THE POLICY ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4, Summer, 1990

THE POLICY ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

Jerry MitchellBaruch College/CUNY

The public authority is a form of government that has flourished in thetwentieth century. At the turn of the century there were no such governmententities in the United States. Today there are thousands of public authorities,operating at all levels of government, performing every conceivable publicservice; from operating hospitals and ports, to financing gas pipelines andeconomic development, to overseeing the budgets of major cities.

Public authorities have clearly become influential. They surpass all stateand local government for borrowing in the tax-exempt bond market (Walsh,1900). They manage housing and apartment complexes where thousands ofpeople live. And they are powertui economic and political institutions in manymetropolitan areas because of their control over transportation, trade, shipping,waste disposal, and other aspects of urban life.

Even though public authorities are notable, they have not always beennoticed in the policy studies literature, with the exception of books and articleswritten by Jameson W. Doig, Annemarie Hauck Walsh, Robert G. Smith, anda few other scholars. Because public authorities have been overlooked, thepurpose of this essay is to define, enumerate, and describe the policy activitiesof public authorities at the state and local level. This analysis is intended toprovide a comnrK>n reference point for future discussions and analyses of publicpolicy and public authorities.

DEFINITIONS

The first modern public authority was created in 1909 by the British Parlia-ment when London's ports were legally consolidated into a financially self-sufficient organization (Gordon, 1938). The Port of London Authority was sonamed because nearly every paragraph in the enabling legislation began withthe words "Authority is hereby given" (Cohen, 1954:290). Once established, thePort became renowned for its capacity to provide both financial security and thecontinuous development of facilities (Gordon, 1938).

The authority name and organizational structure was later exported to theUnited States by the founders of the Port of New York Authority in 1921 (laterrenamed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey). The success of thePort Authority subsequently stimulated the establishment of several other portauthorities along the nation's seaboard (Boschken, 1982). It was not until thecreation of the Tennessee Valley Authonty and several local utility authoritiesin the 1930s, however, that authorities began to proliferate.

Public Authorities and Public Policy 929

It is difficult to precisely define a public authority because it is a hybridorganization simultaneously embodying features of government agencies, privatefirms, and non-profit associations. In this essay, a public authority is defined as:

a corporate entity chartered by either the national government, stategovernments, or subunits thereof; governed by an appointed board;enjoined from levying taxes; and responsible for various public servicefunctions.

This definition applies to almost every entity with the name "public author-ity," and to some organizations that have "corporation" or "commission" in theirnames, such as the South Bend Transportation Corporation in Indiana and theEast Detroit Housing Commission in Michigan. It does not, however, includespecial districts and school districts with elected governing boards.

Public authorities share some characteristics with counties and cities.Authorities generally have the ability to raise money from private moneymarkets, the right to sue and be sued, the power of eminent domain, the dis-cretion to establish rates and charges, an exemption from property taxation,and the freedom to establish their own personnel systems. Finally, their activi-ties often span several jurisdictions allowing them to provide services on anarea-wide basis.

In general, public authorities are used to finance, develop, and operaterevenue-producing facilities and services. Increasingly, they also serve as con-duits for intergovernmental grants and aids. Justifications given for the creationof authorities include the need to bypass debt and taxation limits, rescue ailingindustries, subsidize private industry, promote regional economic development,and remove politics from the delivery of public services (Axelrod, 1989).

Ideally, the authority structure incorporates the belief that politics should beseparate from administration and that administration should be based on busi-ness principles and functional expertise (Doig, 1983). Public authorities promisethe best of all possible worlds; they are supposed to operate in the publicinterest, but like a self-supporting business, free from political compromise,public pressure, and bureaucratic red tape.

COUNTING PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

The number of public authorities in the United States has been difficultto estimate. First, a completely accurate count is impossible because authoritiesare continuously created and dissolved. In fact, there are instances where statesand localities establish authorities that never issue a bond or build any facility.

Second, state and local governments do not compile inclusive rosters ofauthorities. There are few state or local agencies required to regulate authoritiesor to keep up-to-date records about their operatbns. Many large authorities areoften not listed in annual guides to state and bcal officials. Even phone com-panies neglect to list authorities in the governmental pages of their telephonebooks.

930 Policy Studies Journal

Third, and most important, the United States Census Bureau-the sourcefor government statistics-fails to separate public authorities from specialdistricts, counts authorities that are inactive, and classifies some authoritiesinappropriately as traditional executive agencies (Institute of Public Administra-tion, 1987). According to the Census Bureau, an organization with an "authority"name is a subordinate executive agency, if for instance, its governing board isappointed by a governor or its bonds are approved by a state agency (meaningNew York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority is not a public authority).

For this essay, data was gathered to furnish an original count of stateand bcal authorities (using the definition previously given). The data collectionconsisted of examining government reports, assembling mailing lists from pubibagencies and non-profit associations, identifying organizations that have issuedrevenue bonds, and obtaining the annual reports of over 300 likely publicauthorities (see Appendix). This search primarily focused on finding any organi-zation with the word authority in its title. ArTX)ng the various sources, Moody'sMunicipal Manual was the one source with the most comprehensive list ofactive public authorities.

To further identify and classify authorities, the secondary data collectionwas followed by telephone interviews with researchers from state libraries andlegislative research bureaus in thirty states and with information officers andmanagers of ten large public authorities. The interviews with state researchershelped to discover authorities that are not operational and those that areactually special districts. The discussions with the authority personnel clarifiedthe policy functions of authorities.

THE DISTRIBUTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES

After cross-checking sources, a total of 6,352 state and local publicauthorities were identified in the United States. This number is slightly lowerthan the 7,000 authorities Walsh (1978) estimated were in the nation and isconsiderably smaller than the 29,532 special distnct governments the CensusBureau counted in 1987. The list includes authorities that serve both smallneighborhoods and entire states. The inventory encompasses authorities withonly one part-time, unpaid employee, and authorities that have thousands ofworkers, managed by executives with salaries comparable to the presidents oflarge private corporations. Entities are identified that receive their revenues fromvarious combinations of bonds, grants, user fees, and tax subsidies.

Table 1 shows the distribution of states with the most public authorities.Pennsylvania leads all states with 1,870 public authorities, or nearly 30 percentof the total. Generally, the states with more authorities either have legislationwhich gives local jurisdictions broad discretion to establish quasi-governmentalagencies or a body of law that facilitates the establishment of authorities withouthaving to formulate new legislation.

Table 2 shows the distribution of authorities by functional policy area.These categories were derived from previous studies (Bollens, 1957) and


reports (U.S. Census Bureau, 1987; Institute of Public Administration, 1987), butexpanded and altered to take into account the full range of services, programs,and facilities for which authorities are responsible.

Table 1

The Fifteen States with the Most Public Authorities

Number Percentage

PennsylvaniaGeorgiaTexasNew YorkNew JerseyAlabamaCaliforniaFloridaMichiganOklahomaIllinoisNorth CarolinaKentuckyMinnesotaWisconsinOthers

Total 6,352 100.0%

An authority was placed within a policy area if its primary responsibilitieswere in that area. Public authorities involved with more than one function wereclassified as multi-purpose. The few authorities that implement a program oroperate a facility unrelated to their major function were placed within the policycategory which most closely reflected their primary purpose. For example. NewJersey's Highway Authority was classified as a transportatbn authority becauseits chief purpose is to maintain the Garden State Parkway, even though it alsooperates a small performing arts center.

The majority of state and local authorities in Table 2 are directly involvedwith housing and environmental protection. The largest authorities-in terms ofempbyees, debt, and expenditures-are multi-purpose organizations thatimplement several poibies and operate somewhat like general purposegovernments.

1,870769343267188182178167161144140130122119100

1,472

30.0%12.35.54.23.02.92.82.72.62.32.22.12.01.91.6

23.6


Table 2

The Distribution of Pubiic Authorities by Poiicy Area

HousingEnvironmental ProtectionEconomic DevelopmentPublic Use FacilitiesMulti-PurposeTransportationHealthRecreationMarine ServicesUtilitiesEducation

Total

Number

2,8631,166

8694283222362101571089456

6,352

Percentage

46%19147543CNJ

CNJ

21

100%

Table 3 provides a brief description of selected authorities in each policyarea. For housing, two authorities are described to account for important organi-zatbnal differences. Based on recent annual reports and other publications.Table 3 identifies each authority's creation date, major sources of funding,typical activities, and kinds of impact.

POLiCY ACTiViTiES

The remainder of this essay elaborates on the critical activities andidentifies the key issues for public authorities in the 10 policy areas.

Economic development authorities axe involved in the provision of loans,tax abatements, and other incentives to encourage the development of industryand business. The mission of these authorities is to create new jobs, add eco-nomic value to the local or state economy, attract new businesses, and increasetax receipts. Economic development authorities are relatively new: most werecreated in the 1970s and early 1980s to take advantage of federal tax provi-sions allowing for states and cities to issue tax-exempt bonds to financecommercial and industrial development.

According to the present data, 23 states have independent economicdevelopment authorities. The more visible authorities function at the state level;the majority operate in counties and cities. Georgia and New York togetherhave over 600 local economic devebpment organizations. Although they are still


popular with state and local officials, the establishment of new economic devel-opment authorities and the activity within existing ones has slowed considerablysince the Tax Reform Act of 1986 made industrial development projects unquali-fied for tax-exempt status (Lemov, 1989).

Education authorities are involved with the construction, maintenance,operation, and support of school facilities and the provision of loans and grantsto postsecondary students. These authorities typically operate at the state leveland receive their funding from a combination of tax-exempt bonds, federalgrants, state subsidies, and interest payments.

The 55 major education authorities in the United States are about equallydivided between those that construct facilities and those that supply financialassistance to undergraduate and graduate college students. According to sev-eral recent annual reports, the financial status of educational constructionauthorities, especially for those that build dormitories, has been much betterthan for those which provide financial aid to students. This is principallybecause of rising defaults, competition from non-profit financial aid corporations,and the decline in federal grants.

Environmental protection authorities implement a wide array of pro-grams. These authorities construct and manage sanitary storm sewers, sewagetreatment and disposal facilities; collect, transport, and dispose of solid wastes,hazardous wastes, and other refuse; and finance irrigation, drainage, flood, andpollution control operations. Within this category we can also include the fewpublic authorities that conserve, promote, and develop natural resources suchas soil, water, forests, minerals, and wildlife.

The environmental protection authority is the fastest growing type ofauthority (Standard and Poor's, 1989). There has been a particularly rapidgrowth in authorities that finance public and private pollution control facilitiesand operations. North Carolina, for example, now has a pollution control finan-cing authority in almost every county.

Among aii types of authorities, the environmental protection authority thatdisposes of sewage is the strongest financially. Sewer authorities are rankedamong the safest investments because the demand for their services is not aselastic as it is for authorities that operate bridges, hospitals, toll roads, and thelike (Standard and Poor's, 1989). This type of authority is prevalent in Penn-sylvania, New Jersey, Texas, and California.

Health authorities construct, maintain, operate, and support healthfacilities. Some health authorities are only involved with financing facilities;others actually operate hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, or homes for the aged.Both types of authorities are a response to the growing demand for health


CO

ft.

o

3

O

na.

II0)

COCO «•-

o on 0)

•oc(0

I"oQ.

20.

o.

00

(A

CD

c

3

iS(AUl

•co

CL

OS

O0.

o

O.O Q.

i

a>

I8

UJ

IffII

It

1<0

S 1

•D ifl Qc ciS« 2

c2 a,

U7

C

o'«3

s.£<2 CD

l

.2 J

E £P o>

«A' 2 l

23 C sir

B

=; O O(A0)

O W (D ffl(A 0 C <^

•g-5• ^ ffl

' 3 r-

<A

C

(A

C

15• _ O j •>- ^Q? *z£ QJ QJrtj •" rtj rtj

inr

10) C> 03

CM

I» 53-B

;s

u.£if

1^

IIlI'i

c.2rt ui

i li1.8 | 5I -DE8P8J

c o ^ *= .£2-*^ 5 TO**= ® S .E S

B

CA

I

3.2

SIO> (0

(A

"ifo>

0 0

^

O

ItE<T Q

IIZU.

