Urban areas, we are reminded time
and again, are where the action is. They
are also where the problems are —
enough problems to challenge all of our
resources, and then some. State gov-
ernments are an important part of these
resources, but there is a general feeling
that they have not been a very effective
part.
What should the states do to play an
effective part in attacking the pressing
problems of our urban areas? How well
will they fill that role in the future?
These are critical questions for the
American federal system as we begin the
last third of the twentieth century.
WANTED: AN ACTIVE, POSITIVE ROLE
In its studies and deliberations since
being established by Congress in 1959,
the Advisory Commission on Intergov-
ernmental Relations (ACIR) has ex-
pressed a firm belief that the states
should play an active, positive role in
meeting the problems of local commu-
nities. Two general reasons underlie
this conviction: (1) the desirability of
strong state government generally as an
essential feature of effective federalism,
as a vital instrument for helping to
carry out at the state and local levels
the increasing number of federal grant-
in-aid programs, and as a way of con-
tinuing to insure diversity, innovation,
broad citizen involvement, and a broad-
based political system; and (2) the need
for harnessing maximum resources in
attacking the tough problems of our
1 Walker & Richter, The States' Role in
Meeting the Urban Crisis — Positive or Nega-
tive? 2 metropolitan viewpoints 2 (May
1967). Reprinted by permission.
|
urban areas — education, housing, em-
ployment, recreation, and culture.
The states have a number of unique
qualifications for playing a leading role
in urban affairs. By law they are the
parents of local government, the source
of localities' authority to tackle their
problems — whether it is the authority to
organize and reorganize, perform func-
tions, or raise money.
The states have legal power to step in
and direct local governments to act in
certain ways if they feel such action is
necessary.
In most cases, they have ample geo-
graphic spread to provide directly, or
to set up machinery to render services
and activities that cannot be adminis-
tered or only inadequately administered
by individual localities within the gov-
ernmental mosaic of the average metro-
politan area.
They have greater taxable resources
upon which to draw, the capacity to
equalize resources and services among
their local units, and they do not have
the same handicaps of tax competition
that confront individual local govern-
ments.
Finally, states have the administrative
structure and personnel to offer tech-
nical assistance to their local govern-
ments, especially the smaller ones, in
many functional fields — welfare, engi-
neering, education, and planning are
examples.
PATHS TO LEADERSHIP
With this built-in capacity, states can
and should move in a number of posi-
259
|
