The Metropolitan Initiative is an effort to reinvent the relationship between the federal government and metropolitan areas. It focuses on the federal role as regulator, as source of information, as funder, and as catalyst of technology transfer. The Metropolitan Initiative is exploring new ways that these roles can work cooperatively with creative, citizen-defined regional initiatives.
For more information contact Stephen A. Perkins, PhD, Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2125 West North Avenue, Chicago, IL 60647, (773) 278-4800, fax (773) 278-3840, e-mail steve@cnt.org
I. Introduction .....................................................................................................
1
I. The Diversity of Federal Roles
Relative to Regional Communities .................................................................
5
A. Federal Government as Provider of Financial Resources.......................
5
B. Federal Government as Knowledge Provider..........................................
10
C. Federal Government as Regulator or Source of Standards....................
13
III. Issues for Further Consideration.....................................................................
16
This paper is designed to assist discussions among stakeholders at regional forums to be held around the country. This paper is not intended to be an exhaustive compendium of all that the federal government may be doing to assist or facilitate economic, social, and environmental well-being in metropolitan regions. Instead, it is designed to illustrate types of initiatives that the federal government is taking or facilitating that are more responsive to the local needs and concerns of constituencies within regions and can serve as models or tools for future federal action relative to regional communities. These illustrations draw from the substantial work of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, the Interagency Task Force on Sustainable Development, the related work of individual agencies, and other federal initiatives of the first Clinton Administration, such as the reinvention of government, the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community program, the implementation of the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act, and regulatory policy reinvention. These initiatives provide dynamic support for the consideration of additional actions the federal government could take to address the needs of regional communities more effectively and efficiently.
This paper is to be read with that of my project colleague, Julia Parzen, titled "Innovations in Metropolitan Cooperation."
The discussion of the federal role relative to regional communities is premised upon the following frame of reference or analytical model:
Networks of public and private institutions are central to the functioning of regional communities. These networks exist to perform economic, governmental, community welfare, public advocacy, and other functions in our communities.
The capacity of network participants is critical to the functioning of networks within regional communities.
The federal government performs at least three principal roles relative to regional communities, their networks, and network participants:
(a) provider of financial resources ("smart money"),
(b) regulator or source of standards ("smart regulation"), and
(c) knowledge provider (source of information, provider of technology or technical
assistance, or catalyst of information sharing) ("smart people").
Current federal financial management policies require the federal government to use its financial resources efficiently, potentially combine several sources of its resources to achieve multiple objectives effectively, and leverage nonfederal commitments with its resources.
Cooperative action with institutional networks and their participants in regional communities offers the federal government the opportunity to realize federal policy goals more effectively and efficiently.
This frame of reference flows from current dynamics within our society that include the following:
Changes in our economy require changes in the organization of governmental functions. The pervasive effort of private sector parties to reduce their costs and restructure in order to succeed imposes a similar mandate on the public sector. The search for governmental efficiency through privatization of the performance of public functions and other means has resulted in the emergence of private nonprofit and for-profit entities as participants in the delivery of public services. This has created networks of public and private parties involved in performance of public functions.
As the financial resources of individual units of government have declined, the need to pool resources has increased. The reduction in public sector revenues and expenditures at different levels of government requires pooling of both public and public and private resources to meet public needs.
Local community social structures are changing as changes occur in the private economy. Changes in the ways Americans do business cause changes in social as well as economic institutions. The rapid consolidation of economic units through mergers and acquisitions in all sectors of the economy is changing the centers of economic decision making and altering the economic and social dynamics of both those communities that cease to be centers and those that become larger centers. The "social infrastructure" of our communities, which includes the participation of business personnel in voluntary community welfare efforts and nonprofit organizations of many kinds, is changing as the locus of private business decision-making changes and many former business personnel relocate or retire.
Nongovernmental organizations are emerging as important change agents and means of linking different social, economic, and governmental networks within our communities. This is not a dynamic unique to our society. As described by Julia Parzen in "Innovations in Metropolitan Cooperation," nongovernmental organizations are myriad in their form and focus. Their advantage is their flexibility to respond to and reflect local community circumstances and dynamics. Nongovernmental organizations have become important "linkages" among different networks within communities and important participants in fashioning and implementing public policies.
A public consensus is developing that public regulatory goals need to be realized through more effective, efficient means. The demand to reduce the costs of doing business of both the private and public sectors requires the identification and implementation of more efficient, effective means of realizing environmental goals and policies.
In this societal context the federal government can enhance regional communities' realization of economic, environmental, and social goals through maximizing or enhancing leverage, linkage, and learning.
Leverage means that the federal government combines the use of its financial and knowledge resources and applies its regulatory policies to enhance effective, productive relationships among institutional networks within communities and among institutional participants within networks.
Linkage means that the networks within communities connect with each other to realize mutually beneficial economic, environmental, and social goals.
Learning means that the participants within networks develop their institutional capacities to realize mutually beneficial economic, environmental, and/or social goals.
Other terms capture these same concepts. The Clinton Administration's initiatives to reinvent government, catalyze cooperative action among community networks through the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community program, and support lifelong learning illustrate a similar recognition and focus upon the federal government:
This section of the paper highlights specific federal policies and actions that illustrate the types of cooperative actions the federal government is taking or facilitating that are more responsive to the local needs and concerns of constituencies within regions. These examples can serve as models or tools for future federal action relative to regional communities.
Note: Many of the subjects discussed under this heading also illustrate the federal role as regulator.
Coordination of Transportation and Environmental Protection Policy Making
The Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency are responsible for the coordinated implementation of the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Clean Air Act, as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. In light of the significant number of metropolitan regions that the EPA has classified as "nonattainment areas," or areas with significantly degraded air quality, and the substantial contribution the transportation sector-especially the automobile-makes to air pollution, transportation measures-especially those that reduce reliance upon the automobile-do and will play a significant role in improving urban air quality. These measures are also required to mitigate acute traffic congestion and lost economic productivity in areas where current transportation modes are heavily automobile dependent.
Building Local and Regional Institutional Planning Capacity: The Surface Transportation Policy Project's review of ISTEA's implementation, Five Years of Progress, notes in Chapter 6, "Better Decision Making," how ISTEA has improved the participation by varied constituencies in the transportation planning process, as in St. Louis, and improved the integration of transportation and local land use planning, as in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan region.
Coordinating Transportation and Air Quality Improvement Strategies: ISTEA and the Clean Air Act Amendments have helped integrate transportation and air quality improvement strategies within metropolitan regions. Five Years of Progress in Chapter 7, "Environmental Stewardship," notes how ISTEA-funded transportation strategies, such as Cincinnati's transit fare reduction program, and ISTEA-funded investments in alternative fuel vehicles, such as the natural-gas-fueled bus programs of Boise, Idaho, and Cleveland, Ohio, improve regional air quality.
Planning and Financing Transit-Oriented Development: ISTEA funds are enabling local community coalitions to realize development opportunities associated with proximity to major public transportation infrastructure investments. Two celebrated examples of successful integration of local community planning with ISTEA-assisted public transit investments are the Chicago Green Line Initiative, which saved the Chicago El's service to the West Side and created redevelopment opportunities at stations along the route; and the Fruitvale BART Community Redevelopment Project, which capitalized on a proposed BART investment at the Fruitvale station in Oakland to leverage a larger community revitalization effort.
Assuring Continued Economic Viability Of Major Ports: Substantial public and private investments have been made in our nation's intermodal port facilities. The economic fortunes and environmental health of our major port regions require continued investment in these facilities to improve their economic efficiency and reduce air pollution related to their use. Chapter 3 of Five Years of Progress, "Moving Freight Efficiently," highlights the importance of ISTEA's Congestion Management Air Quality program in planning and funding these investments. Examples include the Red Hook Barge project in New York City to reduce truck traffic congestion and truck-related air pollution, and the Port of Oakland joint intermodal terminal to improve the efficiency of freight transfer from ship to rail in the San Francisco Bay region and similarly reduce reliance upon trucks for intermodal transfers.
Providing Flexible Alternative Transportation Services: This is especially important for low-income households whose access to employment and productivity is foreclosed or severely compromised by auto dependency or limited public transportation options and schedules. Chapter 5 of Five Years of Progress, "Alternatives to Automobile Dependency," highlights efforts to provide greater flexibility in public transportation. The methods include small bus shuttle service that improves the scope and quality of the public transportation network, as in Seattle, and guaranteed-ride-home programs that assure the reliability of public transportation, as in St. Louis.
