good point, I didn't mean to suggest only segregationist opposition... the US Mayors Conference issued a resolution calling for local control by local officials...NYC mayor Robert Wagner testified before the House mayors should have ultimate authority...mayors also called for 'nonpolitical' definition of maximum feasible participation...neither they nor other groups representing established interests were inclined to support creation of new organizations to represent minority communities and poor folks...
municipal 'reform' coalitions - business leaders, newspapers, civic groups, middle-strata voters - perceived little gain in supporting cause of poor...bureaucracies - public & private - were mostly interested in controlling local funds & programs...and existing community organizations felt threatened by attempts to alter locus of neighborhood power...
also, Congress held key to antipoverty appropriations...OEO backed away from 'controversial' projects in Syracuse, San Fransisco, Newark and several communities in Mississippi when local community action agencies led protests against mayors, welfare departments, school boards an demanded programs designed specifically in response to complaints from the black community...governors, mayors, congressional members complaints to Johnson administration led OEO to threaten to cutoff funds to local projects engaged in 'radical' activities...above attempts to enhance power of poor by inciting political activity were changed...
in practice, programs used what money was available for delivery of social services...maximum feasible participation became some proportion of representation on community action boards and/or employment of poor in service programs...not surprising, such participation was most easily controlled and symbolic... Michael Hoover