In 1958, John F. McCarthy and Edgar F. Kaiser proposed the Golden Gate Authority to coordinate, plan for, and develop regional transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area. This agency would have incorporated all Bay Area bridges, seaports, and airports and would have provided the foundation for general regional planning and metropolitan area government, with capacity to expand its jurisdiction and functions. As such, the proposal threatened the autonomy of local governments, whose officials rallied against it, evoking the principle of federalism under the rubric of “home rule.” In accounting for the defeat of the authority, this article describes local government officials as an independent interest group engaged in the decision-making process. It also considers some of the long-term implications of the defeat, including the reinforcement of a fragmented, federalist governmental structure at the local level.
Jon C. Teaford describes “giant metropolises splintered by the social and economic divisions endemic to American life.” Jon C. Teaford, The Twentieth-Century American City: Problem, Promise, Reality (Baltimore, 1986), iv. Most historians similarly emphasize social divisions, particularly race, in explaining the political fragmentation of metropolitan areas—suburban residents use local government to maintain segregation and prevent the redistribution of wealth, centralized decision-making would undermine their control. This study turns things around, not to refute the importance of social issues in shaping local political institutions, but to demonstrate that local governments can have an active, independent role in determining the outcome of political struggles. Also see Thomas J. Sugrue, Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit (Princeton, NJ, 1996); Robert O. Self, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Postwar Oakland (Princeton, NJ, 2003); Robert Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias: the Rise and Fall of Suburbia (New York, 1987); William B. Fulton, The Reluctant Metropolis: the Politics of Urban Growth in Los Angeles (Point Arena, CA, 1997); Greg Hise, Magnetic Los Angeles: Planning in the Twentieth-Century Metropolis (Baltimore , 1997).
2.
McCarthy could take credit for realizing the Richmond—San Rafael Bridge, which connected the Marin peninsula to the East Bay in 1956. In 1960 McCarthy was the “top vote getter” in Marin, and in 1961 he was viewed as a contender for governor. San Francisco Examiner , Feb. 7, 1961; San Rafael Independent Journal , Nov. 5, 14, 1960, Sept. 26, 1961.
3.
Louise Nelson Dyble, “Paying the Toll: A Political History of the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District, 1923-1971” (PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 2003); San Rafael Independent, July 18, 1940; San Francisco Examiner, Oct. 25, Dec. 10, 11, 19, 25, 1940.
4.
Seymour Mark Adler, “The Political Economy of Transit in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1945-1957” (PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1980); Richard M. Zettel, Urban Transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area (Berkeley, 1963); California Interim Committee on Transportation and Commerce, Transcript of Proceedings: Hearing on Mass Transportation Problems of the San Francisco Bay Area (Sacramento, 1959); Walter P. Hollmann, “ The Metropolitan Picture in California to 1980” ( paper presented at the Conference of the Governor's Metropolitan Commission , Sacramento, 1959); William Issel, “ `Land Values, Human Values, and the Preservation of the City's Treasured Appearance': Environmentalism, Politics, and the San Francisco Freeway Revolt.” Pacific Historical Review 68 (1999 ), 611-46.
5.
In addition to the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District, the Bay Area had the East Bay Municipal Utility District, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Pollution Control Board, the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, the Alameda—Contra Costa Transit District, and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. Mel Scott, The San Francisco Bay Area 2nd ed. ( Berkeley, 1985).
6.
Senate Interim Committee on Bay Area Problems, Final Report Recommending the Creation of a Golden Gate Authority in the San Francisco Bay Area (Sacramento, 1959 ); John F. McCarthy to Edgar F. Kaiser, July 15, 1958, carton 48, Edgar F. Kaiser Papers, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley (hereafter cited as E. F. Kaiser Papers).
7.
Trends 16 (March 1961), carton 47, E. F. Kaiser Papers; William Issel, “The New Deal and the Wartime Origins of San Francisco's Political Culture: the Case of Growth Politics and Policy,” in The Way We Really Were: The Golden State in the Second Great War, ed. Roger W. Lotchin (Urbana and Chicago, 2000), 68-92.
8.
Frank E. March quoted in Bollens, The Problems of Government, 115. At the time of its creation, six firms provided more than a third of BAC revenue: Bank of America, American Trust Company, Standard Oil of California, Pacific Gas and Electric, United States Steel Corporation, and Bechtel Corporation. Richard A. Sundeen, “ The Bay Area Council, Analysis of a Non-Governmental Metropolitan Organization ,” M. A. thesis, Stanford University, 1963.
9.
San Francisco Bay Area Council, Regional Planning Needs of the San Francisco Bay Area prepared by V. B. Stanbery ( San Francisco, 1954); Issel, “New Deal and Wartime Origins.”
