THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND METROPOLITAN PROBLEMS

The problems of urbanization are real and urgent, and the federal government has an important responsibility. It is also apparent that state and local governments must not be ignored, or crowded out of the governmental picture. Reasons for this point of view are presented and discussed. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND METROPOLITAN PROBLEMS Bernard F. Hillenbrand WE, in the National Association of Counties (NACO), believe that the major responsibility for the solution to metropolitan problems rests with the states and localities. The federal government should work with state and local government in a genuine partnership in developing a national urban policy. The goal of this federal participation should be to strengthen rather than weaken state and local metropolitan programs. It is imperative that the federal government continue and, in many cases, strengthen federal local matching aid programs, such as: housing, urban renewal, highways and water pollution control. These national programs should be carefully coordinated and continuously re-defined in cooperation with the states and localities. Very few people have challenged this approach to metropolitan problems, but a fierce debate is going on over how the federal government should organize and proceed on its metropolitan mission. The administration and the leadership in Congress, under strong urging by big city mayors, proposed that the federal government create a new Department of Urban Affairs and Housing, headed by a cabinet officer, who would be responsible for coordinating all federal urban affairs activities and focusing attention at the cabinet table to the problems of urban areas. A second group, of which NACO has been principal spokesman, argues that such a department is impractical, would tend to become disruptive and unwieldy and might easily undermine the states and the smaller units of county, township, and municipal government. NACO recognizes the seriousness of the problem and the urgency of an action program and suggests, as an alternative proposal, that there be created in the Executive Office of the President, a staff agency called a Bureau of Urban Affairs, reporting directly to the President, who has ultimate responsibility for coordinating all federal agency activity. Department of Urban Affairs As originally envisioned, the Department of Urban Affairs was to be built around the Housing and Home Finance Agency, which was to be elevated to cabinet level. Into the new agency would be transferred responsibilities for airport programs, water pollution control, urban highways, and other programs presently in other federal AUGUST. 19963 1289

agencies. It was envisioned that future programs, such as those dealing with redevelopment, mass transit, and open space, would be added at the discretion of the President. As originally drafted, and as supported by proponents before Congress, the department would also ultimately have programs dealing with water, air pollution, control of juvenile delinquency, grants for school construction (both elementary and college), and airport terminal building construction. Some witnesses even urged that the department contain new programs for snow removal, location of industry, and acquisition of industrial sites. The declaration of national urban policy contained in the original legislation outlined a whole host of goals, including those in recreation, education, and cultural pursuits. As the bills emerged from the Senate and House Committees, the measures little resembled their original selves. In both the Senate and the House case, the final bill merely created a Department of Urban Affairs and Housing consisting of the transfer of about 37 per cent of our present housing program into the new department. The remaining 63 per cent of the housing program is to remain in other agencies. If all that was to be considered was the latter proposal, very few people would have cause to be alarmed. We have needed a Department of Housing for some time and, in fact, the administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency has for years sat in cabinet meetings. Here are the arguments that have been advanced for the creation of the department and our reactions to them. The United States because it has been transformed from a rural to an urban society, needs a department of urban affairs. This argument assumes that existing departments of government do not serve citizens in urban areas, and particularly that the Department of Agriculture does not serve people who live in urban areas. It is significant to note that the ten existing departments of our government are organized on the basis of the functions they perform and not on the basis of the place of residence of their clientele. To organize now on the basis of place of residence would be unsound. It would have a good chance of creating frictions between urban and rural groups, which in very recent times appeared to be all but disappearing. Often there is a tendency to equate the word urban or metropolitan with the central city. This misses the point that at the present time approximately 50 per cent of our citizens in the 217 metropolitan centers live in central cities, while 50 per cent live in the suburbs. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations reports, for example, that observed trends indicate that between 1950 and 1980 the total population of metropolitan areas will almost double, the population of central cities may increase only 30 per cent, while the metropolitan fringes may increase 180 per cent. These suburbanites are, generally speaking, provided with municipal services by our urban counties. The central cities are actually dropping sharply in population. Washington is down 6.9 per cent; Boston 15.4 per cent; Pittsburgh 11.2 per cent; and Buffalo 8.9 per cent. The point is that urban problems do not concern just the few large central cities, but are of immediate concern to the 50 states, to 17,000 cities, to more than 3,000 counties and many towns, villages, and other local government units. Actually a great many of our more thoughtful local government officials have expressed grave concern that the real reason for a Department of Urban Affairs is to establish a new federalcentral city relationship, which bypasses 1290 VOL. 53. NO. 8. A.J.P.H.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND METROPOLITAN PROBLEMS not only the state legislatures but the other units of government in the metropolitan areas. Certainly urban areas in general, and large cities in particular, have through the years suffered at the hands of the state legislatures. Our urban counties have been no less the victim than the large core cities. But to substitute direct federal relations between the central city and the national government might easily create as many problems as it solves. It would most certainly undermine the efforts of cities, counties, townships, and other local units in metropolitan areas to work cooperatively. If the large city bypassed the other units of government and with the assistance of massive federal funds "goes it alone" in the metropolitan areas it would be a great disservice to all that has already been done locally. There is need to coordinate national urban programs. We agree, as has been pointed out innumerable times, there are literally hundreds of national programs that have a direct and important bearing on metropolitan problems. These are scattered through virtually every agency of government. If the urban secretary were really to coordinate these activities properly, they would have to be transferred to the jurisdiction of his department. This would be monstrous. We would have a single department of government which would have within its jurisdiction virtually the whole of the civil section of government, since most of these civil programs deal with people who reside in greatest numbers in urban areas. As an alternative to the actual transfer of functions to a single "super" department, the urban secretary might try to coordinate programs, the administrative responsibility for which is in another cabinet officer's department. 1, for one, cannot envision a new urban secretary coordinating the airport and highway programs which are under Governor Hodge's jurisdiction. This would lead to administrative chaos, as indeed past history has already shown. Originally, for example, the secretary of the treasury had charge of governmental budget operations and was meant to coordinate all budget matters from his department. This proved completely unworkable and it was necessary to transfer the Budget Bureau from the Department of Treasury into the Executive Office of the President. To cite another specific example of this problem of coordination, we might take the federal program of assistance to communities for construction of water pollution control facilities. Certainly adequate sewage facilities are a key to metropolitan growth and yet this program is quite properly administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. If the Sewage Construction Grant Program were transferred to the Department of Urban Affairs, imagine the problems of coordination between the construction program in urban affairs and the enforcement and other administrative aspects of water pollution, which would presumably remain in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Imagine, too, the problems of having two major federal agencies dealing with the State Water Pollution Control Agencies. In other words, to transfer functions would cause as many coordination problems as it solved, and to try to coordinate without transferring functions would certainly lead to great friction and tension between cabinet officers. There is need for a single point of contact where local officials can go and get answers to all their urban problems. Perhaps in the early days of our Republic, the government was so simple that we could realize the dream of having a single point of contact to get answers to questions involving federal AUGUST. 1963 1291

