council program would fall into the following framework:
l Regional programs to better meet the needs of people at the local
level.
“Regional planning and management in specific functional areas such
as air pollution control, solid waste disposal, transportation, law
enforcement, water quality, land use and settlement, manpower and
economic development.
“Relate functional planning in these areas to each other and to
overall planning for the region.
.Establish goals and priorities for the region.
“Forum for communication among local governments.
“Technical assistance and joint services for local governments,
which provide economies of scale when carried out on a regional
basis. Cooperative purchasing, regional training academies,
regional jails and correction centers, and areawide solid waste
disposal facilities. All of these projects save the taxpayers
money when performed on a larger, regional scale.
l Coordination and review of local government activities within
the region to avoid duplication and overlap. It ia poor economy
for two adjacent jurisdictions to build new crime labs, when
they can pool their resources and have a better facility at a
lower cost to each.
But, having said these things about the validity and soundness of the
concept of regional development have we convinced those who unalterably
oppose such a structural change in the way we do things? Probably not,
because it implies a change to them and change is a most traumatic ex-
perience for most of us.
Perhaps I can best close with a statement which reflects my opinions
about what regional councils--or regional planning and development as we
call them in Minnesota--are and what they will be.
I suggest that it is entirely probable that if regional councils
do not do enough, then some more fundamental experiments and changes
must be made in the existing structure of local governments and state-
federal agencies and programs.-5-
To those who evaluate performance, I would suggest they consider these
four observations:
1.
2,
3.
4.
In five years, regional councils, without any authority or power
have changed local government relationships with each other,
within the federal system. There is now a process, a stage, for
cooperation between central city and its suburban or rural
communities.
The average citizen is conscious that there”is a regional
community beyond his or her city or county, but more intimate
than the state. The citizen is also increasingly aware that
his present community cannot meet all of his needs. But he
doesn’t want the state or federal governments to take over
local responsibilities either.
The powers and responsibilities of local government are changing.
For political, economic and technological reasons, local government
structure is being remodeled. The regional approach is basic
to that remodeling.
At this point in history, regional councils are diverse ex-
periments to make local governments more effective and responsive.
Their effectiveness on specific substantive matters, such as
how many housing units they got started may be measured. But
a more important contribution is that regional councils are
working to provide more democratic and effective ways to
serve people.
Your challenge, in these next two days, is to take the concepts
and the constructs of a regional approach and apply ‘themto the problems
of library services. You may find them wanting in terms of final, or
beat, solutions but I suggest to you that they will provide the single,
present, best solutions to most of the achievements you wish to accomplish
within your profession.

REGIONAL PLANNING: COMMON SENSE OR NONSENSE?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics