The US is in a unique governmental position of planning through the stages of authority distributed in regional, state and national levels. Enough freedom is given to different areas where citizens can afford to experiment if there is a concentration of them who desire to do so. However, these areas are not small enough so as to create inefficiency. The problems that then come with this are the tendency for these areas to disregard some important, more intimate problems smaller areas, as well as to accept a radical plan that the rest of the country finds improper. These are managed by the other two levels of government.
The state level of authority addresses some problems and creates some opportunities. Inefficiency is created when the public’s voice is broken down too far. In Levy’s Contemporary Urban Planning, he describes the ‘unnatural’ relationship of a state to contain residents that “have little in the way of common interests,” although they still had enough will to make “substantial strides in statewide planning” (47). Not everyone can be entirely pleased, and attempting to achieve that only creates a longer governing process. It is best to discover main issues where groups can team up on the issues they most agree on and where majorities can be discovered. This is why it is beneficial to give the say in major public decisions to states and not cities. But as mentioned before, the concentration of sometimes clashing people within a state allows the authority of a state to be somewhat representative of the country but to go where the nation as a whole could not agree to go—or was afraid to go altogether. Many beneficial decisions are discovered this way in ways of planning, as well as many detrimental decisions ones are clarified.
The regional level of authority can also fix some of the issues that come with state decisions through a more “natural” affinity. It can also further the state’s methods of efficiency. The regional stage of planning can address more concentrated problems. It can also assure for connection and flow within cities, as they can disregard the areas around them as smaller systems often do.
The national level can also be considered to further the efforts of the state level of planning in terms of efficiency of major decisions, but it can also make sure that the states themselves do not get too radical in their decisions. It is easy for a state to get radical if there is a concentration of a certain minority there. Sometimes this isn’t a problem. However, the people that find themselves to be a minority in that area can find themselves to be suffering because of these decisions. If the rest of the country believes this kind of decision is improper, minorities can be spared of things they find unjust. The national level can also lay down basic laws the country can agree on in a majority so that states avoid that level of consideration that would require more time, and inefficiency.
Together, these levels allow for attention to more personal problems, freedom to experiment and gain opportunity, and balance in the properness of these decisions through a greater or more specific consideration of public interest. It is a method that is both forward moving and considerate.