'(A

•t

Illl

CO

i l lis?

Q? O rt

(A

o

0

2 c0)0)

2 cCD o

x: 3


ia.o

o

1 $- 5

-I

Cw (J) Q) —r

« c»c.2O to O> CA

CA

0C

£ i

§

•IS^ CA

CO

•i'iC A *

litCA

O•§^5i

o0

8

2 T3

«;= to

0

0

O

SB^ ^to c

ME

CA

CA

0

i

CA ^ 0

U OJ3

IIO) 0

3 - 2

CMCM

O(A

x:O(A

if

E3

CO

IfII

0 Q 1II

2to

<X> 3

E£(£> (A

C\J g

Isli

«At3

CA0

i£

r

^

Is

t»5£

O CL 0 U

CA

toof

Ifi5

Tor.eg

{!i

•J'"-2

l

JO

cs.«

fi IIl0

ie0

l•B "' iS ^ Cl l

i

(0

i3

1oQ.

£ sJJ

COIOO)

00

0>CNJ

II§£•?< to

o o

3

E


services. The assumption is that private institutions can not financially meethealth care demands because they are unable to accumulate excess funds fromoperating revenues, borrow bw-interest capital, and obtain tax-supportedsubsidies.

As the nation's elderly population has grown, there has been a corres-ponding Irrcrease in the number of health authorities, especially in Florida,Georgia, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. The 32 states with health authorities nowhave an outstanding bond debt of well over $30 billion dollars (Standard andPoor's, 1989). Nonetheless, the New Jersey Health Care Facilities Authority(1987), one of the largest such authorities in the nation, has noted that creditratings have recently been downgraded for some health related bonds andcapital has become more expensive to obtain. This is due to a continuingdebate over the appropriateness of tax-exempt health care financing.

Housing authorities construct and manage public housing and private re-development projects, provide loans or mortgages to individuals and businesses,and engage in other activities to promote or aid housing and community devel-opment. There are two kinds of housing authorities: those which use revenuebonds to fund housing construction or bw-interest mortgages and those whichbuild low and middle income housing projects and then manage these projectswith federal grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). There are over 50 housing finance authorities and approximately 2,800authorities that manage housing.

Housing authorities are perhaps investigated more than any other type ofauthority. Probes in 1989 discovered, for example, the executive director of thePassaic Housing Authority in New Jersey had taken thousands of dollars inineligible expenses (Zolkos, 1990); the Annapolis Housing Authority in Marylandhad considerable irregularities in its nfx)dernization program (U.S. GeneralAccounting Office, 1989); and the Chicago Housing Authority had generallymismanaged its housing projects (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1989).

Although occasionally troublesome, housing authorities are still seen asgood way to finance and provide low income housing alternatives. In fact, manynew housing program initiatives emphasize stronger, more independent localhousing authorities and a less influential role for HUD (Bratt, 1989). A 31percent increase in the issuance of housing bonds since 1988 suggests thathousing authorities will continue to grow and expand (ALHFA Housing FinanceReport, 1989).

Marine service authorities construct, maintain, and operate anything to dowith rivers, lakes, oceans, and other waterways (including canals, ports, harbors,docks, wharves, and terminals). These authorities usually have the word "port"in their titles. They are the oldest form of public authority. Modeled after thesuccessful Port of New York Authority, many were created in the 1920s and1930s as a public response to problems arising from railroad control of com-mercial port areas (Sherman, 1985).


