Jones-3 No planners were fired. The government abandoned the program, but it did not abandon the housing goals. Instead, government continues to seek ways to use its powers to reach those goals. The recent proposal to convert the Federal Home Loan Bank System into a conduit that moves Treasury funds to home buyers, discussed in an earlier article, is a case in point. In a similar vein, government reacted to the failure of its direct subsidy programs with a decision to decentralize; read to mean, push the problems that accompany achievement of the nation's housing goals on to the cities and states. A part, and only a part of this process, entailed significant support of the newly developing state housing finance agencies. These agencies had already been established in a few states, ostensibly to use the low cost, tax-exempt borrowing power of the states to raise funds for low-income housing projects. Although the state agencies have been largely in the business of producing housing for moderate-income families that the private market is willing and able to provide, the system has been encouraged to expand into some 35 states by HUD subsidy programs as well as their tax-exempt status. Here, again, the best laid plans ran afoul of other government planning. The realities of inflation, the increased cost of providing heat, and the recession, as well as some serious mistakes in the location, management and construction of projects were brought to everyone's attention when Jones-4 the City of New York and its once vaunted state housing agency threatened to default on their financial obligations. Here, again, no planners were fired, no operations were closed down, no plans were set aside. Instead, the federal government now proposes to put its credit behind the state's credit so it can sell its tax-exempt bonds. The plan continues without change or even reconsideration. The government simply alters the use of its powers to continue the plan and ignores the economics of the marketplace--a choice that is not open to the business planner. Does all of this suggest that the government should not plan? It does not. But it does say that government should not indulge in long-range planning analogous to business planning, because it is not subject to the corrective discipline of the marketplace, because it does not have the necessary wisdom, and because it will lead to still more government intrusion and greater loss of individual freedom. Government should plan, but it should limit its planning to goals internallyrelated to the organization and management of governmental activities, and not to goals it chooses to impose upon society. (Dr. Oliver H. Jones, economist and author, is executive vice president of the Mortgage Bankers Association of America. He will be reporting his views on housing, finance and their political implications in these pages from time to time.) 3/15/76 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS March 15, 1976 Senator John Glenn Dear Senator Glenn: Thank you for your letter of March 3, 1976, inviting me to comment on the federal government's role in setting and developing strategies for achieving long-term goals. We in the private sector are watching very closely with great hope those individuals, including yourself, who are attempting to improve planning and budgeting in the federal government. The establishment of the Congressional Budget Office is a beginning, but insufficient to deal with problems of duplication, inefficiency and waste in the federal programs. These problems are so pervasive that even the public at large senses this chaos and lack of effectiveness. There are basically two kinds of problems involved in establishing a more rational long-range federal policy and delivery system. The first one is a question of leadership. Federal ineptness and scandals such as Watergate have shaken the public's faith in government not only at the federal level, but at the state and local level as well. In addition beauracratic and congressionally imposed programmatic chaos is increasingly evident to citizens whenever they have a health need, a shelter need, an educational need, or a transportation need. Leaders are emerging who recognize that people do want to believe in their government. They recognize that improved performance both morally and programmatically is necessary to redeem the public trust in government. Senators Humphrey and Muskie have given this problem a considerable amount of attention and have both introduced legislation to improve the federal planning process. I am personally very pleased to see your interest. The second problem is a structural one, which goes to the very organization of the executive and legislative branches of government. The present organization is best equipped to deal with government by crises. Not since the National Resources Planning Board (abandoned in 1943) has the executive branch had any functional long-range planning. In the private sector there is no major corporation that expects to be around for a while which Senator John Glenn does not have a strong planning function in the chief executive's office. In the private sector planning goes on continually with time frames ranging from 5 to 20 years. The federal government with its annual budget cycle and without established long-term goals and objectives, could not survive in the competitive world of business. The organization of the congress itself has to be viewed as anachronistic. Mighty attempts at reform in the past have achieved little. As one who has a concern about the quality of the nation's physical environment, I find it appalling that there are over 50 congressional committees and subcommittees which have direct responsibility for various aspects of this subject. The organization of the congress almost requires inefficient and ineffective piecemeal solutions to major environmental problems facing the country. The congress needs a mechanism to provide long-range goal setting, planning and strategies in functional areas. This activity should also be coupled with a research and policy analysis. Your suggestion of a long-range planning body within the Smithsonian Institution is an excellent possibility which can serve the function of research and information gathering for the executive, legislative and judicial branches together. Finally, we must understand that democracy in a pluralistic society can not have a completely integrated national planning system. As a people our individual goals, interests and means are too diverse. On the other hand the public expects services for its taxes. In operational terms we should be seeking coordination, efficiency and value for money. With leadership and some reorganization in the executive and legislative branches of government federal programs can move the nation toward long-term goals with public support and confidence. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important work you are undertaking. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY BERKELEY DAVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO HEALTH AND MEDICAL SCIENCES PROGRAM 15 March 1976 Senator John Glenn SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ ROOM 106 T-7 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720 Dear Senator Glenn: I am truly most interested in the report of your symposium entitled "Our Third Century: Directions". I suppose I should say first that it is extremely difficult for me to answer questions about the role of government, for I do not believe that a federal government can do anything that a community government is not ready to do. It is therefore tremendously important for us to understand some of the things that are going on in our country in order to get a handle on what ultimately has to be done. Let me say that it is my belief that leadership in government is in part experienced societal learning; that leadership is the process by which people in our communities understand not the day-by-day events, but what indeed is underneath the overt symptoms. How a government sets itself up to assist this process is a tremendously important question. I have some very strong feelings about planners, because I believe that the planners are primarily in touch with the most rational of data about what is happening in our society. The current perceptions about the human brain, pointing to both the left and right sides having different functions, suggests that most of us have operated without the left brain--the analytic, rational, and cognitive side. Planning too has moved in this direction. At the same time, I am convinced that the non-rational, the intuitive, is equally important. I am enclosing a paper that I gave at York University in Canada on the problem of futures, which you may be interested in. The dilemma that our society is facing now is that we have dealt with so many of our issues on a crisis-by-crisis basis that we have spent little time concerned with the more general issues which one might call "life". Life is made up of the slow, day-by-day cycles of living. These cycles include things that to many are mundane, and yet the way we have operated in our society has been to not deal with the mundane. We turn off the television program we don't like and switch to another. Everything is instantly replaceable: equipment, cars, and sometimes lives. We really do not understand the importance of the tremendous long-range process that comes from the living experience. And there is almost no place for our children to learn it. |