ISTEA's Congestion Pricing Pilot: Note: These two success stories do not illustrate the federal government acting as provider of financial resources but are ISTEA-related.
State Route 91 Toll Lanes, Riverside County, CA: While not conceived as a formal demonstration under the ISTEA Congestion Pricing program, this ten-mile private toll road connecting Riverside and Orange Counties is consistent with the spirit of the program. A private toll road company financed and operates the road under contract with the state of California pursuant to state legislation that encourages toll roads. Open since December 1995 the road is demonstrating local market acceptance of congestion pricing and electronic toll collection. Negotiations among local stakeholders-including the regional air district, the regional metropolitan transportation planning organization, and Riverside County-over whether to build the road preceded its construction.
Interstate 15 High Occupancy Toll Lane, San Diego County, CA: This is a market test by the state of California of the potential fees that can be charged for use of underused highway lanes dedicated to high occupancy vehicles. The state has auctioned permits to use an HOV lane on an 8.5 mile portion of Interstate 15 north of San Diego, whether or not the user has more than one occupant. The permits require payment of fees that maintain a certain level of traffic on the lane. The test was endorsed by the San Diego Association of Governments, the regional metropolitan transportation planning organization, in response to public interest demonstrated during the association's public participation process.
Recognizing the Need to Coordinate Housing and Transportation Policies
Federal agencies are increasingly recognizing the need to improve households' accessibility to their daily destinations rather than their mobility.
Integrating Housing and Transportation Planning: HUD and the Department of Transportation are pursuing a six-city/region pilot experiment integrating the transportation planning performed by metropolitan planning organizations pursuant to ISTEA with housing and community development planning undertaken by recipients of community development block grants, HOME program grants, and other aid from HUD. The initiative seeks to improve the accessibility of public transportation, employment centers, and commercial facilities to affordable-housing residents.
Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Council Affordable Housing Initiative: HUD is cooperating with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, the Metro Council of the seven county Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan region, and local housing organizations to facilitate the location of affordable housing in areas where public-housing tenants and low- and moderate-income households can find jobs. HUD participates in the regional Housing Implementation Group, which is composed of representatives of federal, state, and local public and private entities concerned with housing issues. HUD seeks the implementation of its "continuum of care" policy for the homeless and the CDBG consolidated planning process. HUD is also responsible for implementation of the consent decree in Holman v. Cisneros that requires its commitment of $100 million of public housing funds to the demolition of public housing units in Minneapolis and the relocation of former tenants elsewhere within the metropolitan area.
HUD's Bridges-to-Work Demonstration Program: HUD is working with the Department of Transportation and private foundations in five cities to enable welfare recipients and other low-income, inner-city residents to make the transition to work, frequently in suburban locations. The initiative is designed to provide the transportation, day care, and other support services necessary to this transition.
Experiments in Interagency Cooperative Action in Support of Local Networks and Institutional Capacity Building
The federal Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community program involves potentially all domestic agencies of the federal government. HUD and the Department of Agriculture designated the urban and rural or Indian tribal zones, respectively. Only two of the urban zones-Philadelphia/Camden and Kansas City-fall in more than one political jurisdiction. The EZ/EC program nevertheless has stimulated progress in a number of areas relevant to regional community interests. These include federal interagency cooperation, such as the EPA-HUD cooperation on brownfields, and increased federal agency sensitivity to both the needs of urban community institutions to expand their capacities and the importance of engagement and cooperation among different public, private, or public/private networks within urban communities to realize mutually beneficial economic, environmental, and social goals. The EZ/EC program also has improved coordination among different public and private financing sources, helped distressed urban communities realize the potential economic benefits associated with environmental improvement or providing support services to major local employers like hospitals and universities, and facilitated access of low-income communities to federal programs not previously engaged in many urban areas, such as those of the U.S. Forest Service.
The National Association of State Development Agencies and the American Association of Enterprise Zones have issued a compendium of federal and state EZ/EC success stories titled "Community Empowerment in Targeted Areas: State and Local Programs That Work" (February 1997).
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development in September 1996 signed a memorandum of understanding in which they committed to cooperate in facilitating the environmental restoration and economic reuse of lesser contaminated properties (brownfields), commonly located within Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. The cooperative actions of EPA and HUD include coordinated grant making, joint research, staff interaction, and review of regulatory policies. In its Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative, EPA has provided grant and technical assistance to help local community stakeholders understand the federal and state regulatory issues that must be addressed to recycle brownfields and to establish effective networks necessary to the development of local brownfield reuse strategies.
The Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency and the Small Business Administration cooperate closely in providing both natural disaster relief and assistance to mitigate future losses from natural disasters. FEMA provides hazard mitigation grants through the states to help local communities design future disaster mitigation measures. The SBA provides credit assistance to help local parties fund implementation of these mitigation measures. Hazard mitigation assistance to Missouri and Illinois following the Midwest flood of 1993 produced notable successes in reducing disaster assistance claims in communities where properties in flood-prone areas were acquired and households were relocated to higher ground.
Public-Private Partnerships to Introduce New Building Technologies to Reduce Energy and Construction Costs
Rebuild America Program: The Department of Energy under this program is helping to create local and regional partnerships amongst organizations involved in building management, renovation, and energy services and is helping these partnerships identify and evaluate energy conservation opportunities in existing residential and commercial buildings. The program's goal is to create consortia by the year 2000 that will collectively commit to energy conservation retrofits of two trillion square feet of multifamily housing and commercial space, resulting in annual energy savings of one trillion Btu by the year 2005.
Building America Program: Under this program the Department of Energy, together with its National Renewable Energy Laboratory, is working with state and local building code regulators and four housing industry consortia, including modular and panelized home builders, to introduce building technologies that will increase energy efficiency, increase the use of recycled materials in new home construction by 50 percent, and reduce construction waste by 50 percent. Tests of new technologies will occur at seven locations around the country. DOE is committing $14 million, and the building consortia are committing $40 million to this program. At two of the three projects under construction-in Lake County, Illinois, and Las Vegas, Nevada-building code regulators have modified local codes to allow innovative, energy efficient technologies.
Manufactured Housing Institute's Urban Market Demonstration Program: The Federal Housing Administration is expected to participate in providing mortgage financing in connection with the Manufactured Housing Institute's urban design demonstration program. This program features the introduction of two-story manufactured homes that are designed to be compatible with traditional urban townhouses. The homes must conform with HUD's building code for manufactured housing. The demonstration projects are located in Pittsburgh, Denver, Louisville, Milwaukee, Birmingham, and Washington, D.C. Market acceptance of the projects may open significant opportunities for lower-cost manufactured housing in urban areas.
The Department of the Interior's United States Geological Survey is the lead federal agency responsible for the creation of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). The NSDI program resulted from an April 1994 Executive Order (E.O. 12906) that created the interagency Federal Geographic Data Committee to oversee the program. This is an effort to establish for both the public and private sectors common technology, policies, standards, and human resources necessary to support a more efficient collection, sharing, and use of geospatial data. The intent is to create a framework for a national network of compatible and accessible spatial data holdings. The committee administers grants to nonfederal entities to support implementation of the program.
The Interagency Council on Statistical Policy is nearing completion of a "one stop shop" through which members of the public will be able to obtain access to the electronic statistical data products of the 70 agencies of the federal government involved in statistical functions.
The Department of Transportation and the DOE, together with the EPA, are funding a project of the Surface Transportation Policy Project, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Natural Resources Defense Council to develop data and analysis that will support market demonstrations of the "Location-Efficient Mortgage." The partnership is using Census Bureau data and transportation data generated by or developed with the assistance of the DOT to identify the substantial variation in transportation costs among households within a metropolitan region and the importance of transportation cost savings to household ability to purchase a home.
The Department of Energy, pursuant to its Energy Partnerships for Affordable Homes program, together with several of the DOE-funded national labs, is collaborating with HUD, state and local governments, utility companies, and the housing and finance sectors to help create and provide technical assistance to local partnerships that will commit to retrofit one million units of public and federally assisted housing in order to improve their energy and resource efficiency and affordability. DOE has established partnerships with the Chicago and Atlanta Housing Authorities as well as community-based housing providers, including Habitat for Humanity and Chicago's Bethel New Life.
The Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Department of Agriculture, and the Army Corps of Engineers are members of the Chicago Region Biodiversity Council, which also includes state, regional, and local agencies, local forest preserve districts, environmental organizations, museums, and academies. The EPA and Fish and Wildlife Service are helping to fund a biodiversity survey in the Chicago metropolitan region. This survey is identifying the species diversity and valuable habitat-including wetlands, prairies, savannas, and forests-that continue to exist within the Chicago metropolitan region, its urbanization notwithstanding. The Council seeks to develop within the region a recognition of the value of these natural resources, known locally as the "Chicago Wilderness," and a sense of stewardship for the restoration and preservation of these resources.
The Department of the Interior/National Park Service/National Center for Recreation and Conservation uses historical data in cooperation with local, public, and private institutions to help localities convert neglected features of their built environment into local economic and environmental assets. The park service helps local organizations interpret the value of the local built environment, frame a reuse vision, inventory resources, and formulate a plan of action.
During the last three years the National Park Service has also coordinated with six other federal agencies (the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA, the Forest Service, the Cooperative Extension Service, and HUD) to provide eight cities with technical assistance in urban environmental restoration and education, pursuant to the Urban Resources Partnership program.
HUD's Metropolitan Economic Strategy includes developing a Metropolitan Competitiveness Index that will measure the economic, environmental, and social conditions of metropolitan areas and enable regions to assess their economic competitiveness and quality of life relative to other regions.
Increasing the Global Competitiveness of Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturers
The Department of Commerce, through the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program (MEP) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, helps fund a national network of technical assistance centers for small- and medium-sized manufacturers. Utilizing staff and outside consultants the MEP-assisted centers provide technical assistance to individual manufacturers and networks of companies with common problems. The MEP program also assists states in creating manufacturing extension programs and facilitates manufacturers' access to technical and financial assistance offered by other federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations.
Note: The following illustrations supplement those included in the discussion of the federal role as provider of financial resources.
The Environmental Protection Agency has approved New York City's water supply watershed protection plan in lieu of requiring the city to construct at far greater cost a massive water filtration system. Pursuant to this innovative approach, the city will spend $270 million and the state $7.5 million to acquire sensitive undeveloped property or conservation easements on the property; the city and state will issue new watershed regulations to reduce current contaminants and prevent new sources of contamination; the city will spend $396 million on pollution prevention infrastructure such as sewage treatment, septic system, and storm-water management improvements; the city, state, and EPA will join in creating a Watershed Protection and Partnership Council that will include other stakeholders and will provide a forum for discussion of implementation of the watershed protection program; and the EPA will provide up to $15 million for monitoring of water quality in the water supply watersheds. This program extends and encompasses earlier actions that included the city making payments to farmers within the city's water supply watersheds in return for their cooperation in implementing best management practices to prevent pollution of local streams from their livestock grazing or other agricultural operations. A Watershed Agricultural Council that included representatives of local farmers, agribusiness leaders, and city, state, and federal agencies coordinated the cooperative action required in order for the farmers to avoid more stringent regulation of their operations.
Delegation of Authority Model
Under the Endangered Species Act, the Department of the Interior has delegated authority to the state of California to develop multiple species conservation programs pursuant to California's Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act. The state in turn has delegated habitat protection planning authority to its counties pursuant to a process that involves multiple stakeholders, including local municipalities and utility districts, land developers, and environmentalists. The Department has approved a habitat plan for Orange County and commented favorably on the first of three plans contemplated for San Diego County. Approval of the initial San Diego County plan by the city and county of San Diego is imminent. Under the plan certain habitat protection areas within the metropolitan San Diego region will be publicly owned, and urban development will be allowed to occur elsewhere. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service participated in the habitat inventories and planning for Orange and San Diego Counties. Under the Endangered Species Act the Department of the Interior must approve the habitat preservation plans. The department has committed to no future "surprises"; if additional habitat needs to be protected in the future, the federal government must acquire additional land or finance the necessary mitigation measures.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Project XL program allows regulated parties flexibility in how they meet applicable regulatory requirements in return for achievement of environmental goals that exceed those required. The regulated parties must assure adequate monitoring to demonstrate their performance and accept community stakeholder participation in defining the terms of the local program.
