Edward C. Banfield, Government and Housing in Metropolitan Areas

8/7/2019 Edward C. Banfield, Government and Housing in Metropolitan Areas

1/102

American Council To ImproveOur Neighborhoods

SERIES IN HOUSING ANDCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTBANFIELD AND GRODZINS:Government and Housing in Metropolitan AreasWINNICK:Rental Housing: Opportunities for Private InvestmentOther books are in preparation ANDOVERNMENTHOUSING INMETROPOLITAN AREAS

Edward C. BanfieldAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Political Science, University of ChicagoMorton GrodzinsProfessor and ChairmanDepartment of Political Science, University of Chicago

McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC. 1958New York Toronto London


2/102

Edward C. Banfield and Morton Grodzins, Government and

Housing in Metropolitan Areas (New York: McGraw HillBook Company, 1958)

This publication was downloaded fromhttp://www.kevinrkosar.com/Edward-C-Banfield/

Placing this file on a website or server or reprinting thispublication for sale is prohibited.


3/102

.cZ0 (

(~,Z

(

"CZ

t"

~Z 01

~0(d r

rZ C;


4/102

American Council To ImproveOur Neighborhoods

SERIES IN HOUSING ANDCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTBANFIELD AND GRODZINS:Government and Housing in Metropolitan AreasWINNICK:Rental Housing: Opportunities for Private InvestmentOther books are in preparation ANDOVERNMENTHOUSING INMETROPOLITAN AREAS

Edward C. BanfieldAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Political Science, University of ChicagoMorton GrodzinsProfessor and ChairmanDepartment of Political Science, University of Chicago

McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC. 1958New York Toronto London


5/102

\S"\ II '\\Y7- ,VJ.

GOVERNMENT AND I)PUSING IN METROPOLITAN AREASCopyright (Q) 1958 ~y the McGraw-Hill BookCompany, Inc, Printed in the United States ofAmerica, All rights reserved, This book, or partsthereof, may not be reproduced in any formwithoUt permission of the publishers,Library of Congress :Catalog Card Number: S8-1IIS9

, \.JI\J

I \I\:I '

:'

II

'ii

ACTION American Council To Improve Our NeighborhoodsSeries in Housing and Community DevelopmentAndrew Heiskell Cbairnzan; Publisber, Life MagazineFerd Kramer Vice Cbairman for Researcb; President, Draper andKramer, Inc,James E. Lash Executive Vice PresidentMarrin Meyerson Vice President for Researcb; Williams Professor andDirector, Center for Urban Studies, Harvard UniversityBarbara Terrett Deputy Director of Researcb

ACTION Research CO1nmitteec, J, BACKSTRANDPresident, Armstrong CorkCompanyFRITZ B, BURNSBuilder and developer; founder ofPanama City, CaliforniaMRS, T, S, CHAPMANPast President, General Federationof Women s ClubsTHOMAS F, COOGANPresident, Housing Securities, Inc,JAMES C, DOWNS , JR,Cbairman, Real Estate ResearcbCorporationBEN FISCHER

International RepresentativeUnited Steelworkers of AmericaPHILIP L. GRAHAMPresident and PublisberTbe ~V asbington Post Company

JOSEPH A, GRAZIERPresident, American Radiator andStandard Sanitary CorporationHENRY T, HEALD

Past Cbancellor, New YorkUniversityANDREW HEISKELLPublisber, Life MagazineGUY T. 0, HOLL YDA

Cbairl1zan of tbe Board, Tbe TitleGuarantee Company; pastCommissioner, Federal HousingAdministrationServed on ACTION ResearchCommittee during initial period ofinvestigations for this series,

t Deceased,

Ferd Kramer ChairmanROY W, JOHNSONDirector, Advanced ResearcbProjects Agency, Department of

Defense; past Executive VicePresident, General Electric CO.PHILIP M, KLUTZNICKCbairman of tbe Board, AmericanCommunity Builders, Inc,; pastCol1zmissioner , Public HousingAdministration

JOSEPH w, LUNDExecutive Vice President R,Bradley and Company, lnc,ROBERT B, MITCHELLCbairman, Department of Land and

