Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
Draft letter. Richard Nixon to Mr. [?] Lindsey. Re: Four questions from California Citizens freeway Association. 2pp. w/ attachments [Letter], n.d.
Richard Nixon to Mr. [?] Lindsey. Re: Four questions from California Citizens Freeway Association. 2pp. [Letter], n.d.
News Release. Edited Text of Statewide Radio Address by Richard Nixon. 7pp. [Newsletter], 10141962
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26127778
label
WHSF: Returned, 55-17
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26127778
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Returned, 55-17
description
This file contains:
Draft letter. Richard Nixon to Mr. [?] Lindsey. Re: Four questions from California Citizens freeway Association. 2pp. w/ attachments [Letter], n.d.
Richard Nixon to Mr. [?] Lindsey. Re: Four questions from California Citizens Freeway Association. 2pp. [Letter], n.d.
News Release. Edited Text of Statewide Radio Address by Richard Nixon. 7pp. [Newsletter], 10141962
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Returned White House Special Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26127778
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d9eac8a5d4d8a42b
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
White House Special Files Collection
Folder List
Box Number Folder Number Document Date Document Type
Document Description
55
17
n.d.
Letter
Draft letter. Richard Nixon to Mr. [?]
Lindsey. Re: Four questions from California
Citizens freeway Association. 2pp. w/
attachments
55
17
n.d.
Letter
Richard Nixon to Mr. [?] Lindsey. Re: Four
questions from California Citizens Freeway
Association. 2pp.
55
17
10141962
Newsletter
News Release. Edited Text of Statewide
Radio Address by Richard Nixon. 7pp.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Page 1 of 1
Hess
Draft #1
Dear Mr. Lindsey:
It is a pleasure to give you my answers to the four
questions of interest to the members of the California Citizens
Freeway Association.
As you know, I have spoken in detail on these questions
on my telethons throughout the state and in a major address,
"The Face of California," which was broadcast on October 14.
I would be delighted to make the full text of this radio program
available to any of your members who may not be familiar with
its contents.
The basic premise of my transportation program is that
Californians deserve dynamic leadership that will preserve and
improve the natural and man-made beauty of our state. One
importantreason why over 1,000 people a day move to California is
that our state is a pleasant place to live. California state
government has the obligation to see that it remains SO.
H
Now, in answer to your specific questions.
Question 1. I believe, and have repeatedly stated, that local
people must have a greater voice in all freeway issues that
intimately affect their lives.
To better achieve this goal, I have outlined six exact
guidelines that government must follow and five specific pro-
cedures on freeway construction.
Question 2. These are the six questions or guidelines that must
be given greater consideration in weighing the pros and cons of
a proposed freeway with regard to both location t location dessign:
1
RN Letter typed at mail
affice - delivered to
John Ehrlichman - for
personal delivery - Santa Barbara
Exec. Sim. milg. Sun, OcV, 21st
Dear Mr. Lindsey:
It is a pleasure to give you my answers to the four
questions of interest to the members of the California Citizens
Freeway Resociation.
As you know, I have spoken in detail on these questions
on my telethons throughout the state and in a major address,
"The Face of California," which was broadcast on October 14.
I would be delighted to make the full text of this radio program
available to any of your members who may not be familiar with
its contents.
The basic premise of my transportation program is that
Californians deserve dynamic leadership that will preserve and
improve the natural and man-made beauty of our state. One
important reason why over 1,000 people a day move to California
is that our state is a pleasant place to live. California state
government has the obligation to see that it remains so.
The state must not be indifferent to the wishes of our
local communities when choosing locations and designs of its
freeways and other structures. The Governor does not have to live
with a state-built eyesore, but the local people do. Therefore,
such factors as the character of a community must be considered in
state
this far-reaching/program.
Now, in answer to your specific questions.
Question 1. I believe, and have repeatedly stated, that local
people must have a greater voice in all freeway issues that
intimately affect their lives.
To better achieve this goal, I have outlined six
exact guidelines that government must follow and five specific
procedures on freeway construction.
Question 2. These are the six questions or guidelines that must
be given greater consideration in weighing the pros and cons of
a proposed freeway with regard to both location and design:
Dear Mr. Lindsey:
It is a pleasure to give you my answers to the four
questions of interest to the members of the California Citizens
Freeway Association.
As you know, I have spoken in detail on these questions
on my telethons throughout the state and in a major address,
"The Face of California," which was broadcast on October 14.
I would be delighted to make the full text of this radio program
available to any of your members who may not be familiar with
its contents.
The basic premise of my transportation program is that
Californians deserve dynamic leadership that will preserve and
improve the natural and man-made beauty of our state. One
important reason why over 1,000 people a day move to California
is that our state is a pleasant place to live. California state
government has the obligation to see that it remains so.
The state must not be indifferent to the wishes of our
local communities when choosing locations and designs of its
freeways and other structures. The Governor does not have to live
with a state-built eyesore, but the local people do. Therefore,
such factors as the character of a community must be considered in
state
this far-reaching/program.
