|
H rd imes head
<br />
<br /> R.: G,~e C us~mBberry, M I
<br />C~org= E. p~n ~. N~L's Ur~
<br />~e Urb~ I~ulc
<br />Repr~entativc G~rge C~h~ Jr, of De. alit. ~c
<br />cuts, s~d Cus~ngbe~, chm~ of NCSL's Urb~
<br />Development Co~tt~, wi~place the ~nr~ citi~
<br />"further behind in r~o'el°prmt efforts."
<br /> Over the l~t 20 y~the st~ have often b~n cfitic~-
<br /> ~ for ab~g the~r~pmib~fi~ to 1o~ govern-
<br /> ments, p~icfl~ly ~gss~:fi~. ~ one intergovem-
<br /> ment~ obse~er in Wgin~a, D.C. poin~ out, "~e
<br /> ~iti~ problem, I t~k.. hab~ the ye~s of the cities
<br /> feeling that ~ey had to~her ~y on themselv~ or look to
<br /> the feder~ gove~en~e f~g sto~ of state ne~
<br /> ~d the state focus notang n ~bm one."
<br /> Some stat~, how~avemg b~n involved in
<br /> loc~ gove~enm- Ot for e~ple, ~eat~ ~ 1934.the
<br /> Loc~ G°ve~ent F, whi& ~ r~pome to the
<br /> distr~s of lo~ti~ppom run.ons which a Io~
<br /> gove~nt wm r~ to pr~de under state law.
<br /> fund, tin.ced by 3:cent ofrevenu~ from state s~es
<br /> person~ ~come, ao~orate fr~chise md income
<br /> t~es, provided SL~on to lo~ govemmen~
<br /> 1976.
<br /> ~e role of the st city and loc~ gove~ent ~ per-
<br /> v~ive. It include01 ov~ bound~ md ~exa-
<br /> tion; transpogaOtems and funding; delive~ of
<br /> soci~ se~ic~; ~tnent of regionfl se~ice districts;
<br /> criminal justice ~s; local government fisc~ ar-
<br /> rangements con~ municip~ employes and their
<br /> pension systems; ~ch more. Incre~ing notice is be-
<br /> ing given now to s~ess in helping loc~ti~ through
<br /> these many avert,
<br /> "I find that ~e state le~slators ~e more com-
<br /> ~tt~ to locfl ~nt thru feder~ le~slators ~e,"
<br /> s~d U.S. Repre B~ber Conable (N.Y.), addr~s-
<br /> lng NCSL's ~deral Assembly recently in
<br /> W~hin~on, D.
<br /> ~e advanc~ates were high~ghted in a recent
<br /> joint study byion~ Academy of Public Ad-
<br /> ~nistration (hr the Adviso~ Com~ssion on
<br /> intergovemmeions (A~IR):
<br />
<br /> The weight of contemporary evidence suggests that
<br /> state governments are taking the first steps toward
<br /> assuming this role (comprehensive development
<br /> policies to alleviate urban and rural decline). Over
<br /> the past several years, the states have begun to
<br /> develop and implement a variety of fiscal and func-
<br /> tional reforms directed to meeting the needs of
<br /> distressed urban and rural communities--a distinct
<br /> departure from the states' past quiescence in these
<br /> fields.
<br /> Most state-local aid programs, said the ACIR in another
<br /> report last year, have concentrated on physical develop-
<br /> ment goals, such as upgrading commercial, industrial and
<br /> residential infrastructures. Employment and training have
<br /> also generated state interest. Less prevalent, though, have
<br /> been broad-based fiscal and structural reforms, and im-
<br /> provements in human service delivery in state community
<br /> assistance proposals. The study also pointed out that
<br /> "political, legal and financial constraints.., often present
<br /> formidable obstacles to the implementation of even the
<br /> best-designed state-local assistance plans."
<br /> Federal aid to the cities has commonly been assumed to
<br /> be the main fiscal prop keeping the localities from
<br /> bankruptcy. The role of the states is often over-
<br /> looked--but it is substantial. Of the $85.5 billion of in-
<br /> tergovernmentai aid received in 1978 by local govern-
<br /> ments, according to the ACIR, about $50 billion was the
<br />· estimated direct state aid. Federal dkect aid totaled $20~5
<br /> billion, while about $15 billion was indirect federal aid that
<br /> was passed through the states ro local governments. And,
<br /> in 1977, the ACIR reports, state aid to local governments
<br /> was $61 bil]ion, which amounted to 60 percent of local
<br /> governments' own revenues. Of this state aid, 60.5 percent
<br /> was for education, 10.4 percent was for general local
<br /> government support, 5.9 percent was for highways, 14.3
<br /> percent was for welfare, and 8.8 percent was for other
<br /> categories.
<br /> Some of the strategies cited by the ACIR/NAPA report
<br /> include:
<br /> · Massachusetts and Michigan in 1978-79 adopted urban
<br /> growth policies, began aid targeting efforts and modified
<br /> existing state aid programs to meet the goals of the urban
<br /> policies.
<br />· La. st year, Connecticut adopted the criteria of the U.S.
<br />Housing and Urban Development's Urban Development
<br />Action Grant (UDAG) as the state's standard for distres-
<br />sed communities, The state retooled its aid to communities
<br />by favoring Iow per-capita income localities, granted pro-
<br />perry tax relief to all local governments, and reimbursed
<br />them for tax revenue losses from exempting industry from
<br />property taxes.
<br /> · Wisconsin, Florida, New York and Michigan have or are
<br /> developing local distress criteria, presumably to use for
<br />
<br />
<br />
|