Tiiere are 108 port authorities in the nation that specialize in the deliveryof marine services (not Including multi-purpose authorities with "port" names).Port authorities typically own several facilities, including shipyards, marinas,grain terminals, and docks. Increasingly, port authorities have taken on functionsindirectly related to watenvays: for instance, many port authorities now tout theirimportance to economic development. This shift into other policy areas has evenlead port authorities to adopt completely new functions and to change theirnames: for example, the Savannah Ports Authority in Georgia recently becamethe Savannah Economic Development Authority.

Pubiic use faciiities authorities construct, purchase, lease, maintain, andoperate government buildings, parking lots, garages, and other such facilities.These authorities also build, finance, and operate recreational, cultural, andscientific facilities and activities; including golf courses, playfields, playgrounds,public beaches, swimming pools, tennis courts, parks, auditoriums, stadiums,auto camps, recreation piers, marinas, botanical gardens, galleries, museums,zoos, convention centers, and exhibition halls. Such authorities are used mainlyto finance capital improvements without increasing taxes. For many facilities, thepreferred financing mechanism has been the lease-backed bond that is repaidfrom the rental payments of a private operator.

There are 34 states with authorities that finance and manage public usefacilities. California, New York, and Pennsylvania have the most such authori-ties. In the past, many of these authorities financed parking facilities. In recentyears, parking revenue bonds have been issued less as bond raters have cometo view parking systems as risky investments. According to Standard and Poor's(1989), this is primarily due to the elastic demand for parking and the increasedcompetition from private firms.

It is claimed that these authorities often construct facilities before privatefirms have even committed to using them, thereby, weakening the position ofthe authority and local officials in lease negotiations (Sullivan, 1987). In thecase of stadiums for sports teams, the creation of such authorities has beenfaulted for giving wealthy baseball teams and other private firms a publicsubsidy (Sullivan, 1987). Walsh (1978:140) found such assessments were dis-missed by state and local officials because authorities are viewed as a tax-freeway of promoting civic pride and building needed facilities. This is probablywhy authorities have only recentiy started or completed the construction ofbaseball stadiums in Maryland, Florida, and Illinois.

Transportation auttiorities construct, maintain, and operate highways,streets, and related structures: toll roads, bridges, and tunnels; airports andheliports; and public mass transit systems, such as ferries, buses, trains, andsubways. Transit systems established to transport elementary and secondaryschool pupils are not included because they are operated by school districts.With the exception of airport authorities, many of these authorities emerged inthe 1950s when increased automobile traffic created a demand for new roads

938 Policy Studies Joumal

and weakened the ability of private businesses to operate mass transportationsystems (Doig, 1966).

There are 36 states which use public authorities to finance or operatevarious aspects of transportation. The Institute of Public Administration (1987)found that 56 out of 130 major airport operators were public authorities. Publicauthorities control large mass transit systems in New York, Philadelphia,Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, Seattle, and several other urban centers. Publicauthorities also maintain many of the well-known thoroughfares in the country,including the New Jersey Turnpike, the Illinois Toli Road, the Kansas Turnpike,and the Orlando-Orange County Expressway.

The current conditbn of transportation authorities is mixed. There are tollroad authorities which began in the 1950s and 1960s, such as the New YorkThruway Authority, that may be dissolved because their bondable debt hasreached retirement (Russo, 1990). Despite the fact that cities need to cut autoemissions (Pious, Jr., 1990), continuing decreases in Urban Mass TransportationGrants have caused at least one transit system to run out of money (theNiagara Frontier Transportation Authority in Buffalo, New York) and promptedother systems to raise fares to the point of reducing ridership (New York CityTransit Authority). In contrast to other forms of transportation, increasing airlinetraffic has given airport authorities some justification for raising fees, issuing newbonds, building facilities, and generally expanding their operations (Standard andPoor's, 1989).

Utiiity authorities support and operate faciiities that generate electricity,gas, and water. These authorities also finance and develop alternative fuels andenergy sources, such as nuclear and solar power. Many of today's utility author-ities are modeled after the Power Authority of New York and the TennesseeValley Authority, both established in the 1930s. The assumption, although notempirically confirmed, is that power authorities are able to provide largersavings to consumers than are private companies and municipalities (Walsh,1978).