Project XL-Weyerhaeuser Company, Flint River, Oglethorpe, Georgia: The January 17, 1997, agreement between EPA and the Weyerhaeuser Company regarding the company's Flint River pulp and paper mill consolidates reporting requirements, gives the company greater flexibility in meeting proposed air emissions standards, and allows some production and process changes without modification of air emissions permits. In return the company will reduce its water usage by one million gallons per day, cut bleach effluent by 50 percent, reduce pollutant runoff from Weyerhaeuser-owned timberlands that affect one-half of the watersheds in the state of Georgia, and improve wildlife habitat in the same areas. Local and state stakeholders as well as national environmental groups commented on the terms of the EPA-Weyerhaeuser agreement. Monitoring results will be available to the public via the Internet.
Project XL Joint Application of Chicago Board of Education and Center for Neighborhood Technology, Chicago, Illinois: In October 1996 the Chicago Board of Education and the Center for Neighborhood Technology submitted an application to EPA under the Project XL program to make energy efficiency improvements to existing school facilities, design new facilities to achieve energy efficiency, and restructure the school bus system to achieve energy efficiency with the goal of realizing financial benefits from reduced energy costs and environmental benefits from reduced air emissions. The program is structured to create incentives for individual school management, community-based councils, and students to help identify and monitor energy efficiency measures, share in the knowledge developed from the program, and benefit from the program through school facility and curricular program improvements financed with the energy cost savings and potential sale of air emissions credits and through student participation in internship and job opportunities with private contractors hired to implement the program. The application contemplates EPA dealing with an aggregate of facilities rather than on a facility-by-facility basis. The EPA is proceeding most rapidly in its consideration of the application's proposed energy efficiency improvements to existing and newly constructed school facilities.
A political consensus is emerging to encourage flexible performance by the federal government acting in its several roles discussed in this paper so long as it realizes the goals and respects the mandatory legislative policies of the applicable federal programs.
There is also an emerging recognition of the need for federal agency cooperation in order to marshal maximum available federal assistance or to create adequate incentives for private sector action. With respect to the remediation and reuse of brownfields, for example, EPA, HUD, and EDA recognize the need to coordinate policies and the delivery of financial assistance in order to assist local governments and induce private sector parties to participate in both the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields.
Significant challenges and related opportunities remain to improve the federal government's performance of its functions relative to regional communities and their constituents. The following are intended to be illustrative.
Challenge/Opportunity #1 (federal role as provider of financial resources): Different governmental entities are charged under different federal programs with carrying out different but interrelated missions. For example, the regional metropolitan planning organization implements ISTEA's planning requirements, while the individual units of general purpose local governments within the region receive community development block grants and implement Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended.
The potential responses include federal agencies appointing regional representatives to help coordinate implementation of their respective policies. They also include federal policy encouraging local governmental units to use their federal aid cooperatively and in accordance with the regional plans carried out per federal requirements.
Challenge/opportunity #2 (federal role as provider of financial resources): Federal resources are delivered by an agency to multiple local entities within a metropolitan region to address problems that present needs and opportunities that do not correlate well with the manner of allocation of federal resources. For example, CDBG grants are delivered to general purpose units of government throughout the metropolitan region, while housing needs and opportunities within the region differ without regard to this manner of allocation of funds.
The potential responses to this challenge include consensual coordination among the local aid recipients and the federal aid provider's appointment of a regional representative to help coordinate action among the local aid recipients.
Challenge/opportunity #3 (federal role as provider of financial resources): A combination of aid from different federal agencies is required to meet a local need. For example, no single federal agency can provide the resources necessary to assist the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields in a community.
The potential responses include coordinated delivery of assistance and policy implementation by the appropriate federal agencies (primarily EPA and HUD in the case of brownfields).
Challenge/opportunity #4 (federal role as provider of financial resources): Public sector resources are insufficient to meet public needs. For example, federal funding for public transit capital investments and operating costs is declining substantially.
The potential responses include cooperative action among federal, state, and local agencies, as contemplated by Executive Order 12893, dated January 26, 1994, ("Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments") to minimize legal and regulatory barriers to innovative public/private sector partnerships to finance transit facilities and services. This is most likely to be feasible where transit facilities generate significant private development opportunities in areas adjacent to transit stations.
