What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
activities administrative capacity Agricultural apparent application approach areas assistance California centers citizens city councils civic community development Community Development Act comprehensive planning consultants county government Department differentiation discussed economic effect effort existence extensive external factors federal funds governmental grant Group growth H/CD Act housing Housing and Community implementation improve included increased indicated individual initiated internal interviews issues joint jurisdictions lack legislation local government meet ment municipal needs non-metropolitan opportunities organization participation percent persons planning agencies Planning Commission political population possess poverty present problems programs projects question reasons recent regarding regional planning represented residents responsibility result rural Sacramento sample sample cities scale selected seven small cities small communities social solve sources specific SRAPC staff strategy structure suggest Table technical assistance tion twenty-one University urban variables Wheatland X X X
Page 41 - Trends in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Population Growth Since 1970," forthcoming; and Calvin L. Beale, The Revival of Population Growth in Nonmetropolitan America, ERS-605, Economic Development Division, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, June 1975.
Page 9 - Act of 1974 is the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and by expanding economic opportunities— principally for persons of low and moderate income.
Page 41 - Don A. Dillman and Russell P. Dobash, "Preferences for Community Living and Their Implications for Population Redistribution," Washington Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 764, (Pullman: Washington State University, November, 1972), p.
Page 9 - The expansion and improvement of the quantity and quality of community services, principally for persons of low and moderate income, which are essential for sound community development and for the development of viable urban communities; 5.
Page 40 - Survey (Los Angeles: University of Southern California, School of Social Work, Regional Research Institute in Social Welfare, March 24, 1975). 3. US, President, Bill Signing, "Statement of the President upon Signing the Bill Providing State and Local Fiscal Assistance. October 20, 1972," Meekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, October 23, 1972, 1534-36.
Page 26 - Human need, both economic and social, is subordinate to governmental size and community population. This Is not to say that larger cities in metropolitan areas are not in need. It merely suggests that small cities with significant need are not equally attractive public investments.
Page 26 - Our analyses point in one direction: The largest, best staffed, and frequently the least needy non-metropolitan communities are in the best position to compete for resources under the latest community development grant strategy.
Page iv - The research for this paper was supported by the Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of California, Davis.