Gambar halaman

what function should they render, and how can effective plans be developed for them.

Under our existing state of technology, a metropolitan area is a necessary complex of industry and commerce which is needed to produce the manufactured items without which civilization cannot exist.

Great concentrations of people into relatively small areas result in conditions under which the byproduct of their activities would tend to destroy these concentrations even as the byproduct of bacterial action in a culture tends to inhibit the growth of the culture. Unless herefore effective measures are taken to overcome the forces of deterioration, life in the cities cannot exist-hence, the welfare agencies, police powers, health departments, sanitation departments, sewerage works, fire departments, and, yes, parks, playgrounds, libraries, and schools which are most necessary in proper planning.

It is in this category that the States have failed particularly. The State laws creating municipalities and placing them in the various categories made this growth so difficult and hard that congestion and improper solutions of vital problems has resulted.

Often the States could not help themselves in this matter because the problem of metropolitan communities is not only interstate in character, but also international. Recently at the U. S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Los Angeles, I expressed a belief that it was in the interest of the Federal and State Governments to create most of the metropolitan areas of the United States into a single, unified local government with power to plan its growth and to make the plan effective.

I am supplying herewith a copy of those remarks.

Senator HUMPHREY. Fine. They will be included in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)


Remarks by Hon. Frank P. Zeidler, mayor of Milwaukee, before the U.S. Con

ference of Mayors, 1959 annual conference, Los Angeles, Calif. The central city is perhaps the most important element in the economic strength and defense capabilities of the United States, but it is perhaps also the weakest political entity. Towns, townships, villages, and counties can muster more political strength before the State governments; and by their attitude in the past, the States have indicated more concern for the creation of suburbs than for the expansion of the central city, largely to prevent the central city from presenting any challenge of power to the State government. The State governments in many cases have also written in their constitutions permanent underrepresentation for central cities and metropolitan areas.

The Federal Government in recent times has recognized the difficulties of the central cities and has provided some funds for their redevelopment and for housing. Great as this program has been, it has been inadequate and its value varies with the attitude of the President. Central cities recently have had trouble maintaining their Federal grants-in-aid programs against the hostility of State governments and governors who have tried to stop these programs.

The ineffectual voice of central cities has had unfortunate results not only for the cities but for the State and Federal Governments. Some of these unfortunate results include immense overcrowding of the central cities so that they are ghettoes for the poor, lack of sufficient tax strength, inadequate water supply, inadequate sewage treatment, insufficient schools, polluted atmosphere, noise and dirt, clogged transportation, lack of playground and recreational space, lack of new homesites and industrial development sites. Also lacking is the power to plan for the remedy of these defects and the power to make the plan effective.

The big city areas in the United States are a welter of fragmented, divided communities, each battling the other for the slight advantages one community might possess as compared to the other; and each unable to work together for the common good because of divisions based on class or social status, economic or geographical advantages, tax advantages, or area rivalry fostered by the local press and local business associations.

The big city area is a phenomenon which was insufficiently studied and comprehended by State and Federal officials so that today the problem of these areas presents the United States with many internal administrative difficulties.

Many types of governmental solutions have evolved for satisfying these problems arising from the fragmentation of the big city areas. You have heard them enumerated many times. They include annexation, consolidation, creation of single-purpose governments, creation of multiple-purpose governments or federated governments, granting of municipal powers to county or rurai governments, creation of special authorities, to name a few.

From these patterns of governments one sees one obvious point, namely, that fragmentation of an urban metropolitan area is not good, and that to solve the problem there must be a single unifying force in government. This inescapable fact causes a great deal of squirming among the champions of fragmentation of metropolitan areas, but eventually they are forced by necessity into some kind of unified action to solve problems vital to their existence, even while they proclaim their sovereignty and complete self-sufficiency.

However, the solution of metropolitan problems has too often been a kind of a solution to benefit the smaller fragments of government and not the central city or its population which often has to foot the bills for the solution.

It is my opinion that the State and Federal Governments ought, in their own interest, to define by law the major metropolitan areas of the United States and to create for each one a single, unified all-purpose government, with adequate powers to expand and to appropriately plan for expansion. This, I be Tieve, is highly necessary in order to cope with the huge population increase in the United States, barring atomic war, by the year 1980.

It is my opinion also that this will not be done unless the leaders of the central city educate the public on the necessity of such action.