activities. Certainly the government is too large for this today. For example, just in the matter of housing, which is under the direction of a single housing and home finance administrator at the present time, there are literally dozens of subagencies and offices spread all over Washington and through innumerable field offices to such an extent that even this single program could not be brought together in one physical location. Even if it were possible the size of the agency would be so monstrous that coordination would be more difficult. It is also argued, and quite properly so, that we have spent millions of dollars in research in agriculture, but that we have spent relatively little in urban research. Certainly we do need to spend a great deal more on research in this area, but we would disagree with the proposition that the only place that this could be done would be in a Department of Urban Affairs. Imagine, for example, the kinds of problems that would be encountered if a Department of Urban Affairs should undertake independent research into one of our worst urban problems, namely, air pollution control. As a national association NACO has long and vigorously urged that we do more research in this vital area; but we think it should be conducted by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and we could see no possible advantage whatsoever of having a duplicate research program in the Department of Urban Affairs. Prospects for a new department. Despite our own views in this matter, if we were venturing to make predictions, we may guess that in the near future, a Department of Urban Affairs would be created. We would predict too, that even with its creation it will still be necessary to take the following steps if the national government is to play its proper role in metropolitan affairs. 1292 Bureau of Urban Affairs. In the first place, either the present federal Bureau of the Budget should be expanded or a new Bureau of Urban Affairs, headed by a deputy to the President, should be created in the Executive Office of the President to perform the following functions: 1. In cooperation with state and local government to recommend a national urban policy. 2. Use the resources of existing federal agencies to conduct research in urban problems. 3. Review all proposed legislation for its impact on urban development. 4. Review and recommend to the President and/or Congress policies to better coordinate national urban programs. 5. Attend all cabinet meetings and serve as a spokesman for urban affairs. It can be seen that this bureau would function in urban affairs in almost the same manner that the present Bureau of the Budget functions in regard to overall federal policy. It is also to be noted that many of the functions which are suggested are those that have been suggested for a proposed Department of Urban Affairs. We believe, however, that there is a vast difference at the level at which these functions would be discharged. They are essentially staff functions and should be performed by a staff arm of the President and only in the name of the President and not by a specific federal department. Perhaps to those who are not familiar with the day-to-day operations of the national government, it might appear that a bureau in the Executive Office of the President would not have as much power and prestige as would a federal department. This is, of course, not true for the director of the Bureau of the Budget in Washington. The budget director and all his predecessors is one of the most powerful and influential men in Washington, cabinet officers notwithstanding. VOL. 53. NO. S. A.J.P.H.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND METROPOLITAN PROBLEMS Advisory Commission. Because of our firm belief that major responsibility for urban and metropolitan affairs should rest with the states and localities, we think it particularly important that state and local officials be consulted on the development of these urban policies. We would suggest that either the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, which contains representatives from public and all levels of state and national and local government should serve in this capacity or a new group be recreated for this purpose. Joint Congressional Committee on Urban Affairs. Congress is, of course, the final arbitrator of what the national government will do or not do in urban and metropolitan areas. We would strongly recommend that a joint committee of senators and representatives be created for the purpose of building an effective national policy and program with respect to the nation's urbanization. Summary The problems of urbanization are real and urgent and the national government has an important responsibility. It is also apparent that state and local governments must not be ignored, crowded out, overpowered, or under- or overfinanced. The urban policies followed by the national government and their manner of execution can have an important bearing upon the future of our federal system of government. Mr. Hillenbrand is executive director, National Association of Counties, Washington, D. C. This paper was presented before a Joint Session of the Association of Business Management in Public Health, the Conference of Municipal Public Health Engineers, and the Engineering and Sanitation and Health Officers Sections of the American Public Health Association at the Eighty-Ninth Annual Meeting in Detroit, Mich., November 16, 1961. APHA ANNUAL MEETINGS 1963-November 11.15-Kansas City, Mo. 1964-ctober 5.9-New York City. N. Y. AUGUST, 1963 1 293