"...do not bridge the Golden Gate."

Opposition to the Golden Gate Bridge

by Jocelyn Moss, MHM Librarian

From the Marin County Historical Society Magazine, vol. XIV, no. 1, 1987, pp. 2-7.

"Let the land owners of lovely Marin County stew in their own juice ... but in the interest of your own uniqueness, dear San Francisco, do not bridge the Golden Gate. Leave that kind of gesture to Los Angeles... which if it had a Golden Gate would most certainly bridge it and sink oil wells into bay and ocean on either side of the bridge." This quote comes from Harpers in which a Mrs. Gerould was describing the beauties of San Francisco in 1924. She gives one illustration of the arguments given against building the Golden Gate Bridge. Certainly, the beauty of the Golden Gate had to be taken into consideration when designing a bridge that would span the gate. Looking at Joseph Strauss' first design, one can understand this concern.

When James Wilkins, former mayor of San Rafael, first suggested bridging the Golden Gate in 1916, it seemed like a great idea. Marin County promoters were all behind the bridge. But world events, mainly WWI, put the project on hold.

When the War was over, the idea of bridging the Golden Gate was brought up again. At a meeting at the Palace Hotel in San Francisco in 1919, the first steps were taken toward the erection of the bridge. There were many questions asked about the bridge: Was such a bridge feasible from an engineering point of view? Could a bridge district be formed to pay for the construction? Would the U.S Government approve of the bridge? In 1923 the Golden Gate Bridge Association was formed at a meeting in Santa Rosa to deal with these questions.

That same year Joseph Strauss brought his plan for a combination cantilever and suspension bridge to the Hotel Rafael and outlined the engineering theory behind it. This was a new idea in bridge construction, but the bridge that Strauss finally built was an all-suspension bridge, which was even more radically innovative. The public certainly had a right to ask if the bridge would work.

The first hurdle that the bridge enthusiast faced was gaining the approval of the U.S. War Department. The approval came in December of 1924. There really wasn't any opposition. But from here on things got a little more difficult. As each new problem was overcome, the way seemed clear for construction, but soon new obstacles appeared. In 1925, one official stated, "Nearer than most of us realize comes the day when the great Golden Gate Bridge will be a reality." This man would have to wait twelve years for this reality.

In December of 1926, six counties gave their approval to the formation of the Golden Gate Bridge District. Petitions had been signed by 10% of the voters in Marin, Mendocino, Sonoma, Napa, San Francisco and Del Norte counties. However, 2307 formal protests were presented against the formation of the Golden Gate Bridge District. Hearings were set up throughout the district by Judge C.J. Lutrell of the California Superior Court. In many of the protests the citizens claimed that the prospect of taxation for the bridge construction, if revenues were not sufficient, would deprive them of property without due process of law. In his judgment on December 1, 1928, Judge Lutrell denied all the protests, stating "The cost of construction will not be prohibitive as compared with revenues reasonably to be expected from the operation of the bridge and said project is feasible both from the stand point of an engineering and financial undertaking." On December 4, 1928, the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District was formed of the original six counties with parts of Napa and Mendocino excluded.

The next hurdle was to get the people of the Bridge District to approve issuing bonds for $35,000,000. If the bridge did not provide the expected revenue, the people would be taxed to cover the costs of construction. This was happening at a time when America was in the midst of the Depression. Protests began to surface. What would happen to the bridge in wartime? What if the bridge were bombed, would the debris lock up San Francisco Bay? What about the natural beauty of the Golden gate? Would the revenues fall short and cause heavy taxation for residents? Despite this opposition, the people were willing to gamble. On November 4, 1930, the bridge bond issue passed: 107,930 for the bridge, 35,305 against. The main impetus for the overwhelming vote for the bridge was the prospect of jobs in an area hard hit by the Depression. During the election the opposition forces had claimed the bridge could cost over $100 million. The Bridge Directors then stated that no work would begin on the bridge if the bids came in over the $35,000,000 allowed by the bond issue. It was with a great deal of concern that the bridge directors opened the bids and totaled the amount. The bids added up to $24,243,953 and the directors breathed a collective sigh of relief.

The next hurdle the bridge district faced was to actually sell the bonds. Again rumors began to fly. The new design was the longest single suspension bridge ever built. It was a bad joke! The towers wouldn't stand; no such bridge could be constructed. To verify its design and safety six more engineers and geologists were hired to survey the foundation and take more test borings. One of these engineers, Robert A. Kinzie actually did feel the bridge was not safe and said he could not recommend it. However, the bridge district went along with the majority recommendation and voted for construction.

