This paper concerns the limitations on integrating visual management into the coastal zone planning process as exemplified by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a state with a strong tradition of “home rule”; and a CZM implementation program based on a “networking”; of existing state authorities. The implications of the Massachusetts experience are that: (a) management of esthetic resources at the state level continues to be much less of a priority than management of ecological resources such as wetlands or floodplains; (b) visual management has yet to engender a strongly supportive constituency beyond that concerned with historic preservation; (c) project review focusing on visual impacts may be a more appropriate activity for local rather than state government; and (d) the technical aspects of visual management or impact assessment are far more advanced than their political acceptability. Political realities, together with the decision that implementation of the program should be based on a networking of existing authorities, thus determined the degree to which visual management could be incorporated into the state's program. As a result, the program's principal instruments of visual management became a strengthening of existing programs such as Wild and Scenic Rivers, reliance on wetland protection statutes to indirectly protect natural scenic values, and the use of the federal consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act to foster focused growth patterns through provision of publicly funded infrastructures. Esthetically oriented project review, with the exception of potential impacts on historic sites, was left to the discretion of local government, and a technical assistance program was created to provide funding or professional skills to communities interested in developing their own esthetic controls or design review processes. Maine, Rhode Island, and other New England states have followed a similar course.