There are 18 states with utility authorities; New Jersey and Pennsylvaniahave the most. Power supply authorities are often significant revenue producers.For example, in 1989, the New York State Power Authority had $1.4 billion inrevenues, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia had $546 million, and theLower Colorado River Authority had $306 million (Colby, 1990). The continuedproductivity of power authorities is dependent on whether authorities can toobtain acceptable sites and gain the approval of communities for the construc-tion of new facilities (Standard and Poor's, 1989).

Muiti'purpose authorities implement two or more public policies. Someof these authorities operate like municipal governments. Other multi-purposeauthorities have evolved from a single function. To be multi-purpose, anauthority must implement several functions that alone could provide funding forthe authority's existence. Authorities may diversify into more than one functional


area to prevent their dissolution, inprove their investment portfolio, or shift fundsfrom a productive operation to a less profitable service.

Most of 322 multi-purpose authorities are in Pennsylvania. A number ofport authorities are multi-purpose, including the Port Authority of New York andNew Jersey, the Massachusetts Port Authority, the Port of San Diego Authority,and the Port of Jacksonville Authority. Although many authorities might wish tobecome a multi-purpose organization, they are often prohibited from doing soby state legislation.

A major problem for the multi-purpose authority is its inability to rely on theservices of other government agencies. For example, since bcal police andwelfare departments are outside their purview, some of these authorities, suchas the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, have been forced to dealdirectly with crime and homelessness in their transportation facilities. As aresult, multi-purpose authorities have had to hire police, create homeless shel-ters, and hire their own social workers. Such activities are a problem becauseof the potential negative effect on an authority's financial performance.

CONCLUSION

Public authorities are clearly involved in the policy process. Governmentshave found a way to use public authorities to accomplish almost every type ofpublic objective (with the notable exception of criminal justice, welfare, andvarious regulatory programs). If the next 50 years are anything like the last 50,then we can expect to encounter new public authorities and an expansion ofexisting authorities.

There is an enormous amount of research on public authorities to beaccomplished. We need to know about the different ways that public authoritiesare organized and the effects of organizational design on the operation ofauthorities. Research on how to effectively control authorities is important forimproving the legislative oversight process. The analysis of how authoritymanagers choose among competing external and internal expectatbns is neces-sary for understanding accountability in the public sector. Finally, additbnalstudies of how authorities formulate and implement public policies is critical toadvance our knowledge of the policy process and the role of public authoritiesin American society.

APPENDIX

Primary Sources for the DistributionClassification, and Description of Public Authorities

American Associatbn of Port Authorities. 1988. Mini-Directory of Port Authorities.

Authorities Association of New Jersey. 1990. Directory of Members.

940 Policy Studies Journai

Delaware Solid Waste Authority. 1988. Annuai Report.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs. 1986. Directory of EconomicDevelopment Authorities in Georgia.

Georgia Secretary of State's Office. 1989. Georgia Official Directory of UnitedStates Congressman, State and County Officers.

Goldburger, Paul. 1989. "Baseball As It Use to Be." New York Times, Novem-ber 11, 1989, p. 40H.

Florida House of Representatives. 1990. Guide to Florida Government.

Idaho Health Facilities Authority. 1988. Annual Report.

Illinois Tollway Authority. 1987. A Concise History.

Illinois Secretary of State's Office. 1990. Illinois Blue Book.

Michigan Department of Management and Budget. 1989. Elective and AppointiveState Officers.

Missouri Secretary of State's Office. 1989. Missouri Roster 1989-1990: ADirectory of State, District and County Officials.

Moody's Investor Service. 1989. Moody's Municipal Manual.

Mointor Company. 1989. State Yellow Book.

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia. 1988. Annual Report.

National Association of State Development Agencies. 1989. Directory of Incen-tives for Business Investment and Development in the United States: A State-by-State Guide.

National Council of Health Facilities Finance Authorities. 1990. Directory ofMembers.

