AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 71extensive speculations, including rancho subdivision, and in citrus fruitgrowing and marketing. Brothers Joseph P. and Robert Maclay Widney wereeffective local lobbyists for the Southern Pacific and for harbor improvements,and the latter helped organize the city’s initial transit line. TheOhio-born Widneys, nephews of state senator Charles Maclay, another realtor,were respectively a Los Angeles district court judge and president of theLos Angeles County Medical Association, and both helped form the chamberof commerce.Jaher concludes by pointing out that “the Lankersheim-Van Nuys and Flint-Bixby connections also conducted vast real estate operations” in the LosAngeles area (595).In an effort to increase access to commerce and attract capital to thearea, “several merchants and landowners organized a Committee of Thirtyin May 1872” and charged it with inquiring whether the Southern Pacificrailroad “could be induced to route its trunk line through Los Angeles”(Fogelson 1967, 52 [emphasis in original]). The Southern Pacific, the leadingrailroad in the state, agreed to run 50 miles of its “main track” in LosAngeles County if the county government agreed to cover “5 percent of itsassessed value,” which amounted to $610,000 (Fogelson 1967, 53 [emphasisin original]). 2In light of the railroad’s offer, Fogelson (1967), in a history of early LosAngeles, explains that William Hyde, a representative of the SouthernPacific in Los Angeles and of the aforementioned Committee of Thirty, “persuadedthe county Board of Supervisors to place before the voters a propositiongranting $610,000 to the Southern Pacific for fifty miles of trunk line.”Fogelson points out that “at first the bond issue encountered widespread hostility.”Apparently, “disillusionment with the railroads was so pervasive in LosAngeles that in the last election each candidate had forthrightly declared hisantipathy to rail subsidies.” He adds that “several ranchers from southern LosAngeles County, who feared that the donation would increase their taxes,channeled this general dissatisfaction into effective opposition” (53).“Standing against them,” however, “and in favor of the proposition wereLos Angeles merchants and landowners who considered a [railroad] connectionworth any cost and the Southern Pacific offer their only opportunity”(53). Leading among this pro–Southern Pacific group was Robert M. Widney,“a prominent lawyer and landowner,” who published an “influential” pamphlet,entitled “Los Angeles County Subsidy,” circulated just prior to the voteon the subsidy (Fogelson 1967, 55). Widney’s (1956 [1872]) central point inthis pamphlet was that the Southern Pacific proposed connection to the citywould greatly increase Los Angeles’s trade and population by making it the“second railroad center on the [Pacific] Coast” (358). The specific advantageof having the Southern Pacific run its main line to Los Angeles is that it
72THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONwould connect the area “with the commercial points of the world [especiallySan Francisco], and does it by more direct routes than any other road can”(351). Fogelson (1967) reports that “by November the pressure from the businesscommunity had eroded the antipathy to the subsidies,” and the paymentto the Southern Pacific was approved (55).Even before the establishment of the Southern Pacific extension, largelandholders sought to attract migrants and capital to the area. Most significantly,“the Southern California Immigration Association, founded by theLos Angeles Board of Trade and supported by prominent property owners,persistently advertised the entire region” (Fogelson 1967, 63). After theSouthern Pacific came to Los Angeles, and connected it with San Franciscoand New Orleans, this effort started to gain traction. Between 1880 and1890, the Los Angeles population grew “from 11,183 to 50,395,” as did itseconomy—with the city’s “assessed value” growing from “$7 million to $39million” (Fogelson 1967, 67). This population and economic growth were nomean feats, since numerous areas throughout the country were seeking toattract newcomers and investment. Fogelson explains that Los Angeles’sboosters had to compete with “the Great Lakes, Prairie, Rocky Mountain,Southwest, and Pacific Northwest states.” Moreover, “nearly all their governmentshoped to accelerate settlement and increase property values bychanneling the flow of immigration to their regions.” These efforts were also“supported by commercial associations seeking to foster trade and encourageindustry and assisted by transcontinental railroads trying to stimulate demandfor their lands and traffic for their lines” (64–65; also see Robbins 1994).Despite this intense competition, the Los Angeles area became a vibrantarea of population growth and economic activity by the 1920s (Fogelson1967). The city’s railroad connections, which came to include the Santa Ferailroad, and its temperate weather made Los Angeles a leading tourist destination,as well as a magnet to affluent retirees—especially from the upperMidwest (Fogelson 1967, chap. 4). In addition to its natural amenities andinfrastructure, the city’s growth was spurred by an aggressive publicity campaignundertaken by the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. Fogelson(1967) points out that “between 1890 and 1920 the Chamber effectivelymobilized the community’s resources for promotional enterprises.” He goes onto describe these enterprises in some detail:[The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce] established a permanentexhibit of regional agriculture in Los Angeles, encouraged local farmers toparticipate in fairs and expositions, and shipped their produce to NewOrleans, Omaha, Chicago, and San Francisco. More than ten million personssaw these displays of oranges, grapes, and walnuts. The Chamber ofCommerce also dispatched a railroad car filled with authentic southernCalifornia fruits, vegetables, and spokesmen into rural parts of America.
- Page 2:
The Politics of Air Pollution
- Page 7:
ContentsAcknowledgmentsviiONELocal
- Page 12 and 13:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 3tion, such
- Page 14 and 15:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 5how the U.
- Page 16 and 17:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 7growth (Ta
- Page 18 and 19:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 9In this pe
- Page 20 and 21:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 11ity tend
- Page 22 and 23:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 13In the ar
- Page 24 and 25:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 15who reduc
- Page 26 and 27:
LOCAL GROWTH COALITIONS 17cally mod
- Page 28 and 29:
TWOPolitical Economy and thePolicym
- Page 30 and 31: THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 21moves to
- Page 32 and 33: THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 23eral gov
- Page 34 and 35: THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 25groups
- Page 36 and 37: THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 27Given in
- Page 38 and 39: THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 29tions, t
- Page 40 and 41: THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 31the Conf
- Page 42: THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS 33lars 199
- Page 45 and 46: 36THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONCOAL
- Page 47 and 48: 38THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONa go
- Page 49 and 50: 40THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONrush
- Page 51 and 52: 42THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONattr
- Page 53 and 54: 44THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONScot
- Page 55 and 56: 46THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONthe
- Page 57 and 58: 48THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONcrit
- Page 59 and 60: 50THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONwhen
- Page 61 and 62: 52THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONin t
- Page 63 and 64: 54THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONThe
- Page 65 and 66: 56THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONfirm
- Page 67 and 68: 58THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONinno
- Page 69 and 70: 60THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONThe
- Page 71 and 72: 62THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONFHA
- Page 73 and 74: 64THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONgone
- Page 75 and 76: 66THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONPres
- Page 78 and 79: FIVEThe Establishment ofAutomobile
- Page 82 and 83: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 73Ano
- Page 84 and 85: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 75the
- Page 86 and 87: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 77thr
- Page 88 and 89: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 79was
- Page 90 and 91: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 81exp
- Page 92 and 93: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 83acc
- Page 94 and 95: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 85Thu
- Page 96 and 97: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 87A n
- Page 98 and 99: SIXDemocratic Ethics,Environmental
- Page 100 and 101: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 91At the core of
- Page 102 and 103: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 93senior attorney
- Page 104 and 105: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 95ments mount cha
- Page 106 and 107: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 97frameworks, as
- Page 108 and 109: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 99mobiles and gas
- Page 110 and 111: DEMOCRATIC ETHICS 101the ecological
- Page 112 and 113: CONCLUSIONPolitical Power andGlobal
- Page 114 and 115: CONCLUSION 105quality became manife
- Page 116: CONCLUSION 107lation, the U.S. econ
- Page 119 and 120: 110THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONCHA
- Page 121 and 122: 112THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTION6.
- Page 123 and 124: 114THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTION4.
- Page 126 and 127: BibliographyAcher, Robin. 2001. “
- Page 128 and 129: BIBLIOGRAPHY 119Brienes, Marvin. 19
- Page 130 and 131:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 121Cole, Luke W., and
- Page 132 and 133:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 123——— . 2002. W
- Page 134 and 135:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 125——— . 1975.
- Page 136 and 137:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 127Hayward, Clarissa R
- Page 138 and 139:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 129——— . 2001. E
- Page 140 and 141:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 131——— . 1988.
- Page 142 and 143:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 133Perez-Pena, Richard
- Page 144 and 145:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 135Runte, Alfred. 1997
- Page 146 and 147:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 137Tarr, Joel A. 1996.
- Page 148:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 139Wiewel, Wim, and Jo
- Page 151 and 152:
142THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONChi
- Page 153:
144THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONTuc