IMPACTS AND USES OF STATE PLANNING MANDATES IN NONMETROPOLITAN CITIES: A CALIFORNIA CASE STUDY (SMALL CITIES, RURAL

The number of mandates issued by the states and the federal government have grown enormously since the mid-sixties. A few researches have concluded that mandates generally have negative impacts on local governments. Presumably, they constrain local autonomy and impose financial burdens on local jurisdictions.;Nonmetropolitan governments, like all local governments, have been at the receiving end of the multitude of state and federal mandates. Small, nonmetropolitan governments may have a more difficult time coping with mandates than their metropolitan counterparts. They have neither the administrative expertise nor financial resources that large metropolitan governments have to facilitate mandate implementation. Mandates, one might expect, would be particularly burdensome for nonmetropolitan governments.;An investigation was conducted documenting the perceptions of officials in six nonmetropolitan California cities of the local impacts and utility of three state planning mandates--general plan, environmental impact report, and housing element--and the effects of the mandates of planning policy development and planning capacity building.;Instead of holding negative perceptions, local officials generally approved of the general plan and environmental impact report mandates. Positive perceptions partially resulted from the broad discretion local officials retained in implementing the mandates. Local officials did not enjoy discretion in implementing the housing mandate. This largely accounts for negative perceptions of that mandate. Population and development growth also prompted positive perceptions. Planning mandates served as tools officials used to control development within the community. Population and development growth also induced city officials to improve planning capacity, and to develop new planning policies.