10.
Oakland Tribune, April 1, 1969; San Francisco Examiner Oct. 25, 1964; Fortune Magazine, July 1951; Business Week, June 12, 1954; Cartons 3 and 4, E. F. Kaiser Papers.
11.
Jackson K. Putnam, “The Progressive Legacy in California: Fifty Years of Politics” in California Progressivism Revisited, eds. William Deverell and Tom Sitton (Berkeley, 1994); William Issel, “Business Power and Political Culture in San Francisco, 1900-1940,” Journal of Urban History16 (1989), 52-77.
12.
In many urban areas, business-dominated civic associations similar to the BAC sponsored efforts to coordinate metropolitan area policy and to plan on a large scale in the post-World War II period, including the Allegheny Conference on Community Development in Pittsburgh, Civic Progress in St. Louis, the Citizens' League in Minneapolis-St. Paul, and the Greater Boston Economic Study Committee. Mel Scott, American City Planning Since 1890 (Berkeley, 1969), 430-452; Richard A. Walker and Michael K. Heiman, “ Quiet Revolution for Whom?” Annals of the Association of American Geographers71 (1981 ), 67-83; Jon C. Teaford, The Rough Road to Renaissance: Urban Revitalization in America, 1940-1985 (Baltimore, 1990), 44-81; Roy Lubove, Twentieth Century Pittsburgh: Government, Business and Environmental Change ( Pittsburgh, Pa., 1995), 106-141; Joseph Heathcott and Máire Agnes Murphy, “ Corridors of Flight, Zones of Renewal: Industry, Planning, and Policy in the Making of Metropolitan St. Louis, 1940-1980” Journal of Urban History31 (2005), 151-189.
13.
Consulting Engineers Coverdale & Colpitts to Edgar F. Kaiser, July 16, 1958; John F. McCarthy to Edgar F. Kaiser July 15, 1958, both in carton 48, E. F. Kaiser Papers.
14.
San Francisco Bay Area Council, Report on a Proposed Public Authority for the Bay Area prepared by Coverdale & Colpitts (San Francisco, 1958), 1-2, 132, 135.
15.
Edgar F. Kaiser to Robert Bradford, Jan. 10, 1961, carton 48, E. F. Kaiser Papers.
16.
San Francisco Bay Area Council, Report on a Proposed Public Authority, 7, 135.
17.
Edgar F. Kaiser, Address to the San Francisco Downtown Association, Feb. 16, 1959, carton 50, E. F. Kaiser Papers.
18.
San Francisco Bay Area Council, Report on a Proposed Public Authority, 40, 43, 127-29.
19.
San Francisco Bay Area Council, Press Release , Dec. 10, 1958, carton 48, E. F. Kaiser Papers.
20.
Norm Nicholson to Edgar F. Kaiser, Dec. 1, 1958, carton 47, E. F. Kaiser Papers.
21.
Senate Interim Committee on Bay Area Problems, Final Report, 64.
22.
William S. Downing, “ Mr. Kaiser's Activity on Behalf of Golden Gate Authority,” Dec. 17, 1959, carton 48, E. F. Kaiser Papers.
23.
San Francisco Bay Area Council, Press Release , Dec. 10, 1958, carton 48, E. F. Kaiser Papers.
24.
Frank E. Marsh, “ Statement of Frank E. Marsh, Executive Vice President, San Francisco Bay Area Council, before the Legislative Committee of the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District,” (San Francisco, 1959 ), box 94, District Secretary's Vault, Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, San Francisco (hereafter cited as DS Vault).
25.
Norm Nicholson to Chad F. Calhoun, Jan. 31, 1959, carton 47, E. F. Kaiser Papers.
26.
Claude B. Hutchison, “ Presentation to Sub-committee on Planning of the Assembly Interim Committee on Conservation, Planning and Public Works,” (Berkeley , 1958); John D. Phillips, “A Report to the Berkeley City Council on Metropolitan Government” ( Berkeley, 1958); Revan Tranter, ABAG: A Concise History (Berkeley, 2001); Minutes of the Alameda County Mayors' Conference, April 10, 1959, Oakland, CA, and July 10, 1959, San Leandro CA.
27.
League of California Cities, A Statement of Principles on Metropolitan Problems (n.p., 1959), Collected ABAG Materials, 1960-1994, Institute of Governmental Studies Library, University of California, Berkeley .
28.
Oakland Tribune, March 21, 1959; Kaiser, “ Draft—Statement for Edgar Kaiser, Mayors' Meeting, March 20” (1959), carton 47, E. F. Kaiser Papers.