The central cities, however, ought not to wait for such action by State and Federal Governments. This action may be long in coming. Their urgent problem of insufficient room, having their population kept out of the suburbs by zoning and cost restrictions, and their other problems caused by transportation difficulties, all tend to urge the central cities to expand both by annexation and consolidation. If the central cities are not to be strangled by lyer upon layer of hostile and uncooperative suburbs, then they should not wait for States to provide laws for metropolitan expansion but rather the cities should use the powers of annexation and consolidation which they now possess to bring about as much unity of government in their areas as they can.

Milwaukee expanded from 46 to 90 square miles since 1948. Some of this was by annexation but most of this expansion came by consolidation with other units of government. The process is not complete for areas are still in litigation, but the city is now almost completely ringed in by suburbs several layers deepa process which was unreasonably fostered by several recent Wisconsin legislatures.

If this expansion had not taken place, the present density of Milwaukee would have been much higher, and the city could not have made available tens of thousands of homesites and hundreds of acres of industrial sites to take care of its expanding population.

The city government historically has fostered this method of expansion in the face of continual hostility, and I am satisfied this was a wise policy.

Many cities, to avoid the cost of new developments, have avoided annexation or attempts at consolidation. This action compounds the problem. The cities merely proliferate hostile suburban governments, whose principal burdens the city taxpayers will eventually subsidize anyway through metropolitan governments, single-purpose governments, county governments, or special districts. While the city taxpayer will therefore subsidize the suburban dwellers, the suburban dwellers will not be contributing to such costs as slum and blight clearance. These programs the city taxpayer will carry by himself in addition to the costs of suburban expansion.

I have argued for a single unified government for every metropolitan area on the grounds that it promoted simplicity of governments, and the placing of responsibility for governmental achievement. In the welter of governments in many areas, the voter simply cannot pin the responsibility for the good done or the things left undone, because he cannot comprehend the complexity of governments over him.

Let no one say, either, that suburban governments are more democratic or responsive to the people than the larger urban governments. Recent studies on this subject show that they are often controlled by a few insiders who run affairs about as they please. They are therefore no less subject to criticism than some urban governments on this score.

I would therefore recommend that first, every State Government ought to consider revamping the urban structure of governments to provide for single, unified government in the great metropolitan areas, providing these governments · with power to plan and with extraterritorial powers to control rate, direction, and type of growth. Every central city ought to urge this position.

Pending such action, every central city ought to seek to expand by annexation and by persuading other communities to consolidate with them for their mutual advantage.

Those cities which are already ringed in must, of practical necessity, seek some common governmental medium for solution of intergovernmental problems. The best means of securing this medium is by consolidation or amalgamation with other units of government nearby. There is usually a good reason why such amalgamation should take place because adjacent governmental units are often individually deficient in their ability to render a service, which service they could jointly render much better.

If amalgamation and consolidation cannot be obtained by a reasonable time, then some form of municipal federation may be the next best course, and it is my opinion that this type of government will appear more frequently on the American


The suburbs may say about the evolution of such events that the interests of their people may be subordinated and lost by amalgamation or consolidation. On the contrary, such amalgamation or consolidation releases the leadership of competent suburban officials for more effective communitywide expression. There has certainly been one experience in Milwaukee with consolidation. One of the frustrating experiences of suburban living for people of talent is that they cut themselves off from being able to help solve the great and thrilling issues and events which confront the central city. As a result, suburban people often seek all sorts of devices by means of which they can influence the course of events in the entire metropolitan area, but most of these ways are ineffective.

Every student of metropolitan problems recognizes that the basic evil of metropolitan areas is fragmentation. Unity of the area is desirable, but too many attempts are made to have unity while still keeping alive every municipal fragment, and so the attempts are doomed to failure from the start, and recent U.S. municipal history is full of such failure to develop a unified government.

Proper planning for municipal growth is an absolute necessity as the population of the Nation grows. To achieve such planning and to effectively carry out the plans, a unified government is needed for each metropolitan area.

Mr. ZEIDLER. The reason I have made this proposal is that I believe in the interests of national defense, of conditions of public health and safety, that there must be and will be a diffusion of urban population over a wider area.

The Federal highway program by itself will promote this diffusion. But unless such diffusion is accompanied by planning for the entire region involved, it will result in the bankruptcy of the central cities, their reduction to places of habitation of the lowest income groups, and the enrichment of suburban communities each of which is born with some deficiency in itself.

