For example, in the Toronto Plan there is a Metropolitan Corporation run by a Board having appropriate representation from the City Government of Toronto and from the suburban areas. The Metropolitan Corporation la responsible fear such things as: water supply, sewage disposal, housing, financing of education, arterial highways, metropolitan parks, welfare services, area rapid transit, and over-all area planning. While we might debate the merits or demerits of the details of either the borough system or the Toronto Plan, it seams to me that either plan has some very real advantages that we should weigh carefully. First, either plan established political machinery that can take the broad over-all approach in solving these very important problems that transcend the boundaries of our local political subdivisions. Second, either plan is politically feasible of accomplishment, not next week or next year, but in the near future, for neither plan eliminates local governmentand politicians being what they are, I doubt that they'll vote to eliminate themselves! having one super-city government charged with the responsibility of trying to administer all of the problems within the Bay Area. Right or wrong, and I believe it would be wrong, annexation is a political impossibility and for practical purposes can be discarded from Something like the Toronto Plan might well be a practical answer, for it leaves the solution of local problems to local pats them under the management of a political entity that can deal effectively with them on an over-all basis and can spread equitably