City Planning, University ofPennsylvaniaDE LESSEPS S, MORRISONMayor, City of New OrleansCLARENCE J. MYERSPresident, New YorkLife Insurance CompanyJAMES W. ROUSEPresident, James W, Rouse andCompany, Inc.EMANUEL M, SPIEGEL t

Past President, NationalAssociation of Home BuildersCHARLES p, TAFTPast Mayor, Cincinnati, ObioRALPH WALKERArcbitec , Voorbees, Walker

Smith and SmitbROBERT C, WEAVERState Rent Administrator, NewYork Temporary State Housing

Rent Commission

il1'

Ii


6/102


7/102

whose opinions on many facets of urban life are having a pro-found effect upon the kinds of policy and actions required forthe provision of adequate housing.Andrew Heiskell, Chairman, ACTION Board of Direc-torsFerd Kramer, Chairman, ACTION Research CommitteeJoseph W. Lund, Chairman ad hoc Committee on theInvestorRoy W, Johnson, Chairman ad hoc Committee on theProducerBen Fischer, Chairman ad hoc Committee on the Con-

sumerPhilip L. Graham, Chairman ad hoc Committee on theGovernmentGuy T. O. Hollyday, Chairman ad hoc Committee onthe Community

ForewordThe ACTION Series in Housing and Community Develop-ment is the published part of a two-pronged effort of theAmerican Council To Improve Our Neighborhoods (AC-TION) to help bring about a higher level of living in thiscountry s urban areas, It has been made possible by a grant

from the Ford Foundation, These volumes analyzemany ofthe facts about the present condition of American communi-ties, particularly with respect to housing, and offer new con-clusions about the problems and potentialities implied by thefacts. The other part of this ACTION effort is made up ofmany activities through which ACTION and other groupsare aiding communities and their citizens to meet present localproblems and to realize future potentialities for sound urbangrowth. These activities put to the test the proposals of theauthors and the members of the ad hoc committees for im-proving the nation s urban life.Specifically, ACTION aims through this Series and its re-lated program efforts to create a climate within which thechoices available to the American people for improved urbanliving can be expanded in terms of a larger supply of housing,of better quality and at lesser cost, At the least, this means therealization of the following objectives:

I. The elimination of slums that cannot be economicallyrehabilitated.2. The improvement of properties that can be economicallyrehabilitated.3. The preservation of currently sound housing and neigh-borhoods by slowing down their rates of obsolescence.4. The provision of new housing on both cleared and va-

IX;VIII


8/102


9/102


10/102


11/102


12/102


13/102

number of persons, including some of those we had inter-viewed as well as several academic colleagues, Though wewere not always able to agree with what our critics said, allof their comments were carefully considered and many ofthem led to improvements in the text, For their valuable serv-ices as critics we thank Janet Abu-Lughod, former staff mem-ber, ACTION Research Program; William A, Doebele , Jr.Assistant Research Professor of Urban Studies, Center forUrban Studies, Harvard University; Stuart Eurman , ExecutiveDirector, Inter-County Regional Planning Commission, Den-ver, Colorado; Herbert J. Gans , Assistant Professor, Institutefor Urban Studies, University of Pennsylvania; Luther GulickPresident, Institute of Public Administration; Morris E. John-son, Planning Director, Salt Lake County (Utah) PlanningCommission; Maxine Kurtz, City Planner, Denver City andCounty Department of Planning; James E, Lash , ExecutiveVice President, ACTION; William L. Rafsky, DevelopmentCoordinator, Philadelphia; Barbara Terrett, Deputy Directorof Research, ACTION; Coleman Woodbury, Professor ofPolitical Science, University of Wisconsin; and The Honor-able Frank Zeidler , Mayor, City of Milwaukee.

ContentsForeword, by Martin Meyerson ixAcknowledgments xixIntroduction IPART ONE: PROBLEMSCHAPTER 1 The Structure of Governn1ent

Metropolitan AreasCHAPTER 2 The Logic of Metropolitan ReorganizationCHAPTER 3 The Politics of MetropolitanReorganizationPART TWO: IMPEDIMENTSCHAPTER 4 The Lack of Metropolitan PlanningCHAPTER 5 Effects of Multiple Zoning, Subdivision

and Building RegulationsCHAPTER 6 The Inadequate Legal Power of Local

overmnentsCHAPTER 7 Tax Deficiencies and InequalitiesCHAPTER 8 The Poverty of Civic Leadership

Edward C. BanfieldMorton Grodzins

PART THREE: REMEDIESCHAPTER 9 Current Proposals for GovernmentalReorganizationCHAPTER 10 ConclusionsIncex 173

1 II

127135137153

XXI


14/102

INTRODUCTION

To Leonard D. White

This book is addressed to two main questions:I. How does the structure of government in metropolitanareas affect the quality, quantity, and price of housing and

related community facilities?2. What changes in this governmentalstructUre wouldimprove the housing situation?As far as it is possible, this book deals with the effects on

housing of the structure of government rather than with theeffects on housing of the policy of government, Structure andpolicy cannot, of course, always be separated. Neverthelessthe book attempts to take the content of policy as fixed or

given" and to look only at the consequences for housing ofthe way government is, or might be , organized. From thisspecial standpoint, that governmental structure is best whichproduces the best housing situation, A "satisfactory" housingsitUation is defined as one in which there is adequate provisionof new housing in both large and small tracts; existing housingis rehabilitated and conserved where it is economically soundto do so; housing which cannot be economically maintainedis replaced by new housing or converted to other suitableuses; there is adequate provision of such related facilities asschools, parks, transportation, and shopping places; and noincome or ethnic group lacks opportunity to secure adequatehousing.

The volume is in three main parts.

I ~


15/102


16/102

0~OJ~ M0~

ZCJM


17/102

Chapter 1

THE STRUCTURE OFGOVERNMENT INMETROPOLITAN AREAS

Local governments in metropolitan areas are numerous andoverlapping, and their jurisdictions do not correspond withthe areas for which public services are required. The virtuesand vices of such a system aside , the natUre of the system caneasily be made apparent.

1 Although the number of metropolitan areas has increased somewhat, itis convenient to use the data from the 1950 census. As defined by the census,a standard metropolitan area is a county or group of contiguous countieswhich contain at least one city of 50 000 inhabitants or more, In addition tothe county or counties containing such a city, or cities, contiguous countiesare included in a standard metropolitan area if they are essentially metro-politan in character and socially and economically integrated with the cen-tral city,detailed bibliography on metropolitan government is GovernmentAffairs Foundation Metropolitan Communities: A Bibliography, PublicAdministration Service, Chicago, 1956,

Ii!

iii'11

ii'

Many GovernmentsEighty-four million persons-more than half the population

of the United States-live in 168 metropolitan areas,l Alto-gether these areas are somewhat smaller than Texas, yet theyare governed by more than 16000 independent local bodies.None has a single , all-purpose local government for the whole


18/102

area. Twenty-three of the metropolitan areas extend acrossstate lines and another twenty-eight extend up to a state line(see Figure I). The number and types of local governmentsare shown in Table I.Some metropolitan areas have many more local governmentsthan others. In fact, eleven areas, with about 45 per cent of the

"o""""

""'0'"1

4tr

1"""'0;~o

""'wo"'"8"cc"""'""w'II

w."

LEGENDSTANDARDETROPOLITANREASOF 100000 INHABITANTSR MORE

... STANDARD METROPOLITANREAS OF ESS THAN 10000 INHABITANTS

Figure 1. Standard metropolitan areas, 1950.GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING IN METROPOLITAN AREAS

total metropolitan-area population, have somewhat more thanone-third of all the governments. If mere numbers of localgovernments were a significant indicator, the problem ofstructure would be worst in the cities listed in TableActually such totals mean relatively little. If schools happento be organized on a district basis, for example, the number

:10

(Source: Bureau of the Census.THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT IN METROPOLITAN AREAS


19/102


20/102


21/102


22/102


23/102


24/102


25/102


26/102


27/102

there the Negro increase was I I6 per cent, (For absolutegrowth, see Figure 3, ) Four central-city areas (Los AngelesBuffalo, Detroit, and San Francisco-Oakland) at least doubledtheir Negro populations during the ten-year period; and eighthad increases of 60 per cent or more (Boston , Chicago, Cleve-land, and New York in addition to those already named).Pittsburgh had the lowest rate of Negro increase with 32,per cent, as compared with the highest white gain of 25. I percent in Los Angeles, Five central cities lost white populationduring the decade; their average gain in nonwhite populationwas 54 per cent,