The first block of bonds went up for sale on July 8,1931. Bond buyers, however, questioned the legality of the bridge district to levy taxes if the revenues didn't pay off the bond principal and interest. The bond buyers wanted to test the legality of the taxation in the California Supreme Court. Since there were no acceptable bids for the bonds at that time, the bridge district felt it was mandatory to take the case to court. This case opened a whole can of worms that took over a year in the courts to untangle.

At this time attorney, Warren Olney, entered the case on behalf of unidentified clients. He claimed the Bridge District was illegally formed. The original ten per cent of signatures on the petition was based on an incorrect number. Soon it was revealed that the real opponent in the case was the Golden Gate Ferries, Ltd. owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad. These were the very ferries whose business would be taken away by building the Golden Gate Bridge. On November 25th, 1931, the Supreme Court of California handed down the decision that the Golden Gate Bridge District was legal. But before the district had time to celebrate, the same opponent took them back to court. The question this time was the constitutionality of the District and if the ability to levy taxes was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court was the U.S. District Court. This second case roused a furor amongst the supporters of the bridge. Southern Pacific and the Golden Gate Ferries claimed to be pursuing the case out of concern for the taxpayer, but everyone knew they were making $4000 a day, each day the bridge was delayed. The newspapers began to call for boycotts of Southern Pacific to force them to abandon the case.

The opposition to Southern Pacific became so widespread that the President of the ferry company, came forth with what he claimed was a compromise proposal. He would withdraw the suit if the bridge was built and operated by the State of California, as was the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. But this offer was immediately seen as another delaying tactic and rejected.

Southern Pacific and Golden Gate Ferries went on the offensive claiming they would take their case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. A worried Bridge District had a long wait until Federal Judge Frank H. Kerrigan finally handed down the decision on July 16, 1932. In his decision he denied all the injunctions asked by the Golden Gate Ferry, Ltd. But the ferry's lawyer, Warren Olney stated, "Our next step is appeal, we will carry the case to the U.S. Circuit Court and if necessary to the U.S. Supreme Court.' Headlines in the Marin Herald claimed, "Dog in the Manger Ferry to Feel Public Wrath if Bridge Blocked Further."

At this point Southern Pacific and Golden Gate Ferries gave up the struggle. Mayor Rossi of San Francisco was credited with mediating the solution. After a year of costly delay in the courts, the Golden Gate Bridge District could sell their bonds.

The bills from lawyers and court fees had just about run the Bridge District treasury dry. An additional 2.5 cents per $100 property tax was going to have to be enacted. But the Bridge Directors wanted to prevent this unpopular taxation, so the first $6,000,000 in bonds were offered for sale. Three companies bid for them, but only the Bank of America syndicate offered the $200,000 cash advance that would mean the property tax could be rescinded. Vice President of the Bridge District, R. H. Trumbull, said," We can go forward with the span project, drop the tax and start construction of the bridge within 90 days."

But one more crisis was waiting in the wings. Legally the bonds were to yield no more than 5% to the purchaser. At the rate they were sold to Bank of America they would yield 5.205%. An election would have to be held and voters would have to approve such a change.

The Bridge District was in trouble because the money had been paid to them and bids were invited for construction. Strauss took the problem directly to A.P. Giannini, Chairman of the Board of Bank of America. Strauss said, "San Francisco needs the bridge." A.P. Giannini said, "We will take the bonds." Bank of America bought the bonds at 96.18 cents on the dollar, giving the bonds a yield of 5%. The grateful Bridge Board voted on April 26, 1933 to sell the remaining $29,000,000 worth of bonds to Bank of America. Bank of America was not too shy about taking credit for saving the bridge at considerable risk and making the start of construction possible.

On January 5, 1933 the steam shovel took the first shovel of dirt out of the Marin shore to start construction. The dreams of James Wilkins, the Golden Gate Bridge Association, the Bridge District officials, Joseph Strauss and the Marin County commuters was about to become a reality. Problems of engineering had been overcome, the obstacle course of government bureaucracy had been overcome, the opposition to the formation of the Golden Gate Bridge District had been fought through the courts, and now it was up to the work crews.