Now, in answer to your specific questions.
Question 1. I believe, and have repeatedly stated, that local
people must have a greater voice in all freeway issues that
intimately affect their lives.
To better achieve this goal, I have outlined six
exact guidelines that government must follow and five specific
procedures on freeway construction.
Question 2. These are the six questions or guidelines that must
be given greater consideration in weighing the pros and cons of
a proposed freeway with regard to both location and design:
NIXON
NEWS
FOR GOVERNOR
RELEASE
State Headquarters: 3908 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles 5, California; DU 5-9161
News Bureau: Sandy Quinn Ron Ziegler
Speech
PROGRAMS FOR A GREATER CALIFORNIA
Text of Statewide Radio Address
by RICHARD NIXON
Press Secretary: Herbert G. Klein
October 14, 1962
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
This is the fourth broadcast in a series that I call, "Programs for a
Greater California. Each Sunday evening until election day I will show you
how decisive leadership can solve the pressing problems of our state.
On my first program, I presented an eight-point anti-crime program,
which includes strong backing for our dedicated local law enforcement
officials, a top-level Governor's Council to coordinate the fight for a
safer California and the death penalty for big-time dope peddlers.
On these Sunday broadcasts I have also discussed my four-year programs
for better education and to meet the special needs of our elderly citizens.
One of my proposals calls for a "California Legion of Service" -- a new
voluntary organization to mobilize the talents of our senior citizens
to help train the youth, particularly those young people who have dropped
out of school.
Tonight, I want to talk about "The Face of California" -- the ways
a new Governor can give dynamic leadership to preserve and improve the
natural and man-made beauty of our state so that California will be an
even better place to live and work.
Many of these problems are created by our tremendous population growth,
particularly in the urban areas of the State.
My own hometown, Whittier, was a small college community of less than
9,000 when I grew up. In the last ten years it has expanded seven-fold and
now has a population of 65,000. We see this same urban population explosion all
over our state. Today, 86.4% of all Californians live on less than 10% of
the state's land area. And of the half million people moving to California
each year, nearly 85% settle in our urban areas.
Today, the face of California is being marred by actions and in-
actions of the present State administration. Californians
-More-
deserve a government that is dedicated to making our state a
more attractive place to live, raise children and relax.
This is my four-year program to restore and maintain the
face of California.
1. Freeways
In California, more people have more cars and drive more
miles than in any other state in the union. The automobile has
given us a mobility that was unheard of just a generation ago.
Every Californian is now within a day's driving distance of our
magnificent beach and mountain resorts. Yet the automobile has
also brought slaughter on the highways and tedious hours of
commuting to and from work.
Many of our transportation problems are closely related to
our growing highway system. The California Division of Highways
has embarked on a 12,400-mile program of freeways, which will
use up to 1-1/4 million acres of land. This undertaking has
caused considerable controversy and I want to make my position
absolutely clear.
The highway program is vital to the growth of California and
has my strong support. In fact, in 1954, on behalf of President
Eisenhower, I presented the most comprehensive highway program
ever attempted in the world. The Eisenhower-Nixon plan was
based on a partnership with the states. And this plan today
accounts for much of the growth of the California freeway system.
It is ironic that although a vast majority of Californians
approve of a freeway network, there are now #5 communities locked
in combat with the Highway Commission.
San Franciscans are concerned about the Embarcadero freeway.
On the Monterey Peninsula the fight is over what is called the
can of worms." The people of Chico protest that a freeway is
going through beautiful Bidwell Park. In San Jose, the fight
is over the use of prime farm land to build a freeway. The
people in Santa Barbara are concerned over the construction of a
freeway that is out of character with their lovely community.
In Sacramento, the battle centers around the destruction of
historic buildings for freeway development.
- More -
- 3 -
This situation is not in the best interests of the state and
is detrimental to the whole freeway program. But we cannot
expect a satisfactory solution as long as we have a Governor who
says (as Mr. Brown did on April 14, 1961), "In those matters of
freeways and things such as that I don't interfere at all. I
can't. I haven't sufficient knowledge of either the engineering
or the other values to make any decision on them at all. If
A Governor, with the whole state government to call upon,
must have the knowledge and must make decisions. This does not
mean that the independence of the Highway Commission should be
changed. It is right to remove the Commission from politics.
However, a Governor who is willing to give leadership and has
the power of appointment can iron out the present causes of
dispute.
In weighing
the merits of a proposed freeway, much greater
consideration must be given to these six questions.
1) How will the freeway affect homes, neighborhoods and
communities?
2) How will the freeway affect individual property values,
personal income, and farm lands?
3) How will the freeway affect the tax revenue of local
governments?
4) How will the freeway affect the scenic beauty of an area?
5) How will the freeway affect existing recreational areas
and historic landmarks?
6) How will the freeway tie in with regional and local
comprehensive plans?
In considering future freeways, I believe these five pro-
cedures must be followed in every case:
1. Hearings at the locale of the proposed project, after
adequate notice, should be conducted by an impartial examiner.
2. Hearings should be conducted with the same regard for due
process of law that we have in our courtrooms.
3. No rights of way should be condemned until a hi thway
project has received final approval.
- lore --
- 4 -
4. Threats of withdrawl of highway funds or promises of
extra highway expenditures must not be used to solicit local
agreement for freeway routing.
5. No funds for any highway public relations activities
other than purely informational programs should be authorized.
Rather than slowing down freeway construction, these procedures
will actually speed it up by ending the type of long drawn-out
controversy that has been going on in Chico for five years.
My proposals are designed to give greater consideration to
the feelings of the people who are most intimately affected by the
construction of a freeway. But they are also designed to eliminate
the present ill-will toward the Highway Commission, so that it
can move forward with the full support of the people.
Ly following these proposals, Californians will have both the
greatest State system of surface transportation in the world and
a beautiful place to live.
to
Rapid Transit
Even when California gets the best highway system in the
nation, with the best safety record, we will not have licked all
our transportation problems.
There are families who do not own cars. There are one-car
families who need a supplemental means of transportation. There
are people who are not able to drive or who prefer to use public
transportation. There are people who waste many hours each day
in commuting --- hours that could be spent in more productive and
pleasant ways.
The needs of these people can be best met by rapid transit
systems in our metropolitan areas.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, rapid transit planning has
reached the point where next month the people will vote on a
792 million bond issue to build a 75-mile system using high
speed aluminum cars.
More -
- 5 -
Similar action is now necessary in Southern California.
I will ask the legislature to establish a Southern California
Rapid Transit District.
The present Los Angeles letropolitan Transit Authority
would continue to run local bus and streetcar operations and
would work closely with the new District.
But unlike the ITA, whose members are appointed by the
Governor the Board of Directors of the new District would be
chosen by the city councils and the Mayors of the communities
directly affected by a rapid transit system.
After years of fruitless planning and the spending of
hundreds of thousands of dollars, the State has failed to come
up with a workable rapid transit plan for the Los Angeles area.
It is time for a new start and a new organization -- an organiza-
tion not of State appointees, but of the people who are most
directly involved in the need for rapid transit.
3. Smog
I will not believe a nation that can build a hydrogen bomb
and discover a succ' ssful vaccine for polio cannot lick the smog
problem. Lut this will only be accomplished by strong state
leadership and the will to do the job.
Smog has become a statewide menace.
It is detrimental to the health of Californians, especially
people with heart and lung conditions.
It is detrimental to the beauty of our state.
And it is detrimental to our crops. California farmers
are losing $8 million a year because of smog and this crop
damage is rapidly increasing.
The greatest single cause of California's serious smog
situation is the automobile -- both automobile exhausts and
crank cases that emit unburned gasoline.
I propose an immediate three-point program:
1. A speed up of exhaust device testing by the State Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control Board:
A crash program, in cooperation with local law enforce-
ment and fire departments, to crack down on malfunctioning auto
mobiles;
More
- 6 -
3. A strong campaign to get automotive manufacturers to
accelerate anti-smog research.
4. Forest Fires
Forest fire prevention is another area in which strong state
leadership can protect the face of California and the property
of Californians.
Last year, damages from fires on non-federal land amounted
to over 317.2 million. On State-protected land, there were
3,283 fires causing damage to 315,316 acres. The State Forester
believes this is the worst record of damage in California history.
And so far this year, fires on State-protected lands are already
13% above the five-year average.
The State must step up its forest fire prevention programs
and must actively encourage private parties to start or increase
programs in this area.
5. State Buildings
The State of California is the largest single source of non-
residential building construction. The latest figures, for fiscal
year 1960-61, show that the State spent 235 million on the
construction of buildings.
Obviously, when this amount of money is spent, the State
plays a major role in changing the face of California.
The State must not be indifferent to the wishes of our local
communities when choosing locations and designs of its buildings Kreevays
and other structures
The Governor does will not have to live with a State-built eyesore,
#
but the local people WILL. do Therefore, such factors as the reaching
character of a community must be considered in the State bui program.
program just as they must be considered in the State hway
program.
I believe that the same detailed guidelines and procedures
that I propose for freeway construction must be followed by
the State in building construction.
Also, I believe that we must have competitive bidding on all
State architectural jobs. Under the present system, the State
only calls for bids on construction. My proposal would insure
that the State Division of Architecture is doing the designing
for the least money. If the State Division cannot match outside
- More -
- 7 -
bids, the work would go to private firms.
*****
This four-year program, covering five major areas of State
concern, will be a significant breakthrough in protecting,
restoring and maintaining the face of California.
My proposals are designed to make our state an even more
pleasant place to live and work -- a State of such beauty that
all Americans will wish to see it for themselves and a State
that will cause every one of us to stand tall and say, "I'm
proud to be a Californian.
- 30 -