The Structure of Growth Management in the American States<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1"><sup>*</sup></xref>

Abstract

Sometime ago the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a report entitled State Growth Management.' The report was accomplished by the Council of State Governments under a commission from HUD to review state policies, plans, and programs pertaining to the development of a national urban growth as required by the Urban Growth and New Community Development Act of 1970. This act, not unlike much general legislation passed by Congress, seeks to develop economic vitality, conserve natural resources, and protect the environment. This broad statement of purpose is important to an understanding of the 1976 HUD report with its myriad concerns. Certainly, a first concern of those who performed the study must have been a determination of what they must look for in assessing the growth policies of the states. And to those of us who have followed state politics over the years, the conclusion that few states can be said to have adopted an articulated state growth policy is no great surprise.2 Since the existing state plans are not reviewed in any detail, it is difficult to ascertain their impact on the final shape of the report. Given the various concerns incorporated under growth there, however, it would seem that HUD, under the general objectives established in the 1970 act, offered some a priori guidelines. Thus, economic and industrial development, transportation, energy, land use, environmental protection, housing, planning, state-local relations, and regional districting are all included in the review. The real focus, then, seems to be social change as a concern, particularly since no clear rationale is presented for linking all these particular areas to growth. But if the broader focus of