29.
Wes McClure , “The Development of a Metropolitan Government Structure in the San Francisco Bay Area,” ( paper presented at the Meeting of Mayors of Cities of the Nine Bay Area Counties , Berkeley, March 20, 1959), box 94, DS Vault.
30.
Marin Independent Journal, Feb. 29, 1959; March 6, 10, 1959; San Francisco Examiner, March 12, 1959; Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District, Resolution no. 5078, March 9, 1959; James Adam, General Manager's Report , March 13, 1959 and April 10, 1959, Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District, San Francisco, box 94, DS Vault.
31.
Matt A. Graham, Remarks (Radio KTIM, San Rafael March 12, 1959), box 94, DS Vault.
32.
Dan E. London to San Francisco Board of Supervisors, March 12, 1959, box 94, DS Vault.
33.
Dion R. Holm, “Digest of Senate Bill No. 853 Creating a Golden Gate Transportation Commission” (San Francisco , 1961).
34.
Citizens for a Golden Gate Authority, Press Release, “Statement of Edgar F. Kaiser President, San Francisco Bay Area Council,” March 26, 1959, carton 48, E. F. Kaiser Papers.
35.
Marin Independent Journal, Nov. 28, 30, 1960 ; San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 29, 30, 1960 , Feb. 7, 1961 , Feb. 22, 1963; San Francisco Examiner, Feb. 7, 1961.
36.
Senate Interim Committee on Bay Area Problems, Final Report, 10; Marin Independent Journal, April 24, 1959.
37.
San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Resolution Endorsing Senate Bill No. 576 Provided Amendments Proposed by City and County are Adopted, San Francisco, April 20, 1959.
38.
Governor [Edmond G.] Brown, Statement Re: Golden Gate Authority, April 24, 1959, carton 48, E. F. Kaiser Papers.
39.
San Francisco Chronicle, May 27, 1959.
40.
Members of the Commission were Kaiser, Thomas M. Carlson of Carlson, Collins, Gordon & Bold (a Richmond construction firm), Leo H. Strauss of the International Building Service Corporation, Sam B. Eubanks of the San Francisco—Oakland Newspaper Guild, Robert B. Bradford, Director of the California Department of Public Works, Joseph L. Eichler of Eichler Homes, Inc., and William Malone, San Francisco attorney. Brown rejected a candidate suggested by Hutchison. “Golden Gate Authority Commission—the Background Story” (San Francisco, 1960), Golden Gate Authority Commission Papers, California State Archives, Sacramento (hereafter cited as GGAC Papers); Minutes of the Alameda County Mayors' Conference, Regular Meeting, Dec. 11, 1959, San Leandro, CA.
41.
Golden Gate Authority Commission, Summary of All Public Hearings Held by the Commission ( Sacramento, 1961), 3, GGAC Papers.
42.
Golden Gate Authority Commission, Transcript of Public Hearing: Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District (San Rafael, May 12, 1960), 15, 30, GGAC Papers; Golden Gate Authority Commission, Transcript of Public Hearing: Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District (San Francisco, Aug. 10, 1960), 23-25, GGAC Papers.
43.
San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 14, 15, 16, 1960.
44.
Ed Salzman, Radio Editorial (San Francisco, KFAX, Aug. 18, 1960), box 85, Iron Mountain Facility, Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District, San Francisco (hereafter cited as IM Facility).
45.
Golden Gate Authority Commission, Transcript of Public Hearing: Governmental Aspects of a Regional Bay Area Authority (Berkeley, June 8, 1960), 3, 5, GGAC Papers.
46.
Golden Gate Authority Commission, Transcript of Public Hearing, 7, 40.
47.
Golden Gate Authority Commission, Preliminary Report on the Feasibility of a Regional Transportation Agency for the San Francisco Bay Area (San Francisco, 1961 ).
48.
Oakland Tribune, Feb. 4, 1961.
49.
Radio Broadcast (San Francisco, KQBY, March 8, 1961), box 94, DS Vault.
50.
M.A. Graham, remarks before the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, San Francisco, April 3, 1961, box 94, DS Vault.
51.
Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District, Memorandum Re: SB853—Opposition , May 10, 1961, box 94, DS Vault.
52.
Arthur C. Jenkins to James Adam, Aug. 15, 1960, box 85, IM Facility.
53.
[Transcript of] Senate Transportation Committee Hearing, April 25, 1961, box 104, DS Vault; Folder 88, Senator Randolph Collier Papers, California State Archives, Sacramento (hereafter cited as Collier Papers).
54.
Senate Transportation Committee, Hearing on Senate Bill 853 (Sacramento, May 11, 1961), 4, box 104, DS Vault.
