The next fifty years; A Nation's Policy, pt. II

The next. Thang in the science they are tech managers. Every member when I go through rapid changes during the next 15 years. Thanks. National Education already old presents a series of programs expressing a variety of opinions on the future of the democratic environment plays were given of the 50th year conference of the American Institute of planners held in Washington in October of last year. In attendance was any army public affairs director Bill Greenwood. This is the 13th and final program in our series of discussions on the

needs of America in planning for development during the next 50 years. This week a continuation of last week's speeches dealing with the broad topic on nation's policy for its future to comment on that topic will be the honorable Orville Freeman secretary of agriculture. Desmond heap controller for the City of London England. Kermit Gordon president of the Brookings Institute. Mr. Irving hand president of the American Institute of planners and Dr. William L. C. Wheaton a dean at the University of California. Details on all of our guests as the program proceeds. But first some biographical data about our first speaker. Nationally known for his work as the secretary of agriculture for President Johnson former chairman of the Democratic National Convention and a former governor of the state of Minnesota. The Honorable Orval L. Freeman an attorney has fought consistently for

new ideas and imaginative legislation for the nation's agricultural industry its workers owners and beneficiaries the consumer. To speak first on this week's program. Here is the secretary of agriculture Orville ill for a month. First I want to express my great appreciation for and admiration of the presentations that we've enjoyed here this morning. I think they've been perceptive far ranging stimulating and very very useful. I've read them before and I plan to read them much more closely again and perhaps a number of times. However I am struck with the fact that this morning and in all the papers that I've read and skimmed through. And staffed out in regard to this planning session. I don't recall seeing the word. Country. I don't recall seeing the word town in country. I don't recall seeing the word

Town and Country Community anywhere. The word urban population concentration metropolitan have been repeated again and again and again. In effect we've directed our attention to less than 10 percent of the land space in this nation. We've just about ignored 90 percent of it. We have a concern ourself with space and then we have and look where the space is. There's a tough problem to bring space to people. We can do that only with the very real limits but we can bring people to space. I would suggest that. We've had in this conference that we have around the country by and large what I call the urban a school. That believes that megalopolis is the wave of the future with the countryside being preserved as a kind of a huge national park. We're urbanites rest their nerves

before plunging once again into the maelstrom of the city. And I suggest that we're doing a lousy job of planning. If we're not raising our sights and considering what we can do. In rural America today with combinations of town and country in effect by omitting considering this we are limiting our alternatives and choices as a nation. We really are. Reacting and not acting. In effect what we're doing is saying yes we can only find new ways of building urban communities so that a life bearable for the people would crowd in. But no we cannot develop alternative modes and means of living in the rural community. We're saying yes. We can only develop new methods of intra regional transportation to get the office worker downtown from the suburbs in the blue collar worker.

Out to the suburban job. No we cannot offer new opportunities for people to work outside the metropolitan concentration. We're saying yes we must strengthen planning and public administration in our cities to cope with the wave of the future. No we cannot create new administrate of arrangements for non metropolitan areas that will enable them to provide city services and city amenities. Seems to be a pretty well accepted fact that most of our fellow citizens want to live in the great metropolitan complexes that have been described and seemingly this is in an extra ball. In evitable immutable and on changeable force. I think that's a lot of baloney. Thank you. Let me. Call attention if I may to some myths that make me think it's a lot of baloney. Myth number one is that the Americans are a city people and want to live in the cities. The truth of the matter

is the overwhelming majority of metropolitan area Americans don't live in a city at all. They live in suburbs. The suburb as we all know is merely an attempt to create the amenities and the peace and security in a small town close to the center city's amenities. There are a lot of suburban families it would love to go to a more open countryside if they could get the amenities and the opportunities. Furthermore as the polls show they're choosing every time they're checked at least a substantial number of. Myth number two small towns are drying up. Farms are being abandoned to big corporations. People are streaming out of rural America in a headline flight. The truth is it the population outside metropolitan areas have stabilized at about 60 million. There's no indication of further decline. Some 95 percent of our farms are still family farms that the tiny towns and cross roads may be

going into eclipse. But the truth is that the fastest growing element in this country today is the towns in the range of 10 to 25000 outside the standard metropolitan area. Myth number three that the concentration of 80 to 90 percent of all of our people in a few major areas can be accomplished without major damage to the fabric of our society. I think many distinguished scientists and others are concluding that the press of more people on more people. Just runs contrary to a basic human instinct. A number of books that some of us have read and that connection a new anthropological studies that say this really tears us apart inside and adequate evidence that the cost of paying for it is simply horrendous. I've already mentioned the myth of inevitability. The point I make here today is there is a real.

Alternative. I don't speak now of any great agrarian asked by ANY me. But the problem to which we direct our attention is a national problem. It's both a country problem and a city problem. There are answers to be found in the country as well. In Yaz in the city and the truth of the matter is that some of those answers are now beginning to develop. I have completed in the last month at least a full day in 12 different counties in all regions of the United States and I come back very excited with what I see are the developments around what can be called growth centers. Where forward planning is being done to provide jobs to provide amenities to provide education and health for new management and planning techniques are being carried forward. I have a

year on half a dozen examples of multi County forward planning. There are a lot of people right here in this room that have participated in some of them in the town and country complex where people increasingly are building the kind of delightful communities. That are an integral part and have been and I submit to you need to be. If we're going to build a kind of future we want to end this nation. So may I say. I hope that we consider this alternative. Which most people with a direct urban orientation kind of turn off. When you talk about the countryside day one in the newspaper and a headline you're talking about a back to the farm movement. Not at all. I think we need to talk about applying some of the know how and resources to building viable communities out where the space is I think a lot of people in the big cities would like to go there. I think people that are there will stay there.

And I think will be a much healthier and stronger country if we do this. The fact we need to do this I think we can see in the polls. My mail shows people want to do it. We see people in the suburbs moving further and further out that want to do it. We seem to see a lot of people in this nation that want to burn the cities down. So let's take a look at the country alternative. That was the honorable orrible Freeman the secretary of agriculture. Our next speaker this week is equally well known throughout Europe for his work as a controller and solicitor for the City of London England. And attorney Desmond heap is a past president of the town planners Institute. He is chairman of England's along a Reform Committee and currently serves on three professional councils relating to lawyers surveyors and town planners. He has lectured widely in Great Britain and elsewhere in Europe and the United States. He has authored numerous articles on planning and planning law to speak on our program now.

Here is the controller of London Desmond heap. In this country I have by dint of great effort taught myself always refer to myself as either an attorney or a lawyer. I didn't come over once ago five years and announce that I was a solicitor. I got me into trouble. I'm not quite sure I never got out of it since but this doesn't worry me in the slightest degree because lawyers are addicted to being into trouble and also getting out of it. I would like if I may have a very short time at one's disposal to make two points and they both it will arise from the dissertation from Mr although Freeman which we've just had now. Yes the problem in front of you ladies and gentlemen I'm speaking now not as a planet as a lawyer. The problem in front of you ladies and gentlemen who are planners is indeed a national policy. And I was much struck by all the Freeman's reference to the fact that some people keep talking

about town on them and so on. And you have given the world remember this expression urban renewal for using it at home now. Such as it such as your famous say this is going around but let it never be forgotten. The Town and Country Planning are frankly one and indivisible. It's like the vexed question of compensation and betterment associated with town planning. You will never get rid of the one without the other. They are reverse size of a single medal and never let it be forgotten. It is indeed a national problem and we accepted this at home. Way back in 1932 when they wanted to make it quite clear the lawyers got the very title of the legislation altered. It was his it to brother to call the town planning legislation. It was changed to Liberty to Town and Country Planning legislation. So that brings the two sides into the matter from the national point of view. May I mention that of course I come from a country where

things frankly are almost simplicity itself. I'm beginning to think compared with the complex constitutional setup that you have here. First of all you would not learn from others you simply would write down not only the Declaration of Independence which you wrote down your constitution. And you have been played with that expression of writing ever since. Lawyers will always say say nothing to you see your solicitor never put anything into writing. We have an unwritten constitution which means we can just pull it a little bit here and push it a little bit there and keep the position delightfully fluid and helpful you see. Moreover we only have one jurisdiction and this is a real difficulty for the state. You have is it 51 50 state jurisdictions and one federal whereas I have only one jurisdiction to deal with rising out of this one. The simplicity and singleness we have one minister of the government and he used to be called the minister of. Town and Country Planning. And then some stupid politician came to

conclusion there were no votes in town planning and all the votes were in housing. So he changed it to the Minister of Housing and Local Government which is really quite the wrong there. He is really the minister of Town and Country Planning and this minister is bound by an Act of Parliament and we passed it in 1943 when things were not too good at home but we did realize that comprehensiveness the comprehensive approach would be needed after the war and the whole damn problem was a national problem. A One problem we decided even while the bombs were falling on the other treatment was being received. 1043 that we would have an act which established this man the minister of talent come to planning to secure consistency and continuity in the framing and carrying out of a national policy for the development of all the land in England and Wales. I think that's drawn it absolutely together. And back in the dark. If that can be done of course over here by getting some agency I suppose for the entire continent it would have to be a federal agency firmly bound to do that sort of

thing I think will be a very good idea. May I say this is not the monolithic bureaucratic structure that some people might think. Not a bit. The minister in the on part analysis is responsible to the sovereign Parliament for this grave responsibility. This drawing of all things together to see that what is happening in the south of England is not going to be de-bunked by what's happening in the north of England two years later or something of that cockeyed. The minister with that responsibility has gone in for a great process of liberalized delegation. He has delegated these powers to the one hundred forty four Town and Country Planning the solitudes. Before 1947 there were 1440 and we thought that was too much. It was decimated and reduced to one hundred and forty four. And therefore at the local level this brings down coming down to the people. I think it's very wise to do that. Never forget that when we finished all the arguments here today you are still dealing with the man on Pennsylvania Avenue and the woman in the Chevy Chase bus. You got to get it over to them sooner or later. A

ministerial responsibility at the center is proliferated down to a delegation at a local government level and there so I do believe we have the local clans adding up together into the national plan. That may be a slight oversimplification but it is really the story from home. I wish the states could get if I may say so a bit nearer to that sort of thing. But I do realize with all these jurisdictions and 51 states which themselves are semi sovereign bodies it is such a more difficult in the two minutes left now lead from that to the other point I said you have to get the town planning this national problem over to the people. I think you have to do that in the in the long run Taliban is really a question of education. It's a question of increasing sophistication the development of taste in people so that will finish they want to have nice towns and nice countryside. And you can't have one without the other because that interlocked the people want it so badly that they bring pressure to bear upon their politicians to get them to do something. Now I said once that in this

Assembly today I do wish there was a funneling more numbers of politicians than there are. I don't have any here today but somehow or other you've got to get the political steam into Town and Country Planning. I think it was Professor John and Jacqueline Grandon who said the other day it was a matter of the power pie. Well you must ask the town leaders politicians do they really sincerely and deeply believe in man's right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I'm particularly the last because I know of nothing better than Town and Country Planning decently control over the national area which can give man. And this includes woman the interpretation I get hold provides of the masculine embraces the feminine. That man. That man shall have a chance to pursue a right to pursue happiness and his best chance of getting it. He's in a well-planned town with a very welcome countryside coming on to that thing and get the politicians to do something about it and if they will not give you a straight answer then do something about the politicians. I would like to see some political steam put into the Town Planning see.

That was city of London controller Desmond heap our third speaker this week is internationally recognized for his work as president of the famous Brookings Institute located in Washington D.C. He has economist Kermit Gordon director of the Federal Bureau of the budget during the John F. Kennedy administration. Kermit Gordon is a former member of the president's Council of Economic Advisers. He has taught at Harvard University and edited the American Economic Review. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is also a board member of Swarthmore College and a trustee of the United Nations Institute for training and research. It is an honor to now present the remarks of Dr. Kermit Gordon. I found myself watching with this splendid assembly had occurred five years ago before I moved in the budget hero because I was assailed by a brilliant idea. I remember so well that in.

Presiding over meetings with agency heads and agency representatives I always thought of desirables to begin with a kind of in vocation in which I tried in one way or another to state the essential dilemma that every budget director faces. I tried many formulations but I have never seen a better formulation of this dilemma than the formulation which I found staring me in the face on that excellent banner just above us here. The best of everything is what I want for everyone. But it cost millions. I wish I had seen that five years ago how I thought I would reflect a bit on the on the federal role and the organization of the federal government in connection with the vast new responsibilities which it has assumed in the areas that we loosely describe as I describe as our urban

programs and problems. There as I needn't tell you what a dramatic expansion has occurred in the program's responsibilities the federal government in this area. The figures on the expansion in federal grants in aid state local governments have gone up spectacularly. This new focus on these these new responsibilities the federal government has undertaken in the last several years have placed a very great strain on the structure of the federal government. Now I've tended to see these matters from the perspective of the Potomac I'm told on reliable authority that state and local governments also have some problems. But you'll have to excuse me for for stressing the the problems as as I've seen them in the in the federal government. No government or governments are not reputed to be the most flexible administrative instruments that exist and

the federal government is no exception. As I looked at the strains and pressures and tensions that have been placed on the federal government by this new range of critical responsibility it struck me particularly since I've left the government that a certain critical organizational structural procedural reforms that ought to be instituted to enable the federal government to deal more effectively with some of these new challenges. The first and I'll try to be brief since I know the clock is running the first and one on which I'm happy to say we've made some progress. Is the institution of much of a much better much more effective much more precise capacity for the systematic evaluation of the programs we have in the federal programs the federal government desperately need modernization. With these enormous new pressures new responsibilities new commitments the federal

government has undertaken. It is particularly important that we eliminate from the federal program activities which may have responded to the needs of a bygone era but which do not respond. The fish and lead to the needs of American society today. It is necessary not only to develop and launch intelligently conceived and responsive new programs it is necessary to free the resources by liquidating obsolete programs there are in the federal program today many activities which are addressed to existing problems of the 19th century. And as matter of fact I could even though down to 5 1 which constitutes a bold and efficient solution to an 18th century problem. I should say very quickly that this program is not in Mr. Freemans to far. Program of valuation needs not only to to modernize the program by eliminating the

obsolete but to identify the most efficient strategy for achieving our new goals. Any of the goals comprehended in the conception of the new urban programs the federal government can be achieved by a variety of techniques a variety of strategies. We need much more systematic and effective way of these alternative strategies for achieving these goals and we now have as I said we've made some progress in this direction. What is known in the federal government and elsewhere as the PBS program planning budgeting system has been launched effectively it is taking hold in many agencies the federal government. One of the best examples incidentally is the Department of Agriculture. And I expect that over the years we will see very significant improvements in the design of federal programs arising from this effort. Secondly we need much better coordination of interrelated urban programs. It is with the great proliferation of new

activities of the federal government both direct and indirect in urban areas. We have created problems of inconsistency and a malfunction in the urban areas which desperately need correction. And correction both on the level of consistency of national policy consistency in the inner relationships of programs each other and consistency in field administration these are equally important. Now the best way I think organizationally to achieve this kind of coordination is through unification of control but not much I'm afraid more can be accomplished in the federal government in this direction. It is not possible to set up a super department of cities which will embrace within its functions all of the activities of the federal government which have a bearing on the problems of cities. We can go further I think in the direction a rationalizing organization in this respect. But

I think we need more than that and I think it boils down to a new capability probably in the executive office of the president for achieving both on the level of national policy and on the level of field of ministration a much more effective interlinking and consistency of related federal programs administered in different agencies of the federal government. Finally. We need I think. A much stronger capability for. Long range efforts at problem identification at problem analysis and at program planning. The pressures the pressures under which those who were called planners work in the federal government tend to be so strong that the effort to develop a long time horizon to see things in a longer perspective is not very successful and I think we need a new

and strong capability again probably in the executive office of the president to introduce this kind of time horizon into the identification analysis of problems and into the formulation of new programs of the federal government such a such a body would rely heavily on the kind of social science research that Herb Simon was talking about both internally and I would hope to a very substantial extent external research. This this I think needs the kind of support and and detached examination of the analysis which is best contributed by scholars outside the federal government. I don't care what what you would what you call such an agency. I suspect that it would not be. Politically very wise to call it again the national resources planning board. But this is the kind of capability I'm talking about. Finally.

And I think I'll do my time. There is one at least one corresponding structural and organizational change which I think has to be accomplished in the Congress to give effect to the improvements in the operations of the executive branch which would flow from the kinds of changes I propose and this again is a coordination question. If the fragmentation of decision making of decision making on related issues is a problem in the federal government I think it is more of a problem in the Congress. The power of the committee the power particularly of the 12 semi-autonomous subcommittee is the House Committee on Appropriations makes it extremely difficult within the present system to achieve consistency of decision making on. On urban problems in the Congress and I think there's a long overdue way greatly to to expand the professional staff staff capabilities of the Congress perhaps in the form of greatly

enhanced and structured staff organizations for some of the critical committees to introduce a longer time perspective to assume an obligation to study the interrelationships of federal programs and to assess the Congress in achieving a higher degree of consistency than I think it is now exercises in the decision making on the on programs of this kind. These are not that I say is this how these steps I think will not bring us to that happy day 50 years hence when all of our urban problems are solved. I am convinced however that the steps along these lines are imperative. If we're to make a promising new start in attacking these urgent problems.