Several states have enacted or are considering comprehensive state planning laws. There is little research on local officials' support for state planning efforts, despite the considerable evidence that their attitudes can influence policy outcomes. A survey of California mayors and city planning directors shows strong support for state planning efforts, though more in the domains of "system maintenance" functions (e.g., water, transportation) than for "life style" functions (e.g., land use, police). Resistance to regional planning efforts is found, however. City planning directors look more favorably toward having the state government, rather than regional governments, involved in planning efforts. Local officials give support to only minor roles for the regional-level components of state planning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adrian, C. R 1961. Metropology: Folklore and field research. Public Administration Review21, 148-157.
2.
Anglin, R.1990Attitudes of urban and nonurban residents towards localgrowth andgrowth management Working Paper 15, Center for Urban Policy Research . New Brunswick: Rutgers University .
3.
Baldassare, M.1989. Citizen support for regional government in the new suburbia . Urban Affairs Quarterly24:460-469.
4.
Baldassare, M.1994a. The image problem of regional government: Factors contributing to suburban opposition. Research in Community Sociology4:195-208.
5.
Baldassare, M.1994b. Regional variations m support for regional government . Urban Affairs Review30:275-284.
6.
Baldassare, M., J. Hassol, W. Hoffman, and A. Kanarek.1996. Possible planning roles for regional government: a survey of city planning directors in California. Journal of the American Planning Association62:17-29
7.
Berke, P.R., and S.P. French.1994. The influence of state planning mandates on local plan quality. Journal of Planning Education and Research13:237-250.
8.
Bollens, S.A.1992. State growth management: interagency frameworks and policy objectivesJournal of the American Planning Association58:454-466.
9.
Bollens, S.1993. Shadow regionalism and the fragmented metropolis Organizational responses to urban instabilityPaper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of the Collegiate Schools of Planning . Philadelphia.
10.
Boschken, H.L.1977. Public control of land use: Are existing administrative structures appropriate? Public Administration Review37:495-504.
11.
Calavita, N., and R. Caves.1994. Planners' attitudes toward growth: A comparative case study. Journal of the American Planning Association60:483-500.
12.
California Chapter of the American Planning Association.1991. Action agenda for the 1990s: A new approach to growth, management and regional planningSacramento, CA: Mimeo.
13.
California Legislature.1988. Planning for California's growth Senate Select Committee. Sacramento, CA: Mimeo.
14.
Califorma Legislature.1989a Land use and local revenue sharing Playing the zero-sum game Senate Local Government CommitteeSacramento, CA: Mimeo.
15.
California Legislature.1989b. Does California need a policy to manage urban growth? Senate Urban Growth Policy Project. Sacramento, CA: Mimeo
16.
California Legislature.1990. Growth management Executive efforts, legislative proposals and building consensus Assembly Committee on Local Government. Mimeograph Sacramento, CA.
17.
Cisneros, H.G.1995. Regionalism The new geography of opportunityWashington: Department of Housing and Urban Development .
18.
Conner, K.1991. Other state's growth management experiencesSacramento: Governor's Office of Planning and Research .
19.
Dalton, L.C. and R.J. Burby.1994. Mandates, plans and planner: Building local commitment to development management. Journal of the American Planning Association60:444-61.
20.
Danielson, M.1976. The politics of exclusion. New YorkColumbia University Press.
21.
DeGrove, J.M.1992. Planning and growth management in the statesCambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Use Policy.
22.
DeGrove, J.M., and P.M. Metzger.1993Growth management and the integrated roles of state, regional and local governments. In Growth management The planning challenge of the 1990s, ed. J Stem, 3-17Newbury Park: Sage .
23.
Dolan, D.1990. Local government fragmentation: Does it drive up the cost of government? Urban Affairs Quarterly26:28-45.
24.
Donovan, T., M. Neiman, and S. Brumbaugh.1994. Two dimensions of local growth strategies . In Suburban communities Change and policy responses, ed. M. Baldassare, 153-172. Greenwich, CT : JAI.
25.
Dye, T.R.1964. Urban political integration: conditions associated with annexation in American cities. Midwest Journal of Political Science8:430-66
26.
Dye, T.R. , C.S. Leibman, O.P. Williams, and H. Herman.1966Differentiation and cooperation in a metropolitan area. In Metropolitan politics, ed. M Danielson, 261-271. Boston: Little Brown.
27.
Edwards, J. Terry, and T. Galloway.1981. Freedom and equality: Dimensions of political ideology among city planners and city managersUrban Affairs Quarterly17:173-193
28.
Fnedmann, J. and R. Bloch.1990. American exceptionalism in regional planning, 1933-2000. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research14:576-601.
29.
Fulton, W.1993Sliced on the cutting edge: Growth management and growth control in California. In Growth management The planning challenge of the 1990s, ed. J. Stein, 113-128. Newbury Park: Sage.
30.