New Hampshire Housing Finance Agency. 1989. Annual Report.

New Jersey Building Authority. 1988. Annual Report.

New Yort< City. 1989. The Greenbook: The Official Directory of the City of NewYork.

New York State Commission on Government Integrity. 1990. Underground Gov-ernment: Preliminary Report on Authorities and Other Public Corporations.

North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority. 1990. Annual Report.

Ohio Secretary of State's Office. 1990. Official Roster of Federal, State, andCounty Officers.

Oklahoma Department of Libraries. 1989. Oklahoma State Agencies, Boards,Commissions, Courts, Institutions, Legislature, and Officers.


Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs 1989. Directory of MunicipalAuthorities in Pennsylvania.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 1989. Annual Report.

Port of Corpus ChristI Authority. 1988. Annual Report.

Carroll Publishing Company. 1989. State Executive Directory.

United States Census Bureau. 1987. Govemment Organization.

United States Department of Housing and Urt)an Development. 1988. Directoryof Housirig Agencies.

United States Department of Transportation. 1988. Directory of Urban PublicTransportation Services.

Vermont Secretary of State's Office. 1989. Civil Government: Directory ofFederal, State, arid County Officials.

REFERENCES

Axelrod, Donald. 1989. A Budget Ouartet: Critical Policy and ManagementIssues (New Yor1<: St. Martin's).

Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies. 1989. "Trends and Devel-opments." Housing Finance Report, November/December, p. 6.

Bollens, John C. 1957. Special District Governments in the United States(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

Boschken, Herman L. 1982. "The Demands of Conflicting Change on PublicEnterprise: West Coast Seaport Development and Environmental Regu-latbn." Public Administration Review (May/June) :220-226.

Bratt, Rachel G. 1989. Rebuilding a Low-income Housing Policy (Philadelphia,PA: Terrple University Press).

Cohen, Julius Henry. 1946. They Builded Better Than They Knew (New York:Julian Messner).

Colby, Mary. 1990. "Invisible Govemments Grow as Locals Face Fund Short-ages." City and State, March, pp. 11, 25.

Doig, Jameson W. 1 9 8 3 . " . . . if I See A Murderous Fellow Sharpening a KnifeCleverly . . . The Wilson Dichotomy and the Public Authority Traditbn."Public Administration Review, July/August, pp. 292-304.

Doig, Jameson W. 1966. Metropolitan Politics and the New York Region (NewYork: Columbia University Press).


Gordon, Lincoln. 1938. The Public Corporation in Great Britain (New York:Oxford University Press).

Institute of Public Administration. 1986. Special Districts and Public Authoritiesin Public Works Provision.

Lemov. Penelope. 1989. "Please Congress Don't Let My IDBs Die. But if YouDo . . . " Governing, July, pp. 32-40.

New Jersey Health Care Facilities Financing Authority. 1987. Annual Report.

Pious, Jr., F.K. 1990. "Smog-Choked Cities Give Mass Transit a Lift." City andState, March, p. 16.

Russo, Phillip. 1990. "Which Way for the Thruway?" Empire State Report,February, pp. 42-46.

Sherman, Rexford B. 1985. Public Port Agencies in the United States andCanada (Alexarxlria, VA: American Association of Port Authorities).

Smith, Robert G. 1969. Public Authorities in Urban Areas (Washington, DC:National Association of Counties).

Standard and Poor's Corporation. 1989. SUSP's Municipal Finance Criteria (NewYork: Standard and Poor's)

Sullivan, Neil A. 1987. The Dodgers Move West (New York: Oxford).

United States General Accounting Office. 1989. Chicago Housing AuthorityTaking Steps to Address Longstanding Problems (Washington, DC: Gov-ernment Printir>g Office)

United States General Accounting Office. 1989. HUD Oversight ofthe AnnapolisHousing Authority (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office).

Walsh, Annmarie Hauck. 1978. The Public's Business: The Politics and Prac-tices of Government Corporations (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Documents

THE POLICY ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES