3. BROAD OPPORTUNITIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The city planning board would be quick to discover desirable changes in legislation. The activity in city planning legislation of the 1913 Pennsylvania Legislature shows what may be accomplished by a commission intimately acquainted with the local difficulties which prevent satisfactory execution of plans. It passed a city planning act for the cities and towns within 25 miles of Philadelphia. It authorized the appointment of city planning commissions for cities of the third class. It increased the power of the Philadelphia art jury so that its approval is made necessary for the selection of the site as well as the design of public structures.[165] It granted to all the cities of the state the power to indicate on the official plan, reservations of parks and playgrounds in the same way as they now are allowed to establish an official plan for streets.
Various phases of the planning problem are from time to time made the subject of investigation by special commissions, as for instance, the Massachusetts commission appointed to consider the methods of land acquisition which have been described on page [106]. Such studies might be better conducted by the plan commissions whose experience with other planning problems would be of great value.
Finally, the commission should at all times be a propagandist body educating the citizens to see the economy of planning in general and to decide every specific question of the city’s physical growth from the standpoint of city planning. The thoroughgoing work of the Chicago plan commission in this field is an example of what can be accomplished.
The creation of a city plan commission would be justified if it did nothing but safeguard the unit idea by correlating the work of other municipal departments in accordance with the city plan. If it is also to make clear to the citizens the value of city planning and to be a bureau of city planning research, its task will be so consuming that it need not take over any of the functions of existing agencies.
FOOTNOTES:
[147] For text of act see Appendix, p. [280].
[148] See Appendix for text of legislation, pp. [243] ff., [282].
[149] Forster vs. Scott, 136 N. Y. App. 577. See Appendix, p. [244]. Edwards vs. Bruorton, 184 Mass. 529. See Appendix, p. [245].
[150] In re District of Pittsburgh, 2 W. and S. 320.