AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 77through its newspaper, leading proponents of the area’s economic growth(Pincetl 1999, 31 and 96; McDougal 2001). Biographers of the Chandlerfamily and the Los Angeles Times, Robert Gottlieb and Irene Wolt (1977),hold that[t]he Chandler family, publishers of the Times, has always held a specialplace as the single most powerful family in Southern California because ofits extensive investment and broad political clout in the region. Othernewspapers and publishers have played roles in their cities’ history, but theextent to which the Chandlers and the Times held sway in Los Angeles wasunique. (7)Another student of Los Angeles history wrote of the Los Angeles Times thatit was “an enormously influential urban development corporation by itself.”In describing Harry Chandler, the individual who established the Times as theprincipal newspaper in southern California, this same historian renders theobservation that “it would have been hard to find anyone more closely associatedwith the booster impulse in Southern California, if for no other reasonthan that he owned a huge portion of it” (Lotchin 1992, 97).Harold W. Kennedy (1954), the counsel for Los Angeles County andthe County Air Pollution Control District during the 1940s and 1950s,explained that Norman Chandler—by this time the Chandler family patriarch—had“originally sponsored the ‘clean air movement’ for Los AngelesCounty” (15; also see Brienes 1975, chap. 5). Chandler’s attitude toward theLos Angeles smog question is evident in a statement he made to oil industryexecutives in 1948:The Los Angeles Times had entered the [anti-smog] campaign in the publicinterest with the avowed purpose, if possible, of finding all the sources of airpollution, and was committed to the position of going forward without fearor favor irrespective of its effect upon any industry. (paraphrased in Kennedy1954, 15)In an effort to build a political consensus on the issue of air pollution abatementin Los Angeles, “Chandler recruited a new citizens’ committee” in 1946(Brienes 1975, 123). Marvin Brienes (1975), who wrote his dissertation on theeffort to abate smog in Los Angeles between the years 1943 and 1957, notes:Known at first as the Los Angeles Times Citizens Smog Advisory Committee,the new group boasted a prestigious membership, including Dr. Robert A.Millikan of the California Institute of Technology, the Rotary Club president,Don Thomas of the tourism-boostering All-Year-Club, and [StephenW.] Royce [owner] of the Huntington [Hotel]. (123)Brienes adds that “at the first working meeting” of the committee, “January1947, [William] Jeffers [official head of the Citizens’ Smog Advisory Committee]
78THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONsaid ‘a great deal of missionary work’ lay ahead [in convincing others of the needfor government action to reduce air pollution in Los Angeles], and announcedthat he would begin his with the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce” (123).In 1946 the Los Angeles Times brought in Prof. Raymond Tucker fromWashington University in St. Louis to study and report on the Los Angelesair pollution situation (“‘Times’ Expert Offers Smog Plan” 1947; Brienes1975, chap. 5). Tucker was smoke commissioner and in charge of regulatingindustrial air pollution emissions in St. Louis from 1937 to 1942 (Ainsworth1946). His report analyzing the sources of Los Angeles’s smog was completedin January 1947 and published on the front page of the Times (Kennedy 1954,5; Air Pollution Foundation 1961, 6; Brienes 1975, 123–125; Ursin and Krier1977, 57–58). Tucker, in his report, specifically pointed to the “chemicalindustries, refineries, food products plants, soap plants, paint plants, buildingmaterials, nonferrous reduction refining and smelting plants, as well asnumerous others of similar types” as major sources of air pollution in the LosAngeles basin, and he advised government action to regulate their airborneemissions (“Text of Report” 1947).Tucker’s key recommendation was that a single countywide district becreated to regulate air emissions in the area. He specifically urged that “thenecessary State legislation be enacted to create an air pollution control district,preferably county-wide” (“Text of Report” 1947). A countywide pollutiondistrict would overcome the difficulties of having to enact and enforceregulations throughout Los Angeles County’s numerous municipalities andunincorporated areas. Tucker’s recommendation was the central feature of airpollution legislation introduced in the California legislature in early 1947(“‘Times’ Expert Offers Smog Plan” 1947; Brienes 1975, chap. 5).Los Angeles city Mayor Fletcher Bowron sought to alter the proposedlegislation by backing “a plan to give incorporated cities a two-thirds majorityon the governing board of the smog district” (Brienes 1975, 126).Bowron’s position was shared by certain Los Angeles county “municipalities,or their agencies, fearing loss of autonomy” (Brienes 1975, 125). After “aseries of meetings” with a legal committee created by the Los Angeles TimesCitizens Smog Advisory Committee, and “headed by James L. Beebe, a formerhead of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce,” Mayor Bowron andthe “objecting cities abandoned their opposition” (Brienes 1975, 125–126).Significant support for the legislative effort to a create countywide smogcontrol agency came from the Los Angeles business community. Businessorganizations supporting the bill included the Automobile Club of SouthernCalifornia, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, and the PasadenaChamber of Commerce (Kennedy 1954, 14). The “editorial department ofthe Los Angeles Times . . . [was] directed by Norman Chandler, publisher, tovigorously support the smog legislation.” Kennedy goes on to report that theeditorial board put forward a “newsletter [in support of the legislation] which
- 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 80 and 81: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 71ext
- Page 82 and 83: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 73Ano
- Page 84 and 85: AUTOMOBILE EMISSION STANDARDS 75the
- 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