Despite these spectacular percentage increases, Negroes inI950 constituted only a minor fraction of the total populationin most of the central cities of the fourteen largest metropoli-tan areas. Washington, D,c., with nonwhites totaling 35-4 percent of total population, and Baltimore (23,8 per cent) hadthe largest group of nonwhites in proportion to total popula-tion. In addition to these , only three other cities had Negropopulations in excess of I5 per cent (Detroit , Philadelphiaand St. Louis). Minneapolis-St, Paul, Boston, and New Yorkhad less than IO per cent.

Suburbs in these largest metropolitan areas exhibit quitedifferent population trends. Negroes made up only 4 per centof their population in I940 and less than 5 per cent in I950.(In the central cities, the total increase for Negroes was from9 to more than 13 per cent.) In only one of the suburbanareas, that of Baltimore , did nonwhites constitute more thanIO per cent of the suburban population in I950. In eight ofthe fourteen suburban areas, nonwhites constituted 5 per centor less of the respective suburban populations, Nonwhitesmade up a larger proportion gf central-city population thanof suburban population without exception. In most cities, theproportion of noll'white~ was two or three times greater than

GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING IN METROPOLITAN AREAS

50 40 30 20 10 0CENTRAL CITY

NEW YORK

CHICAGO

PHILADELPHIA

LOS ANGELES

DETROIT

BALTIMORE

CLEVELAND

ST, LOUIS

WASHINGTON

BOSTONSAN FRANCISCO-

OAKLANDPITrSBURGH

BUFFALOMINNEAPOLIS-

ST, PAULill W ~ ~ w 00 00 oo~SUBURBS

Inc ecrease~ WhiteNonwhite

Figure 3. White and nonwhite population growth in major standardmetropolitan areas, 1940 to 1950. Each unit represents 10 000 people.(Source: Bureau of the Census,

THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT IN METROPOLITAN AREAS


28/102


29/102


30/102


31/102


32/102


33/102


34/102


35/102


36/102


37/102


38/102


39/102


40/102


41/102

Fifth, the political leaders of the states may take a more


42/102

active interest in the metropolitan areas. This is likely bothbecause the proportion of voters living in the metropolitanareas is increasing and because the state politicians are becom-ing more sensitive to "Federal encroachment -which is largelythe assumption by the Federal government of functions thestates have been unable or unprepared to perform.

These considerations, among ot~ers, lead us to favor pro-posals that are something less than the "ideal" of completemetropolitan integration, an ideal which, as previously showncan be criticized on other grounds than political infeasibility.The administrative choices are not between all or nothing,and some progress is far preferable to none at all.

GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING IN METROPOLITAN AREAS

~",-.,c

PART TWOIMPEDIMENTSGovernmental structure is often believed to impede im-provement of the housing situation in metropolitan areas. A

review of the literature on the subject and interviews in sevenmajor metropolitan areas with more than forty well- informedpersons-mayors, city attorneys, city planners, housing andredevelopment officials, builders and their trade spokesmenand others-make it possible to identify the principal points atwhich governmental structure is alleged to have importantundesirable effects upon the housing situation. In summaryform , these alleged impediments are as follows:

I. Adequate metropolitan planning does not exist.2. The effects of multiple zoning, subdivision , and build-ing regulations impede the development of a satisfactoryhousing policy. Specifically:

a. Outside the larger cities, building, zoning, and sub-division regulations are badly drawn and enforced. Thehousing situation would be improved if uniform stand-ards prevailed throughout each metropolitan area.

b. The political separation of central city and suburbs , andthe consequent autonomous zoning by suburbs, in-creases the density of central-city populations, encour-ages the spread of blight and slums in the central city,and deprives the central-city populations of access to


