evaluate regulations against their own standards of reasonableness, and if the purpose of the regulation appears doubtful the extent of individual losses will surely affect a judge's sense of what is reasonable.

Much can be accomplished by expanding the courts' awareness of the important purposes that lie behind land use regulations. Judges suspect that a parochial viewpoint motivates many local zoning decisions. This suspicion can often by allayed by showing that the regulation is consistent with an important policy that transcends local boundaries. The work of Professors Dunham, Sax and Van Alstyne is helpful in providing a framework for the necessary factual presentation.

We were impressed with the success of the British system of providing statutory standards to determine when compensation should be paid. Any system that seems to please developers, environmentalists and planning officials deserves further study. Experiments with similar systems deserve a trial in this country.

But in the long run the strategy that would contribute most to a more equitable resolution of the taking cases would be simply to spend more time in the drafting of regulations and the presentation of facts supporting-or opposing them. Too often these regulations take the form of sweeping prohibitions and blanket indictments of all development simply because no one has taken the time to study the problem in depth and work out a reasonable compromise between the needs of the environment and the rights of the individuals.

Finally, state and local governments should undertake experiments with new methods to provide compensation to landowners. The system of compensable regulations proposed for the American Law Institute's Model Land Development Code is an example of such a system. Density transfer systems such as those proposed by Professor Costonis also may provide a way of furnishing landowners the equivalent of compensation.

We doubt that any of these strategies will provide an answer for all situations. It will be necessary to pick and choose a strategy or combination of strategies to deal with each set of problems as they arise. Only an approach that rejects the two extremes-stop-growth and full-speed-ahead-will provide a long range solution to the problems posed by the taking issue.

6. HIGHLIGHTS

In final summary, we were most struck by the following:

A. The taking clause is a serious problem wherever there is substantial pressure for urban growth, and particularly where the environment is sensitive.

B. The popular fear of the taking clause is an even more serious problem than actual court decisions.

C. There is little historical basis for the idea that a regulation of the use of land can constitute a taking of the land.

D. The most recent court decisions, those of the '70's, strongly support land use regulations based on overall state or regional goals-regulations of the type we discussed in The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control."

E. More thorough consideration should be given to the possibility of statutory standards to determine when compensation must be paid. The British have found their experience with such standards highly satisfactory.

F. Finally, there is a great deal that a good lawyer can do working within existing laws if he has access to good factual evidence and if he practices careful draftsmanship. These subjects deserve more detailed consideration in order to provide attorneys with the kind of expert assistance they need.

Mr. STEELMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. We are going to try to finsh today. We have two witnesses left, both of whom have been here, I think, most of the day, and we appreciate your patience.

Next, Mr. John F. Hartrav. who is chairman of the Commission Environment and Design of the American Institute of

on

Architects.

Fred Bosselman and David Callies, The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control, (1971).

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. HARTRAY, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL BARKER, ADMINISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN

Mr. HARTRAY. Mr. Chairman, I am John F. Hartray, a practicing architect from Chicago and chairman of the Commission on Environment and Design of the American Institute of Architects. Accompanying me is Michael Barker, the administrator of the institute's department of environment and design.

The AIA is the national society for the architectural profession, which wishes to express its support of H.R. 3510, the Land Use and Resource Conservation Act of 1975. We congratulate Mr. Udall and other members of this committee for your leadership and very hard work in producing an enactable and sound piece of environmental legislation. Because the political struggle on this issue has been so intense, we are aware of the difficulties involved in passing land use legislation. Although this legislation does not go as far as we would like, it does have our strong support as an important step toward State leadership in land use and resource management.

The AIA has been on the leading edge of the growing national concern about the squandering of our priceless natural resources. We perceive that our Nation's values are changing. The wilderness has been tamed-now it is time to manage it wisely. Surface mining, coastal zones, wilderness, subjects which formerly commanded little attention, are now major national concerns. H.R. 3510 is in this new tradition of legislative activity reflecting a growing desire by the American people to exercise enlightened stewardship over their finite natural resources.

The American Institute of Architects has also been very concerned about the quality of growth in our major metropolitan areas. In urban areas, we often find inefficient urban sprawl, exclusionary practices by local governments which separate poor people from their places of employment, an increasing concentration of social and economic problems in the central cities, housing shortages, inadequate transportation systems, inequities in the distribution of services, polluted air and water, and extremely wasteful utilization of scarce energy resources. The AIA has developed major policy reports on these issues which we would like to have included in the hearing record.

