GEORGE A. GONZALEZ - fieldi

84THE POLITICS OF AIR POLLUTIONAs a way to shape the views of high school students on the issue of smog, “a20-page pamphlet titled ‘Air Pollution and Smog’ was prepared by ... theFoundation Public Information Officer. ... Approximately 18,000 copieswere distributed by the Foundation and by the Los Angeles County APCD.”Further, according to the Foundation, its newsletter served the function of“keeping opinion leaders apprized of current air pollution problems anddevelopments in Los Angeles” (44). Through these public information activities,the Foundation, specifically, and the business community, generally,promoted its solution of technology as the only appropriate means to addressair pollution in Los Angeles (Air Pollution Foundation 1961). In his 1959annual message to the Air Pollution Foundation Board of Trustees, FoundationPresident Fred D. Fagg Jr. declared thatthrough its public information activities, the Foundation has won the confidenceof opinion leaders and important support for the thesis that giventime and the necessary funds, science and engineering will eliminate smog[emphasis in original]. (Air Pollution Foundation 1961, 40)TRANSPORTATION POLITICS INCALIFORNIA IN THE 1960s AND 1970sWhile the leadership of the Air Pollution Foundation sought to limit theautomobile pollution debate in California to one of pollution control technology,others sought to expand the discussion over transportation to includemass transportation and land use during the late 1960s and 1970s (Fellmeth1973; DeLeon 1992; Carter 2001; Doherty 2002). The most significant effortto provide public funding for mass transportation in California occurred withProposition 18, which was placed on the November 1970 ballot.In 1962 voters did approve a $792 million bond issue to finance the BayArea Rapid Transit (BART) system. As Whitt (1982) explains, however,“BART is not designed to challenge the dominance of the private automobilein the Bay Area.” Instead,BART was designed to serve other goals, goals that are not in conflict withthe continuation of automobile dominance. Essentially, these goals were thepreservation and growth of the central city and the protection of corporateinvestments there.Furthermore, “the prime initiators and supporters of BART were the giantcorporations located in downtown San Francisco.” Moreover, “there was verylittle involvement by citizens’ groups and there was no opposition to BARTby California’s famous highway lobby because it was realized that BART wasa supplement to the private automobile, not a replacement for it.” Finally,BART “was to be financed out of bonds and property taxes, not out of thehighway trust fund” (41).