ABSTRACT
The distinction between the ideal of planning and the reality of zoning is an important one. Planning is concerned with the long-term development (or preservation) of an area and the relationship between local objectives and overall community and regional goals. Zoning is a major instrument of this; but in the United States it is more. Indeed, it has taken the place of the function to which it is supposedly subservient. One of the reasons for this is that responsibility for land use controls has been delegated to small units of local government. These local authorities have traditionally been concerned with attracting development to their areas, but, since the 1970s, there has been increasing pressure from electors for their communities to be preserved as they are (or at least safeguarded from undesirable uses such as industry, apartments and low income housing). The powers of zoning (and subdivision control)1 provide a very effective tool for this-a tool which can be wielded with a skill that thwarts judicial action. The contrast with planning is a sharp one: a comprehensive plan would deal not only with the needs of the existing inhabitants of an area, but also with its role in meeting the needs for housing newcomers, whatever their income or color. Additionally, it would make provision for such undesirable land uses as power stations, landfills, and a host of other uses which have given rise to the acronym NIMBY: “not in my back yard,” and its more recent progeny NIMTOO: “not in my term of office.” This can be, and is, done by some local governments; but there are many more who use zoning as a means of precluding comprehensive planning.