Here are some of the problems a Federal commission on metropolitan problems should study:

1. What diffusion of people and industry should be promoted to minimize the problem of the defense of our cities?

2. What type of local government is best to handle the total number of area wide problems that a metropolitan area has?

3. What reclassification of local government is desirable ?

4. What extra territorial powers of government are needed in metropolitan areas to provide for effective, planned growth?

5. What are the respective merits of a single government in a metropolitan area, a borough system, or single function, ad hoc government such as exists in many places?

6. When a continued, urbanized territory exists over a space of scores to hundreds of miles, what plan of coordinated development is needed?

7. Where is the future population of the country going to settle and what demands will be made on the Nation's resources by the population ?

8. What scientific resources are needed to bring nuisances to bay, such as smog, water pollution, and development of water pollution?

9. What effect does the Federal housing policy have on urban life, and what new patterns of urban planning are needed to avoid past mistakes?

10. What is the solution of urban transportation?

11. How can the States and cities be encouraged to meet their own problems of metropolitan expansion ?

12. What financial resources must be made available to local governments?

In seeking the answers, the work of the commission on intergovernmental relations can be most helpful. Let me say I have testified before a joint Senate-House committee in favor of this bill on intergovernmental relations which I think is absolutely vital to the continued progress of the political development of the United States.

Senator HUMPHREY. Mayor, we reported that bill favorably on the Senate Calendar as of yesterday.

Mr. ZEIDLER. I am most happy to hear that.

13. What impacts, good and bad, have Federal policies had on metropolitan areas?

14. What part of the environment of the metropolitan areas are causing the breakdown of good social patterns and how can this environment be changed?

From these questions it can be seen there would be ample work for a Federal commission on metropolitan problems.

From an examination of the bill, I believe it has a good plan of representation and operation. It should not be costly and can do much good.

Under the plan of representation, several groups might knock on the door and want in. The organized association of county governments who want to take over city functions will want representation, and so will the professional city managers who are the rivals of mayors in some areas. For my part, I will say: Let them all be represented, for the problems are big and urgently need solving.

For our great metropolitan areas to be vast slums, disorderly in their planning, full of polluted natural resources is, in the last analysis, a fatal environment for our civilization. I hope this will not occur, but they might be unless Federal, State, and local governments plan to make them otherwise.

I support, therefore, S. 1431 because it gives a vision of a more grand, wholesome and refreshing environment for men where they


will continue to progress and evolve into a more divine nature in their existence. Thank you.

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much, Mayor. We are honored by your presence and your testimony.

I know that as you have indicated you are here to testify with reference to the intergovernmental relations advisory commission. During your administration as mayor of Milwaukee, I think you have earned for yourself a fine reputation and a good reputation for the city.

Mr. ZEIDLER. Thank you.
Senator HUMPHREY. Senator Gruening?
Senator GRUENING. You have been mayor for 11 years?
Mr. ZEIDLER. This is my 12th year.

Senator GRUENING. I want to congratulate you on your political longevity. I think it is a tribue to the fine record you have made there. I

suppose that some generations hence will see a continuous city between Milwaukee and Chicago and the whole lower part of Lake Michigan will almost be a continuous urban area and it will involve some problems that deal with three States.

Do you anticipate some difficulty in interstate rivalry? We have run across this in connection with a piece of legislation which is now before one of the other committees which aims to set aside the Indiana dunes as a national park. There is a good deal of objection on the part of certain groups in Indiana on the ground that the dunes are used by many people of Chicago for recreation and that they are not Hoosiers.

Now, that doesn't seem to me a very valid objection, but that objection is being made. Do you anticipate these interstate rivalries on these joint problems?

Mr. ZEIDLER. I do. As these large urban concentrations spill over into other States, there is a natural conflict which exists between people by their identification with the various States which they represent and the problems cannot be solved often between the States.

I will mention one and that is the Chicago water diversion. This is a tremendous problem.

Now comes the problem of the dunes. There is a continuous urbanized area extending from Milwaukee all the way around to Gary, Ind., and which includes Chicago.

One of the problems I mentioned in my official statement here is the question should be studied as to how such an area can be administered because each of these cities, by their concentration, tend to impinge on the growth and development of the next city.

They have the problems of where they shall dispose of their waste. No city wants to dispose of its waste within its own borders. It usually looks for some other city, and these are problems that are not readily solved.

One of the reasons the Federal Government should be in it is that these problems are often interstate. In Detroit and San Diego, they are international.

Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much. That was a very helpful statement.

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes, it was. Thank you again, Mayor Zeidler. Senator Alan Bible will not be able to be with us this morning. He

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »