Regional Planning Bibliography
 See, e.g., Alfred Bettman, "How to Lay Out Regions for Planning," in Planning Problems of Town, City, and Region: Papers and Discussion (Baltimore, Md.: Norman, Remington, 1925), 287-301; John Friedmann, "The Concept of a Planning Region — The Evolution of an Idea in the United States," in John Friedmann and William Alonso, eds., Regional Development and Planning: A Reader (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1964), 497-518.
 U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR),Regional Decision Making: New Strategies for Substate Districts; Substate Regionalism and the Federal System, Vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, October 1973), 54.
 Judith Getzels, Peter Elliott, and Frank Beal, Private Planning for the Public Interest: A Study of Approaches to Urban Problem Solving by Nonprofit Organizations (Chicago, Ill.: American Society of Planning Officials, October 1975), 10-19. See also Jeanne R. Lowe, Cities in a Race with Time (New York, N.Y.: Random House, 1967), 110-163.
 Bruce D. McDowell, "The Evolution of American Planning," in The Practice of State and Regional Planning, Frank So, Irving Hand, and Bruce D. McDowell, eds. (Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association in cooperation with the International City Management Association, 1986), 56.
 Bruce D. McDowell, "Regionalism: What It Is, Where We Are, and Where It May Be Headed," a speech given to the 1995 Annual Conference of the Virginia and National Capital Area Chapters of the American Planning Association, Falls Church, Va. (December 4, 1995), 2.
 American Society of Planning Officials (ASPO), New Directions in Connecticut Planning Legislation: A Study of Connecticut Planning, Zoning and Related Statutes (Chicago, Il.: ASPO, February 1966), 166. The ASPO report recommended that the definition of a regional plan be amended to include the following: (1) conservation and management of water resources, including ground and surface supply, pollution abatement, flood control, and watershed protection; (2) abatement of air pollution; (3) conservation of land resources, including forest, wetlands, wildlife refuges, and seashore; (4) population and general housing types in the several parts of the region; (5) regional facilities, such as major commercial centers, regional parks, transportation, industrial parks, sewerage, and other facilities that would serve the region rather than a single municipality; and (6) a statement of objectives, policies and standards on which recommendations are based. Requiring the factual basis on which policies and standards were derived, wrote ASPO, "will facilitate review of plans by interested public or private group[s] and help them gauge the reasonableness of regional planning proposals. In addition, this requirement will focus attention on development policies underlying specific development proposals such as those for regional land use."
 U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, "An Act Providing for Designation of Uniform Substate Districts and Coordination Thereof," in ACIR State Legislative Program: Local Government Modernization (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, November 1975), 119-132.
 ALI, A Model Land Development Code, 311-312, quoting Melvin Mogulof, "Regional Planning, Clearance, and Evaluation: A Look at the A-95 Process," in Journal of the American Institute of Planners 37 (1971): 419.
 ALI, A Model Land Development Code, 316- 317, quoting Melvin Levin, "Planners and Metropolitan Planning," in Journal of the American Institute of Planners 33 (1967 ): 80. See also Richard F. Babcock, "Let's Stop Romancing Regionalism," in Billboards, Glass Houses and the Law and Other Land Use Fables (Colorado Springs, Colo.: Shepard's, 1977), 11-23. The late Chicago land-use attorney Richard F. Babcock saw regional planning agencies as "political bastards, the offspring of a loveless dalliance between cynics and dreamers, with no general government willing to acknowledge more than a foster parent relationship." Id., at 15. Babcock, who chaired the ALI committee that oversaw the development of the Code and served as the governor's appointee on the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, believed that only the state had sufficient independence and power to require the resolution of metropolitan planning conflicts: "The governor can — if anyone can — compel operating agencies such as the highway department and the state housing authority to recognize in their programs the inescapable interdependence of each with the other. The governor has a broad constituency that permits him to take greater political risks than would be ventured by any mayor or other local representative on a regional commission. If any agency can act as broker between central city and suburb — and perhaps none can — it will be the state. If any negotiation of our bitter metropolitan conflicts is foreseeable, it can occur in our reapportioned and increasingly responsible state legislatures, not in some politically irresponsible regional institution." Id., at 17. Babcock's views, of course, colored the approach taken in the ALI Code.
 Bruce D. McDowell, "Regional Councils Then, Now, and in the Future," a speech to the Board of Directors Retreat, Economic Development Council of Northeastern Pennsylvania (October 7, 1993), in Regionalism: Shared Decision Making: A Background Reader (Richmond, Va.: Commission on Population Growth and Development, July 1994), 4.
 Wannop, The Regional Imperative, 292, citing John M. DeGrove, "Regional Agencies as Partners in State Growth Management Systems," Proceedings of the Joint ACSP and AESOP International Congress, Oxford, UK (July 1991).
 Allan D. Wallis, "Inventing Regionalism: A Two-Phase Approach," National Civic Review 83, no. 4 (Fall/Winter 1994): 447, 450; see also William R Dodge, "Regional Problem Solving in the 1990s: Experimentation with Local Governance for the 21st Century," National Civic Review 79, no. 4 (July-August 1990): 354-366; Patricia S. Atkins and Laura Wilson-Gentry, "An Etiquette for the 1990s Regional Council, "National Civic Review 81, no. 4 (Fall-Winter 1992): 466-487; Symposium issue on the future of regional governance, Janis Purdy, ed., National Civic Review 85, no. 2 (Spring-Summer 1996).
 Oh. Rev. Code 713.30-713.34 (1994). The Ohio law permits creation by agreement of a board of county commissioners and the legislative authority of a municipality with such boards and authorities of adjoining states. An interstate regional planning commission may also be created by compact which must be reviewed by the attorneys general of the states included in the region and approved and signed by the governors of such states. 713.30.
 See N.J.S.A. 13.18A-1 et seq. (Pinelands Commission); Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Ch. 716 of the Acts of 1989 and Ch. 2 of the Acts of 1990 (Cape Cod Commission Act); Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Ch. 637 of the Acts of 1974 (Martha's Vineyard Commission); Cal. Gov't. Code, 65500 et seq. (San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission); N.Y. Executive Law, Art. 27 (Adirondack Park Agency Act, 1990); Nev. Rev. Stat. 277.200 (Tahoe Regional Planning Compact); Cal. Gov't Code 66801 (Tahoe Regional Planning Compact).
 Fla. Stat. Ann. 186.503 et seq. (1987 and Supp 1995) (Regional planning councils); Wi. Stat. Ann. 66.945 (1990) (Regional planning commissions); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., Ch. 40B, 1-8 (1994) (Regional planning); Oh. Rev. Code, Ch. 167 (Regional councils of government) and 713.21 et seq. (Regional planning commissions) (1994) (Regional councils of government); N.C.G.S., Art. 19 (Regional planning commissions) and Art. 20, Part 1, 160A-470 et seq. (Councils of government) (1990); Code of Ga., Tit. 50, Ch. 8, Art. 2 (1994) (Regional development centers); Mi. Comp. Laws Ann., 124.653 et seq. (1991) (Metropolitan councils) and 125.12 et seq. (1986) (Regional planning commissions).
 For a discussion of the question of support for strong planning roles by regional government, see Mark Baldassare, et al., "Possible Planning Roles for Regional Government: A Survey of City Planning Directors in California," Journal of the American Planning Association 62, no. 1 (Winter 1996): 17-28.
 The Constitution requires congressional approval for interstate compacts. See U.S. Const., Art I, 10, Cl. 3 ("No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign power"). See also Stephen D. Galowitz, "Interstate Compacts and Affordable Housing," in Modernizing State Planning Statutes: The Growing Smart Working Papers, Vol. 1, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 462/463 (Chicago: American Planning Association, March 1996), 147-151; Frederick L. Zimmerman and Mitchell Wendel, The Interstate Compact Since 1925 (Chicago: The Council of State Governments, 1951), 30-42; Marian E. Ridgeway, Interstate Compacts: A Question of Federalism (Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1971). Congress has, however, preapproved certain types of compacts, such as those for transportation planning for multistate metropolitan regions. See 23 U.S.C.A. 134(d)(2) (authorizing two or more states to enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law of the United States, for cooperative efforts and mutual assistance for metropolitan transportation planning activities).
 This alternative is linked to Alternative 2 — Mandated Composition and Membership of Regional Planning Agency by Local Elected Officials, Appointees of the Governor, and State Agency Representatives in Section 6-102.
 See U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, MPO Capacity: Improving the Capacity of Metropolitan Planning Organizations to Help Implement National Transportation Policies, A-130 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, May 1995), 34, 40-41 (discussion of prevalence of weighted voting among a sample of MPOs); National Association of Regional Councils, (NARC), Regional Council Representation and Voting: A Guide to Issues and Alternatives (Washington, D.C.: NARC, March 1979) (discussion of policy issues and court decisions relevant to regional council voting and representation).
 Seth Benjamin, John Kincaid, and Bruce D. McDowell, "MPOs and Weighted Voting," Intergovernmental Perspective 20, no. 2 (Spring 1994): 31. The states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Washington.
 This function, as it applies to projects of a special district, may not be necessary if a development of regional impact review (DRI) process is in place in the region that addresses capital projects.
 Where the regional planning agency's board consists of representatives of local government and appointees of the governor, the governor's appointees would not participate in the vote because the issue of service provision is a matter of local, rather than state, concern.
 Maine Stat. Art. 30A, 4326.3A(1) - (2) (1998). The statute provides that a municipality "is not required to identify growth areas for residential growth if it demonstrates that is not possible to accommodate future residential growth in these areas because of severe physical limitations, including, without limitation, the lack of adequate water supply and sewage disposal services, very shallow soils or limitations imposed by protected natural resources; or it demonstrates that the municipality has experience minimal or no residential development over the past decade and that this condition is expected to continue over the 10-year planning period." Id.
 The "Smart Growth" legislation is S.B. 389 (1997 Regular Session). Language relating to "priority funding areas" appears in Md. Ann. Code, Art. — State Finance and Procurement, subtit. B and 7-314(o) (1997).
 Arthur C. Nelson and James B. Duncan, with Clancy J. Mullen and Kirk R. Bishop, Growth Management Principles and Practices (Chicago: APA Planners Press, 1995), 77-80 (describing urban service area in Sacramento County California, urban service boundary in San Jose, California, urban growth area in Larimer County, Colo., and urban growth boundary in Dade (Miami) and Orange County (Orlando), Fla.); see also Jim Sayer, "Bound for Success: California Communities and Urban Growth Boundaries," Lusk Review 4, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 1998): 54-63 (discussion of council-initiated and citizen-initiated urban growth boundaries in California and criticizing lack of statewide framework for undertaking them).
 Siemon, Larsen, and Marsh, Expansion Area Master Plan, adopted by Lexington-Fayette County Urban County Planning Commission (Lexington, Ky.: Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Department of Housing and Community Development, July 18, 1996), 7.
 For a digest of studies that look at the impact of growth controls generally, including urban growth areas, on property values, see Gerrit Knaap, "The Determinants of Residential Property Values: Implications for Metropolitan Planning," Journal of Planning Literature 12, no. 3 (February 1998): 267-282, esp. 275-276. Concludes Professor Knaap: "In sum, research on the effects of growth controls within metropolitan areas has consistently shown that growth controls increase property values in growth control communities. Whether such effects reflect the creation of amenity creation or constraints in supply, however, remains uncertain. Most likely, growth controls within metropolitan areas shift the demand for land from one part of the metropolitan area to another. In some places, local governments have been able to mitigate the effects of growth controls on housing affordability by adopting affordable housing programs. Research on the effects of growth controls on housing affordability has produced conflicting results. . . " Id., at 276.
 ECO Northwest with David J. Newton Associates and MLP Associates, Urban Growth Management: Case Studies Report, prepared for Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) (Salem, Or.: DLCD, January 1991), v-vii. See also Robert L. Liberty, "Oregon's Comprehensive Growth Management Program: An Implementation Review and Lessons for Other States," Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis XXII, no. 5 (June 1992): 10367-10391, esp. 10375 to 10379 (evaluation of success of Oregon's urban containment policy).
 1000 Friends of Oregon and the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, Managing Growth to Promote Affordable Housing: Revisiting Oregon's Goal 10, Executive Summary (Portland, Ore.: 1000 Friends of Oregon, September 1991), 10 (emphasis in original).
 Gerrit Knaap and Arthur C. Nelson, The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State Land Use Planning from Oregon (Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1992), 66-68. See generally Chapter 2, Urban Growth Boundaries and Urban Growth Management, for a summary of relevant studies on urban growth areas conducted in Oregon.
 Portland State University Center for Urban Studies, Impact of the Urban Growth Boundary on Metropolitan Housing Markets (Portland, Ore.: The Center, May 10, 1996), 2-3 to 2-4. For a discussion of the debate over expanding the urban growth boundary in the Portland area, see Alan Ehrenhalt, "The Great Wall of Portland" Governing 10, no. 8 (May 1997): 20-24.
 Washington Center for Real Estate Research, Washington State University, Urban Growth Areas and Lot Price: Clark County, Washington, Executive Summary (April 1997), http://cbeunix.cbe.wsu.edu/~wcrer/rsrchgc.htm.
 An argument against urban growth areas may be that they would not be particularly workable in rural areas with diffuse population and no real urban centers. A state legislature may wish to adapt this model by authorizing urban growth areas only in counties that are part of metropolitan areas, but not in nonmetropolitan counties.
 For an analysis of the impact that Oregon's statewide land-use planning system has had on development patterns, see Jerry Weitz and Terry Moore, "Development Inside Urban Growth Boundaries: Oregon's Evidence of Contiguous Urban Form," Journal of the American Planning Association 64, no. 4 (Autumn 1998): 424-440.
 The authority of a municipality to plan extraterritorially varies among the states. For example, a municipality may have the power to review and approve subdivisions within a certain radius of its boundaries for consistency with a thoroughfare plan and municipal engineering and design requirements.
 For example, the Washington state statutes provide "New fully contained communities may be approved outside established urban growth areas only if a county reserves a portion of the twenty year population projection and offsets the urban growth area accordingly." Wash. Rev. Code. 36.70A.350(2) (1996).
 U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, MPO Capacity: Improving the Capacity of Metropolitan Planning Organizations to Help Implement National Transportation Policies, A-130 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, May, 1995), 33-34.
 23 U.S.C 134(f). For an excellent discussion of how MPOs responded to the original ISTEA legislation, see Daniel Carlson, with Lisa Wormser and Cy Ulberg, At Road's End: Transportation and Land Use Choices for Communities (Washington, D.C.: Island Prerss, 1995).
 Robert Freilich and S. Mark White, "State and Regional Roles in Transportation and Land Use," in Modernizing State Planning Statutes: The Growing Smart Working Papers, Vol. 1, Planning Advisory Service Report Nos. 462/463 (Chicago: American Planning Association, March 1996), 127-131.
 Anthony Downs, Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion (Washington, D.C. and Cambridge, Mass: The Brookings Institution and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1994), 129-169; and Terry Moore and Paul Thorsnes, The Transportation/Land Use Connection, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 448/449 (Chicago: American Planning Association, January 1994), Ch. 4.
 Here, it is assumed that the regional planning agency, or a committee of the regional planning agency, will be a metropolitan planning organization responsible under federal law for undertaking transportation planning.
 Federal regulations require that the transportation plan be "reviewed and updated at least triennially in nonattainment and maintenance areas [for air quality] and at least every five years in attainment areas to confirm its validity and its consistency with current and forecasted transportation and land-use conditions and trends and to extend the forecast period." 23 CFR 450.322(a).
 For an example of a state statute that defines a "congestion management program" to be prepared for every county that includes an urbanized area and subsequently to be incorporated into the regional agency's transportation improvement program required under federal law, see Cal. Gov't. Code, 65088 et seq. (1994).
 For a discussion of citizen participation practices and techniques as applied to regional transportation planning see, e.g., Phil Braun, et al., ISTEA Planner's Workbook (Washington, D.C.: Surface Transportation Policy Project, October 1994), Ch.1; Community-Based Planning Under ISTEA (Washington, D.C.: Bicycle Federation of America, 1993); see generally William R. Potapchuck, "New Approaches to Citizen Participation: Building Consent," National Civic Review 80, no. 2 (Spring 1991): 158-168; Lenneal J. Henderson, "Metropolitan Governance: Citizen Participation in the Urban Federation," National Civic Review 79, no. 2 (March-April 1990):105-117; Georgia A. Persons, "Defining the Public Interest: Citizen Participation in Metropolitan and State Policy Making," National Civic Review 79, no. 2 (March-April 1990): 118-131.
 Parts of this section dealing with the form of the notice and submission of written and oral comments and recommendations have been adapted from the American Law Institute (ALI), A Model Land Development Code (Philadelphia, Pa.: ALI, 1976), 2-305.
 For an interesting decision in which an executive committee of a regional planning commission, but not the full membership, adopted a regional land-use plan contrary to the requirements of a state statute, and, as a consequence, an appeals court found the plan had no effect, see State ex rel Barbuto v. Ohio Edison Co., 16 Oh. App. 2d. 55, 241 N.E.2d 783 (1968), aff'd 16 O.S.2d. 54, 242 N.E.2d 562 (1968). The court held that the regional planning commission could not delegate the responsibility of officially adopting a plan.
 See Nancy E. Stroud, "State Review and Certification of Local Plans," in Modernizing State Planning Statutes: The Growing Smart Working Papers, Vol. 1., Planning Advisory Service Report No. 462/463 (Chicago: American Planning Association, March 1996), 85-88.
 This approach is an adaptation of procedures in: A Standard City Planning Enabling Act, 28, drafted by the Advisory Commission on City Planning and Zoning, U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1928); a model "County and Regional Planning Enabling Act" drafted by Attorney Alfred Bettman and appearing in Model Laws for Planning, Cities, Counties, and States, Harvard City Planning Studies VII, by Edward M. Bassett, Frank B. Williams, Alfred Bettman, and Robert Whitten (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935), 93-98, esp. 9 (Legal Status of Plan); Fl. Stat. Ann. 186.508 (1995) (state review of regional plans); and U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, "An Act Providing for Designation of Uniform Substate Districts and Coordination Thereof," in ACIR State Legislative Program: Local Government Modernization, M-93 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, November, 1975), 122-132.
 An alternative to this approach is review of both publicly funded and private projects of regional or metropolitan impact. For example, under Minn. Stat. 473.173 and Minn. Rules 5800.0010 et seq., the Metropolitan Council for the seven-county Twin Cities area has established standards, guidelines, and procedures for determining whether any proposed project is of metropolitan significance. The intent is to "assure that the total effect of a proposed project alleged to be of metropolitan significance is considered and the orderly economic development of the area is promoted. . .[The rules state that it is not the Metropolitan Council's intent to use the procedures] to stop development, but rather to work out differences among parties and arrive at consensus." Minn. Rules 5800.0010 (1989).
 The extent of state aid to areawide planning agencies in the early 1990s is discussed in a draft report prepared for the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations by Dr. Patricia Atkins of the National Association of Regional Councils, Decade of Change (unpublished manuscript, May 27, 1993).
 This alternative is adapted from, "An Act Providing An Umbrella Multijurisdictional Organization for [Name] Region With Authority To Deliver Services Under Certain Circumstances," appearing in U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, ACIR State Legislative Program: Local Government Modernization, M-93 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, November 1975), 148.
 Code of Va. 2.1-391 (1994) (Duties of state department of planning and budget relative to review and approval of all substate district systems boundaries), 15.1-1403 to 15.1-1417 (Planning districts); Code of Ga. 5-8-32 (1994) (Establishment of regional development centers); Ky. Rev. Stat. 147A.050-147A.125 (1994) (Area development districts).
 U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, "An Act Providing for Designation of Uniform Substate Districts and Coordination Thereof," in ACIR State Legislative Program: Local Government Modernization, M-93 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.GPO, November, 1975), 122-132.
 This paragraph duplicates, in part, Section 6-401(4), which deals with regional planning agency review of major publicly funded capital projects of extra-jurisdictional or regional significance.
 Arthur C. Nelson, James B. Duncan, with Clancy J. Mullen and Kirk Bishop, Growth Management Principles and Practices (Chicago, Ill.: APA Planners Press, 1995), 73-74; see also Gerrit Knaap and Arthur C. Nelson, The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State Land Use Planning from Oregon (Cambridge, Mass: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1992), Ch. 2; V. Gail Easley, Staying Inside the Lines : Urban Growth Boundaries, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 440 (Chicago: American Planning Association November 1992); ECO Northwest with David J. Newton Associates and MLP Associates, Urban Growth Management Study: Case Studies Report, prepared for the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (Salem, Ore: ECO Northwest, January 1991).
 For an additional discussion of these steps and others related to the methodology of designating boundaries, see V. Gail Easley, Staying Inside the Lines , 6-9. In addition to analyses based on land area, growth capacity analysis should include analyses of infrastructure capacity. See also Eric Damian Kelly, Planning, Growth, and Public Facilities: A Primer for Local Officials, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 447 (Chicago: American Planning Association, September 1993).
 Note that there can be a considerable degree of debate about what percentage the market factor is. Depending on the pace of economic growth, the market factor may vary considerably. In a fast-growing regional economy, the factor may need to be larger than in a slow-growing economy. In any case and regardless of the methodology used to forecast land use needs, constant monitoring of the amount of developable or redevelopable land within the urban growth area boundary is necessary to ensure the success of the program.
 See, e.g., Emily Narvaes, "Boulder Decides to Go Even Slower than Usual," Planning 61, no. 12 (December 1995): 22-23. According to Narvaes, in Boulder, Colorado, a town that imposed urban growth area boundaries in the 1970s, "More people are coming into the city than out to work each day, according to city planners, partly because long-time limits on residential growth have driven up housing prices — and pushed many Boulder workers to live in outlying communities." Id.
 See generally Frank S. So, Irving Hand, and Bruce D. McDowell, The Practice of State and Regional Planning (Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association, 1986), Chs. 6 and 7 (discussion of preparation and implementation of regional plans). For a good review of contemporary regional plans with both national examples and examples from the four-county area around Portland, Oregon, see Architectural Foundation of Oregon, An Inventory of Regional Plans (Portland, Ore.: The Foundation, December, 1992).