Challenge/opportunity #5 (federal role as knowledge provider): Local communities are generally unaware of or unable to access federal agency statistical information or technical capacity. For example, the existence of traditional program constituencies and lack of awareness of available technical assistance have limited the access of many distressed urban communities to the technical capacities of federal agencies with environmental management capacities such as NOAA, USGS, and the Forest Service.
Potential responses include those that have occurred in the implementation of the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community program: Interagency cooperation has enhanced the accessibility of urban communities to the broad technical and environmental capacities of the federal government.
Challenge/opportunity #6 (federal role as knowledge provider): Budget and resource limitations have reduced the ability of federal statistical agencies and providers of technical assistance to assist local communities. For example, budget cuts at the National Park Service's National Center for Recreation and Conservation have limited its ability to assist urban communities.
Potential responses include sharing of knowledge by local communities that have previously benefited from the federal technical assistance, and pooling of resources of federal statistical agencies.
Challenge/opportunity #7 (federal role as regulator or source of standards): Tension exists between the realization of common national environmental goals and the delegation by the EPA of authority to states that vary in their institutional capacities and inclinations to use enforcement authorities. For example, controversy currently surrounds the effort by EPA to monitor and review the states' varying enforcement records under federal environmental programs.
The potential responses include negotiation between EPA and each state of the performance required to maintain delegated authority.
Challenge/opportunity #8 (federal role as regulator or source of standards): The federal regulatory policy of one agency compromises the implementation of policies of another federal agency. For example, the policies of EPA under the federal Superfund program prior to the actions of the Clinton Administration compromised the ability of HUD to facilitate the reuse of brownfields by CDBG grantees.
The potential responses include review and, where feasible, modification of the federal policies of the "offending" agency, as has occurred in the case of EPA's policies under the Superfund program.
Challenge/opportunity #9 (federal role as regulator or source of standards): Attainment of Clean Air Act goals by regions that are nonattainment areas is difficult particularly in light of increasing automobile traffic congestion in many regions. For example, notwithstanding the substantial public investment in the Washington METRO subway system, auto dependency and related traffic congestion in the Washington, D.C., region has increased significantly.
The potential responses include consideration by federal and state environmental regulators of policies and measures that would encourage greater accessibility of persons to their places of employment and daily destinations. This could be achieved by allowing credits toward implementation of state Clean Air Act plans for implementation of measures that stimulated accessibility and reduced auto mobility, such as state and local land use policies and private sector financing programs that stimulated transit-oriented development.
The interrelated dynamics of economic, social, and governmental change that are occurring within our regional communities call for a continuing reinvention of the federal government to enable it to respond more effectively and efficiently to those dynamics.
The following tasks also remain:
Each federal agency deals with different constituencies, program beneficiaries, or regulated parties and institutional mechanisms for implementing its public missions. Each, therefore, has an understanding of how one or more networks within regional communities may function. But, each does not have an understanding of how other constituencies and institutional networks within regional communities may work.
In addition, many federal agencies do not deal with local communities or institutions. They deal instead with state agencies, which in turn deal with the local constituencies. The federal agencies may nevertheless have an understanding of at least those institutions that are the ultimate recipients or regulated parties under their programs.
In short, no federal agency has a comprehensive understanding of the complex workings of regional communities.
Congress of course is composed of Senators, who may represent a complete intrastate region, and Representatives, who may represent a regional community, if its population is not large, or a portion of a large regional community. But the understanding even of members of Congress is affected by their committee assignments. So they do not necessarily understand well all the institutional workings of a regional community either.
Clearly, education is necessary to understanding, and communication is necessary to education. Given the limits of the understanding of a particular federal agency, communication and cooperative action cannot result simply from interchanges and coordination among federal agencies. Improved communication and means of communication and policy discussion between regional communities and the federal government are also necessary.
Finally, there may be several options for coordinating federal action with respect to regional communities and their constituencies. The possibilities include the Community Empowerment Board that has been responsible for coordinating implementation of the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community program. Working with the Cabinet, the President could fashion an alternative or new mechanism.
More important at this point is the definition of the institutional parameters of the coordinating mechanism. Several appear essential. They include:
Additional parameters will be defined in the course of the regional forums for which this paper has been written.