43/102


44/102

Chapter 4THE LACK

METRO PO LIT ANPLANNING

Housing specialists, both in and out of government, almostuniversally believe that metropolitan planning is needed toimprove the housing situation. By metropolitan planning itsadvocates generally mean: anticipation of area-wide problems-especially those relating to land use, transportation, watersupply, and sewage disposal-and the recommending of actionto deal with them before they become acute; and coordina-tion of action among governmental jurisdictions with respectto major functions so as to avoid conflict and secure theutmost return from resources.The Case for Metropolitan Planning

From the point of view of those concerned with housing,the case for metropolitan planning rests on four principalgrounds:

I, Economies in public costs can be secured by contiguoussettlement at a predictable rate in contrast to scattered , un-predictable haphazard" growth. Transportation facilitiesutility lines, and schools can all be provided at less cost whenthe city grO\vs in a compact form and at a controlled rate.In the absence of planning, a central city cannot know what


45/102


46/102


47/102


48/102


49/102


50/102


51/102


52/102


53/102


54/102


55/102


56/102


57/102


58/102


59/102


60/102


61/102


62/102


63/102


64/102


65/102


66/102


67/102


68/102

:I:mean that real-property taxes or borrowing should be in-creased. That is another question altogether. The single gen-eralization to be made is on a different plane: tax limits-andkindred debt limits-are unwarranted limitations imposed by Chapter 7


69/102

Iii

states upon municipalities. They represent a loss of neededdiscretion and flexibility without compensating advantagesand with a number of disadvantageous by-products, Theyestablish combativeness and separateness in the relationshipsbetween states and localities when, in law and in fact , the fiscalproblems that such limitations try to meet can be properlymet only through integrated fiscal programs and administra-tive collaboration.

TAX DEFICIENCIESAND INEQUALITIESll!The tax revenues of local governments are , of course , regu-

lated by state law. Size, population, and the nature and extentof industrial development among other factors, also affectthe fiscal strength of local governments. And " fiscal strength"in turn is meaningful only when set against actual or neededexpenditures, This chapter first examines the widely held be-lief that lack of an adequate tax system has left the cities toopoor to carryon essential programs for slum clearance andnew building,Discussion of this proposition requires at least some rough

estimate of the magnitUde of the financial burden which anadequate" housing program would place upon the cities. Italso requires an evaluation of the ability of cities to assumethis burden under present tax systems.

110 GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING IN METROPOLITAN AREAS

The Cost of an "Adequate" Housing PrOgranlIn order to make an estimate of the magnitudes involved

Chicago serves as an example. It is assumed somewhat arbi-trarily that an "adequate" housing program in Chicago wouldinvolve replacement of 20 per cent of the present housingsupply over the next decade. In a good many Eastern cities-Boston , for example-an "adequate" program would probably

III


70/102


71/102


72/102


73/102


74/102


75/102


76/102

also return locally shared taxes-as they sometimes allocatestate aid-on the basis of need and local tax effort (or onper capita basis) rather than according to accidents of theplace of collection, Again it will be noted that the problemsof "horizontal" fragmentation in metropolitan areas can be Chapter 8


77/102

solved by the "vertical" collaboration of states and localities. THE POVERTYOF CIVIC LEADERSHIPThe need for better civic leadership is everywhere held tobe acute, Specifically, it is said that small cities do not avail

themselves of Federal housing aids because they lack person-nel who are sensitive to problems of urban blight and whohave the skill and time to negotiate for available Federal grants.As for the bigger cities, it is held that the amount and qualityof civic leadership available to them is severely reduced be-cause of the political separation of central cities and suburbs.


The Need for Expertise in Smaller CitiesMany small cities carryon housing and redevelopment pro-

grams, but the proportion of small cities carrying on suchprograms is low, As Table 12 shows, cities of over 500 000spend four times as much per capita for housing and commu-nity development as do cities of 25,000 to 50 000, No othercategory of expenditure varies by size of city to this degree.There are no doubt many reasons for this discrepancy,People in small cities are perhaps less inclined than people inlarge ones to see a need for governmental action, Indeed , theymay view their problems in categories quite different fromthose which are common in the large cities: the small citymay, for example , be thought of as having a bad block or two

127


78/102


79/102


80/102

neighborhood facility programs) can profit by the existenceof an organized neighborhood group,aggressively directed.The need for funds will usually be such that the nucleus of thegroup must be an institution, such as a hospital, a church ora college, or a commercial organization, such as a factory or adepartment store, With this kind of institutional support

PART THREE


81/102

, indi-viduals, block groups, and other community forces can makethemselves fully effective. There is virtually no place in themetropolitan area-whether central city or suburbs-wheresuch a combination of institutional , community, and individualeffort cannot be found and activated,Many citizens' groups concerned with housing producelittle impact because of the timidity or inexpertness of thosewho lead them. Others would do more if their leaders werebetter trained. As one businessman, a heavy contributor to anunsuccessful neighborhood redevelopment plan, said to aninterviewer The reason we have failed , while thescheme has been so successful, is simple: we haven t been ableto find a good civic s, b. to head our program.Resources devoted to developing a training program foraggressive leadership for housing action would produce im-portant results, The goal of such a program would be toincrease the competence and effectiveness of those already inthe field and, of equal importance, to provide a pool of quali-fied professional leaders for the many groups that now existwithout such leadership and for the even greater number thatwould be organized if such leadership were available.


REMEDIES

. , .u

Chapter 9CURRENT PROPOSALS


82/102

FOR GOVERNMENTALREORGANIZATIONThe various schemes, tried or proposed , for the improve-

ment of metropolitan organization may conveniently begrouped under the following headings: annexation of fringeareas by a central city; federation of local governments toform a new metropolitan government; transfer of functionsfrom local governments to the county to form an "urbancounty ; organization of special-function districts; coopera-tion among local governments; and an enlarged role for statesin the metropolitan area. Of primary interest here are theprobable effects of such measures upon housing, Yet it shouldnot be forgotten that the case for or against any plan oforganization generally rests upon broader grounds.Annexation

Throughout most of the nation s history, cities have grownby the absorption of adjoining territory. Between the turn ofthe century and World War however, fringe residents inmost states succeeded in putting almost insuperable legal ob-stacles in the way of annexation (usually they obtained ther:ght to veto it by a simple majority), and accordingly annexa-tion declined to the point of insignificance. In recent years

137


83/102


84/102


85/102


86/102


87/102


88/102


89/102

Although the powers of state government are very greatand those of their electorates even greater, there exist someimportant legal obstacles to effective state action with respectto metropolitan problems. For example , many state constitu-tions prohibit the state from extending credit to local govern-ments. Housing programs, particularly, could advantageously

Chapter 10CONCLUSIONS


90/102

be backed by credit from the states. Such constitutional limitsupon state power, which exist in other areas, place heavyrestrictions upon needed state action and, in the long runthreaten the state s role within the Federal system. The creditpower, for example, could be of first importance at a time ofdepression. The absence of such a power is a direct invitationfor the Federal government to assume new urban responsibil-ities, a development lamented by state officials.Even constitutional limitations can be overcome by politicalaction and, in many areas of importance to metropolitan hous-ing, needed state activities are possible through legislation. Anumber of suggestions are made in the concluding chapter.

The final chapter is in three parts. The first sets forth somegeneral conclusions concerning the nature of the metropolitan-government problem as it affects housing. These form a back-ground for the book's principal recommendation on howhousing in metropolitan areas may be improved through struc-tural changes in metropolitan government. final sectionbrings together in summary form other suggestions bearingupon the problem.General Perspective: MetropolitanReorganization and Housing

The housing problem will not be solved by changes in thegovernmental structure of metropolitan areas. Such changeswill not eliminate slums or neighborhood obsolescence, norwill they alter the racial distribution within cities and betweencentral cities and suburbs. Changes in governmental policies-laws to subsidize the building of homes in central cities , forexample-would do more to change the housing situation thanany conceivable structural change at the metropolitan level.So would widespread changes in patterns of consumer behaviorof a kind that would give primacy to housing rather than othergoods on the market.The worst housing problems exist within the central citiesand to a lesser extent within the satellite cities in the suburban

152 153-OVERNMENT AND HOUSING IN METROPOLITAN AREAS


91/102


92/102


93/102


94/102


95/102


96/102


97/102


98/102


99/102

IND EX


100/102

Anderson, William 34n.Annexation , 21-22 , 51 137-140advantages of, 138- 139and local independence, 139-

140obstacles to , 137racial motivations for, 5 Irevival of, 138

Aschman, F. T 38n.Baker, Gordon E. 53n.Banfield, Edward C 44n., 68n.9In. , 147n.Berman v. Parker, 87n.Black, Creed c. , 5 In.Blight, suburban, 22-24urban , 23Bogue, Donald 28n.Bollens, John C 38n. 77- , 145n.Building codes, affected by Fed-eral agencies , 93-desirability of uniformity in

97-differential costs of, 95-impeding innovation , 96local variations of, 93-and multiple inspections, 96-as weapon, 97Building Officials Conference ofAmerica, 98Building regulations, multiple, 57-, 73-

Building regulations, impact ofon central cities, 84-Building and zoning standardsmaximum and minimum, 78-Calef , Wesley C. 24n.Carpenter, W. S. , Ipn.Civic leadership (see Leadership)Cohen, R. G. , lOin.Conflict, urban-suburban (see Po-litical conflict)Cooperation among governments

147-151 162-163Costs, of building as result of

multiple regulations, 93-of large-scale housing and re-newal program, II 1-12 ICouncil of State Governments106-107County governments, as general

service units , 105number of, in metropolitanareas , I I

(See also Urban county)Dartmouth College , 130Decentralization, advantages of

82-83, , 155Debt limitations (see Tax limita-tions)Departments of local government

in states, 170173


101/102

Public Administration Service13 I

Puerto Ricans, 47,Race and class differences in cen-tral city and suburbs , 45-5 I

(See also Negroes)Racial schism , 24-29, 91-Ragsdale, Glenn, 5InoRatcliff, Richard Uo 125n.

Stanbery, V. B. 63noState governments, aid providedby, to smaller cities, 129- 130and economics of housing, 114-II9in metropolitan reorganization

52, 151-152role of, in housing, 105, 168-170Structure of government, imp or-tanc~ of, to housing, 2, 153-

Urban renewal, politics of, 119-121Urban Renewal Administration68-69, 77Urban Renewal Study Board ofBaltimore, 102 , I I2n.

Urban-suburban conflict (see Po-litical conflict)Veterans Administration, 93-

Wells, Ho Go 35n.Wieboldt Foundation, IBnoWoodbury, Coleman, 22-24Zeidler, Mayor Frank Po, 49, 54,85-Zoning, on area-wide basis , 73-suburban , 2 1-22

(See also Building regulationsmultiple)


102/102

Reed , T. H. , 44Reining, Henry, Jr. , I48n.Reiss, Albert J., Jro 36noReps, J. W. 87n.Restrictions on cities (see Homerule)Revenues of local governments

100-102new sources of, 116-120Rural representation in state leg-islatures, 52-54, 100Scammon, R. M. 46n.School districts, 19Schwarzhaupt, Emil J., Founda-tion, IBn.Sears-Roebuck Foundation, IBn.Segregation (see Negroes)Service costs (see Economics)Services adequate" standards of

37-minirimm standards of, 37-variety and inequality of, 19-20Sherwood , Frank Po, I48noSimon, Herbert A. , 37, 38no 122-

123Social absenteeism , 131-132Social costs , 78, 82Special-function districts, housingand redevelopment authori-

ties as, 145-147, 163, 166

154in metropolitan areas , 7-29Subarea metropolitan problems

42-Subdivision regulations (see Build-ing regulations, multiple)Suburban associations, 149Suburban controls, as exclusiondevices, 87-upgrading trend in , 86-

(See also Building regulationsmultiple)Suburban population, old settlersversus new In , 20-2 Itrends in , 26-29Supreme Court, 55Tableman, Betty, I48n., I50n.Tax deficiencies, I I 1-126Tax differentials in allocation of

housing, 12 1-126Tax inequalities, I I 1-126Tax limitations, 106-110(See also Property tax)

Underrepresentation in state leg-islatures, 52-54, 170Urban Affairs, Federal Depart-ment of, 171Urban county, 141-145, 157, 169Urban renewal, economics of, I I I-119

176 GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING IN METROPOLITAN AREAS INDEX 177

Documents

Edward C. Banfield, Government and Housing in Metropolitan Areas