Page:John Nolen--New ideals in the planning of cities.djvu/27

CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES ever, have large powers in the field of city planning which they do not now exercise. The first change should be to employ to better advantage the existing law. If they would, the City Councils of many cities have authority to transform their towns and cities by administrative action alone. In many cities, for example, the city government has ample power to inaugurate a much better system of laying out and constructing streets and thoroughfares and of meeting the cost of such improvements. Where the city charters are inadequate, the aid of the State Legislature must be invoked. Such legislation has already been sought in a number of states, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, for example, and easily secured. If the best results are to be obtained, American cities must have a larger measure of home rule and a degree of authority approaching ' that granted to English towns and cities by the Housing and, Town Planning Act of 1909.

Given a city plan with the necessary administrative machinery to revise and keep it up to date, and the power to execute it, we must meet still another and in some respects the greatest problem of city planning—the cost. As a rule, the first question asked by city officials and business men, when more comprehensive city planning is proposed, is, Does it pay? Three points may be given in answer to that question.

In the first place, certain things are indispensable for every city—suitable streets, thoroughfares, public buildings, homes, and an adequate number of playgrounds, parks, and open spaces. All these must be had sooner or later. It is not a question of getting them or of not getting them. It is merely a question of when. Short-sighted citizens often deceive themselves with the idea that they are saving money