ABSTRACT
The federal government is by far the largest land owner in the United States (it owns a third of the land area),2 and its policies in relation to these lands (land sales, control of much mining and reclamation, national parks, national forests, Indian reservations, etc.) have been explicit and frequently subject to intense debate and controversy (Clawson 1983). There is no urban equivalent to these “land policies.” Indeed, it might be argued that the federal government has neither had nor (with one major short-lived exception) attempted to devise an urban policy. But this is to take a very narrow view of “urban policy.” Urban policies can be explicitly devised and expressed as such, or they can be the indirect effect of “nonurban” policies. Policies directed at expanding welfare, or at promoting equality of opportunity, or improving communications, or safeguarding agricultural land (the list is almost endless) can have a significant effect upon cities. In this chapter, a number of these policies is discussed. There are several objectives in so doing. Firstly, many of the policies do in fact have an important impact on urban land use, sometimes of great significance. Secondly, the fate of these policies is relevant to the question of whether the federal government should, and could, play a bigger role in land use planning policies.