Gale, D.E.1992. Eight state sponsored growth management programs: a comparative analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association59:425-439
31.
Gale, D.E. and S. Hart1992. Public support for local comprehensive planning under statewide growth management. Insights from Maine. Journal of Planning Education and Research11.192-205.
32.
Gerston, L.N. and P.J. Haas.1993. Political support for regional government in the 1990s: Growing in the suburbs? Urban Affairs Quarterly29:154-163.
33.
Hahn, A. and C. Dyballa.1981. State environmental planning and local influence. A comparison of three regional natural resource management agenciesJournal of the American Planning Association47324-339.
34.
Hawkins, B.W.1967. Life style, demographic distance and voter support of city-county consolidation. Southwestern Social Science Quarterly48:325-337.
35.
Innes, J.E.1993. Implementing state growth management in the U.S.: Strategies for Coordination. In Growth management: The planning challenge of the 1990s, ed. J. Stem, 18-43. Newbury Park: Sage.
36.
Kenyon, D.A.1988Interjurisdactional tax and policy competition: Good or bad for the federal system? Washington, DC: United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
37.
Kirlin, J.1989. Improving regional governance. California Policy Choices5:187-210.
38.
Kirlin, J.1993. Citistates and regional governance. National Civic Review82:371-379.
39.
Knaap, G.1987. Self interest and voter support for Oregon's land use controls. Journal of the American Planning Association53:92-97.
40.
Knaap, G. and A.C. Nelson.1992. The regulated landscape:Lessons on state land use planning from Oregon. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Use Policy.
41.
Landis, J.1992. Regional growth management. In California Policy Choices, ed. J. Kirlin, vol. 8, 83-126. Los Angeles: USC School of Public Administration.
42.
Lawrence, B.L.1988. New Jersey's controversial growth plan. Urban Land1:18-21.
43.
Little Hoover Commission.1995. Making land use work: Rules to reach our goals. Sacramento, CA.
44.
Logan, J.R. and H.L. Molotch.1987. Urban fortunes: The political economy ofplace. Berkeley: University of California Press.
45.
Logan, J.R. and M. Zhou.1989. Do suburban growth controls control growth? American Sociological Review54:461-471.
46.
Marando, V.L.1979. City-county consolidation: reform, regionalism, referenda and requiem. Western Political Quarterly32:409-421.
47.
Medler, J. and A. Mushkatel.1979. Urban rural class conflict in Oregon land use planning. Western Political Quarterly32:338-349.
48.
Neiman, M.1982. An exploration into class clustering and local government inequality. In Analyzing urban-service distributions, ed. R. C. Rich, 219-233. Lexington, Kentucky : Lexington Books.
49.
Olshansky, R.1993. The California Environmental Quality Act and local planningPlanning and Public Policy16:1-4.
50.
Ostrom, E.1974. Metropolitan reform: Propositions derived from two traditionsSocial Science Quarterly53:465-93.
51.
Ostrom, V., C.M. Tiebout, and R. Warren.1961. The organization of government in metropolitan areas. The American Political Science Review55:831-842.
52.
Peterson, P.E.1981. City Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
53.
Pincetl, S.1994. The regional management of growth in California: A history of failure. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research18:256-274.
54.
Popper, F.J.1992. Rethinking American regional planning. Working Paper 38, Center for Urban Policy Research. New Brunswick: Rutgers University.
55.
Snowiss, S.1967. Urban problems andgovernmental organization. Institute of Government and Public Affairs. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.
56.
Southern California Association of Governments.1993. Draft Regional Comprehensive Plan. Los Angeles.
57.
State of California.1989. Preemption of local land use authority in California. Sacramento, CA: Governor's Office of Planning Research.
58.
Sybert, R.1993. Strategic growth: Taking charge of the future. Sacramento, CA:. Governor's Office of Planning and Research.
59.
Sybert, R., G. Cox, and C. Whiteside.1991. Local and regional perspectives on growth management . Sacramento, CA: Governor's Office of Planning and Research.
60.
Sybert, R. and A. Quinn.1992. The regions of CaliforniaSacramento, CA: Governor's Office of Planning and Research.
61.
Sybert, R. and A. Rivasplata.1991. Planning and growth management. Sacramento, CA: Governor's Office of Planning and Research.
62.
Tiebout, C.1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy64:416-424.
63.
Wallis, A.D.1992. New life for regionalism? Maybe. National Civic Review81:19-26.
64.
Wickersham, J.H.1994. The quiet revolution continues: The emerging new model for state growth management statutes. Harvard Environmental Law Review18:489-548.
65.
Williams, O.P.1967. Life-style values and political decentralization in metropolitan areas. Southwestern Social Science Quarterly48:300-310.
66.
Williams, K.M.1993. ISTEA: New directions for transportation. Land Use Law and Zoning Digest45:3-9.
67.
Wolpert, J.1991. The costs of regional growth. In Our changing cities, ed. J. F. Hart, 170-188. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press.
