X hits on this document

105 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

26 / 51

planning, as opposed to the administration's approach of selective area planning.88  Shortly after this editorial ran, CEQ's chairman, Russell Train responded, giving three reasons why the Administration's approach was superior.  First, the results of comprehensive planning, required for nearly half a century, had been at best unimpressive.89  Secondly, state's should be involved in land use planning only when concerns of state or regional significance were at issue.  Third, developments such as low income housing were often excluded by localities despite a need in the region for this type of housing.  Train wrote, "the administration's land use bill goes beyond planning to the central issue of control ... calling for a fundamental reallocation of responsibilities between state and local governments where regional issues are involved."90

Senator Jackson's response ran on December 28, 1971.91 He cited several reasons why the Administration's bill was inadequate to foster wise land management.  First, the categories listed in S. 992 requiring the state's attention, could be defined so narrowly or broadly as to negate any

    (The fundamental difference between the two bills:  Jackson's calls for comprehensive statewide planning based on over-all economic, social and environmental concerns.  It challenges the planners to assure a brighter future by bringing our economic and social needs into balance with the requirements of the natural ecology.  The administration bill would have the state plans focus only on areas of critical environmental concern. ...  We need more than that.  It is none too soon to get started on acting rather than merely reacting to the problems posed by the second America.  It must be comprehensively planned, as Senator Jackson proposes, if it is to be a liveable place.

Editorial, Planning the Second America, Washington Post, Nov. 20, 1971, reprinted in Background Papers I, supra note 1, at 21.

    (Train was referring to the requirement contained in the Standard Zoning Enabling Act, adopted by most states, that required zoning to be in conformance with a comprehensive plan.

    (Russell E. Train, Letter to the Editor, Washington Post, December 15, 1971,  reprinted in Background Papers I, supra note 1, at 22-23.

    (Senator Henry M. Jackson, Letter to the Editor, Washington Post, December 28, 1971,  reprinted in Background Papers I, supra note 1, at 24-25..

1

Document info
Document views105
Page views105
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 12:59:29 UTC 2016
Pages51
Paragraphs427
Words14637

Comments