ABSTRACT
The major part of this book has been concerned with the American land use planning system, though “system” hardly seems to be an appropriate word for this multiplicity of different procedures, policies, and practices. Even the courts are unsystematic, with their wide range of differing and sometimes conflicting opinions. The Supreme Court has notably failed to bring order and certainty into those aspects of land use planning which it has considered.1 Of course, there are some commonalities, but they do not constitute a “system” in the sense that British and West European planning practices do. Indeed, there is usually not even the pretense of overriding purpose. Nevertheless, too much emphasis should not be placed on a form of words which purport to state a comprehensive planning goal, as did the early English planning legislation which established the post of Minister of Town and Country Planning, whose duty was that of “securing consistency and continuity in the framing and execution of a national policy with respect to the use and development of land throughout England and Wales.”2