Collier ruled the measure defeated based on a voice vote, and refused to conduct a formal roll call. San Francisco Chronicle , May 12, 1961.
57.
San Francisco Chronicle June 9, 11, 1961; San Francisco Examiner May 15, June 12, 1961.
58.
Kaiser, Report on GGTC Bill to All Bay Area Council Trustees (June 15, 1961), carton 47, E. F. Kaiser Papers.
59.
McCarthy called it a “victory dinner.” Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District, Publicity and Advertising Committee, “Reply to Allegations of State Senator John F. McCarthy Relating to Administrative, Financial and Managerial Affairs of the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District,” Dec. 6, 1962, box 204, DS Vault.
60.
San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 28, 1962.
61.
San Francisco Bay Area Council, “ Report of the Year's Activities for 1961,” (San Francisco , 1961); Trends 16 (May, 1961), 1, carton 47, E. F. Kaiser Papers.
62.
Privately, BAC partisans were worried. Downing wrote, “I have tried to use a conciliatory tone because I am afraid [local officials] could hurt us in this new ABAG organization.” William S. Downing to Thomas Carlson, Feb. 2, 1961, carton 47, E. F. Kaiser Papers.
63.
Accounts of ABAG's early history include: Institute for Local Self Government.ABAG Appraised: A Quinquennial Review of Voluntary Regional Co-Operative Action through the Association of Bay Area Governments (Berkeley, 1967 ); Victor Jones , “Bay Area Regionalism: Institutions, Processes, and Programs” in Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Regional Governance: Promise and Performance vol. 2 (Washington, DC, 1973), 75-110; Douglas D. Detling and Ann-Louise Bacon, “ Areawide Environmental Management: Six Decades of Regional Approaches in the Bay Area,” (Berkeley, 1977); Diedre A. Heitman “ The Association of Bay Area Governments: A Critical Look at the Bay Area's Regional Planning Agency” M.A. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1982. On councils of governments generally, see Melvin B. Mogulof, Governing Metropolitan Areas: A Critical Review of Councils of Governments and the Federal Role (Washington, DC, 1971); Nelson Wikstrom, Councils of Governments: A Study of Political Incrementalism ( Chicago, 1977).
64.
Terrence J. McDonald, “Reply to Professor Katznelson ,” Studies in American Political Development3 (1989), 54; Samuel P. Hays, “The Social Analysis of American Political History,” Political Science Quarterly80 (1965), 393-94; David C. Hammack, “Problems in the Historical Study of Power in the Cities and Towns of the United States, 1800-1960” American Historical Review83 (1979), 323-49; McDonald, “Putting Politics Back into the History of the American City,” American Quarterly, 34 (1982), 200-209; McDonald, “The Problem of the Political in Recent American Urban History: Liberal Pluralism and the Rise of Functionalism ,” Social History10 (1985), 323-345; McDonald, “ The Burdens of Urban History: The Theory of the State in Recent American Social History,” Studies in American Political Development3 (1989), 3-29.
65.
Theda Skocpol observes: “[S]tate actions will regularly take forms that attempt to reinforce the authority, political longevity, and social control of the state organizations whose incumbents generated the relevant policies or policy ideas . . . one (hidden or overt) feature of all autonomous state actions will be the reinforcement of the prerogatives of collectivities of state officials.” Skocpol, “ Bringing the State Back In,” 15. See also James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions: the Organizational Basis of Politics (New York, 1989); Daniel P. Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Networks, Reputations and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862-1928 (Princeton,2001); Kathleen Ann Thelen and Sven Steinmo, “ Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” in Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis , eds. Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Ann Thelen, and Frank Longstreth (Cambridge, 1992 ); Colin Hay and Daniel Wincott, “Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism,” Political Studies46 (1998), 951-957; Ellen M. Immergut, “The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism,” Politics & Society26 (1998), 5-34; B. Guy Peters, Institutional Theory in Political Science: the New Institutionalism, 2nd ed. (London, 2005).
66.
As Wendell E. Pritchett points out in this issue, the “metropolitan problem” referred to be the challenge of regional governmental coordination and public administration in the 1960s, and federal policy reflected this. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962, the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, and the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 all included requirements for regional transportation planning. The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 also required greater governmental coordination at the regional level. Stephens and Wikstrom, Metropolitan Government and Governance, 29-50; Peter Hall, Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century Updated ed. (Oxford, 1996), 137-173; Walker and Heiman, “ Quiet Revolution for Whom?”; Mark H. Rose and Bruce E. Seely, “Getting the Interstate Built: Road Engineers and the Implementation of Public Policy, 1955-1985,” Journal of Policy History2 (1990), 23-55.
