A Return to State-Led Integrated Regional Planning? Emerging Approaches from Three U.S. States

• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X20960212
• Author: Timothy Green,Donovan Finn
• Published date: 01 June 2020
• Date: 01 June 2020
• Subject Matter: Governance Matters

Governance Matters
State and Local Government Review
2020, Vol. 52(2) 114-127
A Return to State-Led
ª The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Integrated Regional Planning?
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0160323X20960212
Emerging Approaches from
journals.sagepub.com/home/slg
Three U.S. States
Timothy Green1
and Donovan Finn2
Abstract
After decades of neglect, several U.S. states have increased support for regional development
planning, creating new programs, organizations, and funding streams to support it. Analysis of
programs in three states (New York, Michigan, and Indiana) shows similarities among them as well
as contrasts with prior episodes of state-led regional planning. The new programs deliberately
sidestep older regional planning organizations like COGs and RPCs in favor of new organizations
with larger roles for the private sector and greater access to public funds. The resulting plans focus
on individual projects within a pro-development agenda, but still have potential to coordinate
action at a regional scale.
Keywords
regional governance, regional planning, regional organizations, state development policy, state-local
relations
Introduction
Development Corporation 2020). From 2014
through 2019, Michigan allocated several mil-
In 2014, New York state awarded Hamilton
lion dollars per year through the Regional
County $1.7 million to expand broadband
Prosperity Initiative (RPI) to incentivize the
access in rural areas. The grant was awarded
creation of new regional planning organiza-
through the state’s Regional Economic Devel-
tions that would bring together a diverse set
opment Council (REDC) program, part of over
of players including Metropolitan Planning
$700 million awarded statewide that year (New
York State 2014). In late 2015 the Indiana
Regional Cities Initiative (RCI) awarded
1
$126 million in matching funds to three win-
Department of City Planning and Real Estate Develop-
ment, Clemson University, SC, USA
ning regional plans that envisioned hundred
2 School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook
diverse development projects representing
University, NY, USA
more than $2 billion in total investment,
including riverfront development in Fort
Corresponding Author:
Wayne, a medical research center in down-
Timothy Green, Department of City Planning and Real
Estate Development, Box 340511, Clemson University,
town Evansville, and improvements to a tech-
Clemson, SC 29634-0511, USA.
nology park in South Bend (Indiana Economic
Email: tgreen8@clemson.edu

---

Green and Finn
115
Table 1. Common Regional Planning and Development Organizations Referenced in this Paper.
Name
Abbreviation
Mandate
Regional Plan(ning) Commission/Regional Plan(ning) Council
RPC
State or inter-local
Council of Governments
COG
State or inter-local
Metropolitan Planning Organization
MPO
Federal and State
Economic Development District
EDD
Federal
Note: For a more complete discussion, see Miller and Nelles (2020).
Organizations (MPOs), Regional Planning
evolution of regional planning as well as gov-
Commissions (RPCs), Councils of Govern-
ernance more broadly.
ments (COGs), and institutes of higher
education, among others (Michigan Dept. of
Technology, Management, and Budget
The Evolution of Regional
2020a). After decades of declining support for
regional planning, this swell of investments in
Planning in the U.S.
three very different states may be a sign of an
In the U.S., regional planning in metropolitan
emerging new trend for the U.S.—reinvigo-
areas has been episodic. The term “regional
rated and state-led regional planning organiza-
planning” has been applied to a broad set of
tions that channel significant investments
endeavors undertaken by very different types
across a range of development initiatives.
of organizations across varied scales using a
This paper outlines some key characteristics
variety of approaches (see Table 1; Friedmann
of those organizations through an analysis of
and Bloch 1990; Friedmann and Weaver 1979;
three cases (in Indiana, New York and Michi-
Weitz and Seltzer 1998; Seltzer and Carbonell
gan), and highlights some important ways in
2011; Chapin 2012). The first government
which they differ from regional planning orga-
agency with regional planning authority, the
nizations created in prior eras:
Boston Metropolitan Improvement Commis-
sion, was created by the Massachusetts state
The new organizations expand the power
legislature in 1902 (Meck 2002). Civic and
of the private sector at the expense of
business leaders spearheaded other early efforts
local elected leaders and older regional
such as the 1909 Plan of Chicago (Burnham
planning organizations.
and Bennett 1909), sponsored by the Commer-
They have access to larger pools of fund-
cial Club of Chicago, and 1929’s Regional Plan
ing and adopt a more pro-development
for New York and its Environs (Committee on
approach driven by a focus on individ-
Regional Plan of New York and its Environs
ual projects rather than attempting to
1929), an initiative undertaken by a committee
shape development by influencing local
of civic boosters that eventually became the
regulation.
Regional Plan Association, which still exists
They envision regional planning as a way
today. The federal government was also an
to impact a broad swath of policy areas
early supporter of regional planning through
including housing, capital investment,
the creation of model legislation like the Stan-
education, and resource management.
dard City Planning Enabling Act (U.S. Dept. of
Commerce 1928) as well as the encouragement
After a brief review of the evolution of
of cooperation between states, most notably the
regional planning in the U.S., this article sum-
1933 creation of the Tennessee Valley Author-
marizes findings from the three states and dis-
ity (TVA), a congressionally chartered corpora-
cusses implications of this re-orientated and
tion that has, over its lifetime, invested billions
reinvigorated approach for the ongoing
of dollars in large infrastructure to spur

---

116
State and Local Government Review 52(2)
development in a relatively poor rural region
regional organizations necessarily limited
(Hansen, Higgins, and Savoie 1990).
those of states or municipalities (Morrill
By 1937 there were 316 public metropolitan
1989; Rothblatt 1994; Frug and Barron 2008;
or county planning bodies in the U.S. (Meck
Julnes and Pinder 1994). As a result, most had
2002) in addition to numerous privately
limited authority, in terms of taxing and regu-
financed regional planning councils, but most
lation, compared with more established forms
of these lacked sufficient funding or statutory
of local government such as cities and coun-
authority to regulate development or to engage
ties. Prominent exceptions like those in Port-
in major projects. After a lull during WWII, the
land, OR, Minneapolis, MN, and a brief
federal government became more directly
statewide effort in Florida are the exceptions
involved with sub-state regional planning, typi-
that prove the rule (Abbot 1997; Orfield
cally by requiring regional coordination to qua-
1997; Pelham 2017).
lify for large federal capital grants. Both the
Instead, state-created regional planning
Federal Housing Act of 1954 and the Federal-
organizations in the twentieth century drew
Aid Highway Act of 1962 provided support for
much of their local support from their ability
regional planning, and in the latter case
to secure federal funds. As those funds waned
required it in order to receive federal funds
in the 1970’s and 80’s, the limited power of
(Grigsby 2003; Hanlon, Short, and Vicino
regional planning organizations declined fur-
2009). The Public Works and Economic Devel-
ther, with 30 percent of organizations disap-
opment Act of 1965 created the Economic
pearing between 1976 and 1989 (Wallis
Development Administration and regional
1992). Those that remained often morphed
Economic Development Districts (EDDs) man-
from true regional planning organizations to
aged by “District Organizations” that are desig-
fee-for service providers to other local govern-
nated by the states and which often also serve
ments (Bowman and Franke 1984).
as MPOs, RPCs or both. Later, the Office of
Since the 1980s most states have shied away
Management and Budget’s A-95 circular of
from state-wide support for regional planning
1969 gave regional agencies the authority to
organizations, though robust organizations per-
review a wide range of applications for federal
sist in certain places like California’s Sacra-
assistance to assure regional consistency
mento Area Council of Governments and the
(Mogulof 1971).
Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley, in addi-
The federal government’s use of incentives
tion to the Portland and Minneapolis examples
to spur regional planning is a reaction to its lim-
noted above (Dabson 2019). Some states have
ited authority to directly empower sub-state
tried to coordinate local planning directly
regional organizations under the U.S. Constitu-
through mechanisms like State Development
tion. States have therefore been key players in
Plans (SPDs) (Lewis and Knapp 2012). Several
the evolution of regional planning and govern-
types of newer civic-led organizations have
ance, and most have empowered regional plan-
also emerged. The most common of these are
ning organizations one or more times over the
private sector-led regional economic develop-
years (Whisman 2013). The first of California’s
ment partnerships, some of which receive...