If you ask me, I'd say the bay area needs a regional government, something not too dissimilar from NYC with a mayor and boropresidents of in this case, countyptesidents for each county.

What I mean is in a way it could be argued we need to annex counties or the cities and make them into more integrated governing bodies with improved policies and coordination to serve the needs of this region's population and economy.

It made sense to have separate towns and cities when the economy was less interconnected in the region, but now we need better regional planning for growth, housing, transit, economic development. I think it would be better served by a more regional government.

I've been thinking this for years; the bay area has significant local concerns that span 6-10 counties (out of 58 in the state). In particular the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, and Alameda would do very well to work together more, and spend more on regional transit, but it seems that it's always The Local Politics Show, Brought to you by Metcalfe's Law. It's impractical to bring matters to the state level; a lot of the state doesn't even particularly like the bay area, so why should they care about the issues here?

If there were a super-county made up of the bay area counties that had the power to enact and enforce law, and serve as a venue for regional debate, discourse, and decision-making, I think the long-term economic health of the region would be more secure.

Lafayette is where they found a good case. They are suing on the basis that the City of Lafayette is approving a project on the condition of an decrease in density, while the original project density was conform to the zoning. This is what is illegal in California. But no developer will sue a city for that, because they still want to build the project and don't want to burn bridges.