We believe that a balanced land use planning approach is needed in the States. The total environment is both natural and manmade. To improve the quality of life, rural and metropolitan areas must be dealt with simultaneously. Only the States are in a position to exercise the leadership necessary to deal effectively with these dual problems. We have been disappointed by the recent performance of the Federal Government in this regard. The deep depression in the housing and construction industry-resulting partially from the January 1978 moratorium on housing production programs-is widely laminated. Yet general revenue sharing and special community development revenue sharing have further entrenched parochial interests which constrain solutions to metropolitan growth and development problems. The fundamental question has not yet been

answered: Does State government have a responsibility to use its leverage in our rural and metropolitan areas to insure national objectives?

Mr. STEELMAN. I know you have been patient and waited a long time, and I am hesitant to ask you to condense your statement further. We do have one more witness and we are beyond 30 minutes. the time allotted today, and I will take special pains, and I know the other members will, to read your statement. And so it will be made part of the record.

Mr. HARTRAY. In essence, our concern is that this proposal is, as we read it, aimed towards rural and timber lands, areas of that sort, where we feel that the major potrion of the land planning problem is in that metropolitan area where 75 percent of us live.

I think that going on we have made several specific suggestions on the wording that should be changed to change the emphasis of the bill.

[The prepared statement of John F. Hartray follows:]

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. HARTRAY, AIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN, THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS

Mr. Chairman, I am John F. Hartray, a practicing architect from Chicago and Chairman of the Commission on Environment and Design of the American Institute of Architects. Accompanying me is Michael Barker, the Administrator of the Institute's Department of Environment and Design.

The American Institute of Architects, the national society for the architectural profession, wishes to express its support for H.R. 3510, the Land Use and Resource Conservation Act of 1975. We congratulate Mr. Udall and other members of this Committee for your leadership and very hard work in producing an enactable and sound piece of environmental legislation. Because the political struggle on this issue has been so intense, we are aware of the difficulties involved in passing land use legislation. Although this legislation does not go as far as we would like, it does have our strong support as an important step toward state leadership in land use and resource management. The AIA has been on the leading edge of the growing national concern about the squandering of our priceless natural resources. We perceive that our nation's values are changing. The wilderness has been tamed-now it is time to manage it wisely. Surface mining, coastal zones, wilderness, subjects which formerly commanded little attention, are now major national concerns. H.R. 3510 is in this new tradition of legislative activity reflecting a growing desire by the American people to exercise enlightened stewardship over their fine natural resources.

The American Institute of Architects has also been very concerned about the quality of growth in our major metropolitan areas. In urban areas, we often find inefficient urban sprawl, exclusionary practices by local governments which separate poor people from their places of employment, an increasing concentration of social and economic problems in the central cities, housing shortages. inadequate transportation systems, inequities in the distribution of services, polluted air and water, and extremely wasteful utilization of scarce energy resources. The AIA has developed major policy reports on these issues which we would like to have included in the hearing record.

We believe that a balanced land use planning approach is needed in the states. The total environment is both natural and man-made. To improve the quality of life, rural and metropolitan areas must be dealt with simultaneously. Only the states are in a position to exercise the leadership necessary to deal effectively with these dual problems. We have been disappointed by the recent performance of the federal government in this regard. The deep depression in the housing and construction industry-resulting partially from the January 1973 moratorium on housing production programs-is widely lamented. Yet general revenue sharing and special community development revenue sharing have further entrenched parochial interests which constrain solutions to metropolitan growth and development problems. The fundamental question

has not yet been answered: does state government have a responsibility to use its leverage in our rural and metropolitan areas to insure national objectives?

In previous statements on land use legislation, we argued strongly that sanctions should be employed against those states which did not comply with certain requirements (such as governmental reform in metropolitan areas) within a reasonable period of time. Several sanctions were suggested, including withholding a portion of federal highway, water conservation, and even general revenue sharing funds. The question again arises: should the federal government provide funds to state and local governments which are not responsive to national policies? Although we have not changed our position favoring sanctions, we support H.R. 3510 as a start toward defining the very serious development and conservation issues facing this country in both rural and urban areas.

We would like to make one more general point before proceeding to suggest amendments to H.R. 3510. Architects are both urbanists and environmentalists. Architects are professionally concerned with the built environment. Our values stress conservation and environmental quality which extend beyond the built environment to rural and wilderness areas. Previous land use planning bills focused primarily on the natural environment, but we believe land use legislation should include the entire state. We previously recommended that the Department of Housing and Urban Development administer the grant program for state planning rather than the Department of the Interior, whose operating sphere has been in non-urban areas. Our concern in this respect has not diminished. We recognize that if HUD were to administer this land use planning program, then some would suggest an urban bias. If land use legislation is enacted into law, we hope that urban issues, particularly metropolitan concerns, are not overlooked.

We would like to make some specific suggestions to improve H.R. 3510. These amendments address the problem of balancing urban and non-urban

concerns.

Section 103 (c) of Title I, "development of regional impact" should he amended to read: “development of regional impact means development and and land use which, because of the magnitude of its social, economic or environmental impacts, concerns the interests of more than one local government, including all housing and employment, major recreation or energy development and land use."

This proposed amendment recognizes that most decisions in metropolitan areas regarding housing and the location of employment are taken incrementally. Public regulatory actions of this kind have led to metropolitan areas seriously out of balance with respect to housing choices, particularly for lowand moderate-income people vis-a-vis employment location. The state, therefore, has an important role to play in evaluating the cumulative effect of these incremental decisions. We are not suggesting that each state review every single building permit for a single family dwelling, but a state certainly should have an interest in the pattern of development that has emerged through incremental decisions.

The operative provisions of H.R. 3510 are sufficiently flexible for states to stay out of these areas if they so choose, but in the "DEFINITIONS", reference should be made to this basic metropolitan land use problem.

Section 301 (b) (3) of Title III, STATE LAND USE PROGRAMS-Policies and Objectives, should be amended to read, "... the need for an adequate supply of housing and related community facilities in both rural and metropolitan areas," and Section 301 (b), (5) should read ". recreational and open space needs in both metropolitan and rural areas." These minor wording changes stress the importance of metropolitan areas. These areas are a legitimate concern of state planning, particularly with respect to housing and community facilities, recreational and open space.

Section 304 of Title III, LARGE SCALE SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. The general tone of the provisions would lead one to conclude that large-scale subdivisions are basically undesirable and should be watched very closely. Our analyses have shown that incremental growth can be as bad, if not worse, than the worst large-scale developments. The singling out of large-scale developments per se is unfortunate, unless the analysis is also structured to include an examination of the benefits, particularly with respect to the need for housing and community facilities. We would not like to see this

legislation construed as being hostile to large planned developments. With respect to this, we call your attention to the AIA's analysis of the "growth unit scale" of development as being the most appropriate for providing new housing, employment, and community facilities on the fringes of our major metropolitan areas. For example, Section 304(b) (4) says, "the burdens such projects place on state and local governments, to provide municipal and other public services including water and power supply, waste water collection and treatment, waste disposal, transportation, education, and police and fire protection." This sounds like a chapter out of a local no-growth ordinance, many of which have been found to discriminate against the interests of low- and moderate-income people. We suggest that the other side of the equation be entered so some balance exists. We would be pleased to submit this specific language if the Chairman desires.

Along this line, we are very pleased to see on page 11 of H.R. 3510 that the Secretary is authorized to make additional grants to states for the purpose of developing under a state land use program, procedures to simplify the processing of permits, licenses, and other governmental decisions. These are prerequisites to proposed development activities. The streamlining of public interventions in the development process is long overdue. Analyses prepared in conjunction with our national policy research have led us to conclude that the public interest could be better served by fewer but more effective government interventions in the planning and development process. Again we call your attention to the report of our National Policy Task Force.

Section 501 (c) (8) of Title V, ADMINISTRATION, describing the functions of the Land Use Administrator, states that he shall ". . . study the impact of Federal programs, policies, and activities on the development and implementation of land use programs." In order to avoid duplication, we suggest that this study be a prelude to the President's biennial national growth and development report required by the 1970 Housing and Urban Development Act and be formally linked thereto. Section 505 calls for a biennial report on land resources and land use to be submitted by the Secretary to the President and the Congress. This, too, could be effectively integrated into the President's report on growth and development. It is important that we begin to view things as a whole. A proliferation of reports on various aspects of the same problem is not particularly constructive.

In conclusion, we would like to emphasize our support for H.R. 3510 and express our appreciation to this Committee for your work on this most important issue. If there are questions, we would be pleased to answer them.

Mr. STEELMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hartray, for your statement. I have scanned quickly the remainder of your statement and you do have several specific suggestions there. When we get to markup, these will become valuable for the subcommittee, and I will take time to read in detail what you have said. I do not have any questions.

I do want to thank you for giving us those specific suggestions and to compliment the past work, that the AIA has done in this area. You were a great help the last time, the last session. I want to thank you very much for that.

Mr. Steiger.

Mr. STEIGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also am grateful that you gentlemen were patient enough to sit through this. You have now seen what is in the process, and hopefully you will never have to be subjected to it again.

Mr. HARTRAY. The price I pay for having a very late flight back. Mr. STEIGER. You have served your time.

Just for your information, you did mention timber as being one of the concerns of the bill. Frankly, that was one of the concerns of the last bill. This bill specifically exempts food and fiber production lands. So in that sense, it definitely does not address that planning process.