Imágenes de páginas

I have been along the total perimeter of the Presidio many times (amateur photographing) on Saturdays and Sundays and almost never have I seen many San Franciscans on its grounds and the very few I did see lived "across the street" from the Presidio-but even then they stayed very near the edge of the grounds.

The Mayor should have described it as a "preserve."

Congressman Skubitz' remarks were no doubt well intentioned but perhaps he tends to think of all the open spaces in the Kansas Wheatlands and does not realize the social values of open space on the tiny finger of land between the Bay and the Ocean.

Until after WWI it was necessary that the Army be very near the Bay entrance. Now planes and bombs have voided that.

Only a year ago the Army command was about to commence erection of a football field sized concrete building for "archives" storage!! Publicity and outcry temporarily stopped it--but for how long?

I thank you in advance for your kind consideration toward creation of this park.



Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,

Mill Valley, Calif., August 10, 1971.

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This organization represents more than 800 families in a community contiguous to the proposed Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Since a representative was not available to appear personally and testify on August 9, 1971, at the hearing in San Francisco on the proposed Recreation Area, we submit the following statement and ask that it be included in the hearings record.

The Golden Gate and coastline from Ft. Funston to Point Reyes have been endowed with a unique scenic beauty and history which belong to all the people of our country. Good fortune until now has left this incomparable area relatively unspoiled despite its proximity to a large metropolitan area. But economic realities proclaim loudly the clear and present danger and opportunity for this area: This is the final hour to create here a Golden Gate National Recreation Area which will restore preserve and perpetuate this blessed coastline and headlands as a permanent recreation asset for present and future generations of Americans. Failing prompt action, much of this rare land will quickly be lost forever.

It is our strong conviction and recommendation that the Recreation Area must include, but not necessarily be limited to, Ft. Funston, The Presidio, Forts Baker, Barry and Cronkhite, the Marincello area, presently existing State Parks (excluding Stinson Beach and Bolinas) and all other lands, public and private, which will result in a logical, viable and substantial, as opposed to token, continuous and solid recreation area extending from Ft. Funston on the south to Pt. Reyes National Seashore on the north. We feel that so much of The Presidio not now used for military purposes be immediately transferred to National Park Service jurisdiction upon establishment of this Recreation Area.

We call on you and on the Congress to act now to create this National Recreation Area and earn the gratitude of generations for an historic milestone in National Parks achievement.

Sincerely yours,

Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,

MARTIN FRIEDMAN, Conservation Chairman.

WALNUT CREEK, CALIF., August 10, 1971.

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN TAYLOR: As an observer but not as a witness, I attended
your August 9th San Francisco hearing on the proposed Golden Gate National

Recreation Area. I was greatly impressed by your conduct of the hearing throughout the day, by your objectivity and your considerate treatment of the many witnesses, and especially by the way you managed the timetable, permitting such a large number of speakers to be heard. To this observer it certainly didn't look as though your Committee were on a Congressional R & R excursion!

I would appreciate it if the following statement might be made a part of the hearing record, in order to record the viewpoint contained therein. The statement is mine personally.

The preponderance of expressed opinion favors the establishment of a National Recreation Area in San Francisco and Marin Counties. The recreational and open space needs of this area's growing population are well documented and need no argument here. The method (H.R. 9498, Burton et al.; or H.R. 10220, Mailliard) by which those needs are to provided, however, needs some scrutiny. It is to this question my statement is addressed. I believe your Committee should support H.R. 9498 instead of H.R. 10220 for these reasons: (1) In H.R. 9498, Fort Mason and the open space areas of the Presidio are to be supervised by the Department of the Interior. During this hearing much was made of the Army's efficient and low cost means of maintaining law and order on these properties. A logical extension of that line of reasoning would be to put all our National Parks under this efficient and low cost management. I submit that the Department of Defense has not distinguished itself recently for efficiency nor economy. It makes more sense to give Interior the jurisdiction, rather than permit Defense to retain it as in H.R. 10220, and thereafter to let Defense and Interior negotiate questions of area management. H.R. 9498 creates a viable Park in this respect. H.R. 10220 sets up a hodgepodge.

(2) H.R. 9498 protects against the pressures of developers and subdividers, both public and private, thus providing that quality of perpetuity of which you heard so much at the hearing. H.R. 10220 offers no such protection.

(3) H.R. 9498 stipulates a Master Plan for the area; H.R. 10220 does not. H.R. 9498 provides for public hearings, for administration responsive to County Planning Commissions and Boards of Supervisors, and to the BCDC, for the establishment of which we fought so long and hard. H.R. 10220 provides no such responsiveness. It ignores a salient fact of today's American life: The public is awake to and aware of the need to preserve open spaces and parklands. It demands their establishment and protection. And it also wants a voice in how they are to be administered following their establishment.

(4) H.R. 9498 has built-in financial flexibility whereby much more land could be acquired for the same money, than could be provided under H.R. 10220. Provision of lifetime retention for present landholders will cause the least disruption to Olema. H.R. 10220 has no such provision.

(5) H.R. 9498 does not include Alcatraz Island. I consider this feature to be a distinct advantage, particularly at the present time. The Indians-19 months ago, as a Committee member reminded one witness-conceived their cause would be served by taking over Alcatraz. If publicity has value, then their cause would seem to have been well served, indeed. But their cause and the national interest as well, can be better served by establishing a shrine or whatever in a more attractive environment than his bleak rock beset by wind and tide and fog.

(6) Much was heard of the amicable, even blessed relationship existing between San Francisco city officials and the Army, in mutually protecting and preserving open spaces and the environment. But very little, indeed, was heard about the arrangement agreed to by Mayor Alioto and the Board of Supervisors a short 3 years or so ago, in which Texas oil money was to father the commercial development of Alcatraz for private profit. This notion died a mercifully quick death when an outraged public made itself heard.

This is just one more evidence of the difficulty experienced by local interests in resisting the blandishments of the developer. It furthers the argument favoring H.R. 9498, as opposed to H.R. 10220.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for accepting this statement into the hearing record.

Respectfully yours,



Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN TAYLOR: Since I will be unable to personally offer my testimony before your Subcommittee on Aug. 9. I respectfully request that my statements be included in the record of the hearing on the legislation to establish a Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

It is with great fear and hope that I write to you. Fear for what Marin could be like if no action is taken to preserve its unique feelings of wilderness and hope that the proper steps will be taken in time to insure its preservation. I live at the beginning of Tennessee Valley Road. It is just a delightful place to live. I can walk out my backdoor, all the way to the ocean without encountering any business or urban ugliness. A person can really feel alive and at peace when walking on these empty, windswept hills. The spring wildflowers are like a delicate carpet beneath your feet and the awesome beauty of ocean surrounded by the rugged hills and craggy cliffs is truly inspiring and uplifting. I think this is what the need for open space is all about-to provide a place for people to relieve the tensions of competitive jobs and close urban living.

Two or three times a week I also take a 3 mile run or ride my bike up Tennessee Valley Road. It's so pleasant to watch the horses and cows along the road and to feel the presence of the empty hills.

I just can't imagine the qualify of life if there were 21,000 people living in Marincello. That's more than the population of Mill Valley and Sausalito combined! It would be a freeway out there—a true nightmare.

Last year we lived in metropolitan New Jersey, 20 minutes from New York City. The congestion of people and lack of open space made life intolerable. There was nowhere for a person to breath free. We moved to California just to escape this "landscape of death." I felt jailed and confined there and I don't want that to happen here.

It is also significant that both my husband and I work in downtown San Francisco. On an average day we can be at work 30 minutes from the time we step out the door. Can you imagine the traffic on the Golden Gate if something like Marincello were allowed to happen? Living in Marin today is like having your cake and eating it too. The wilderness at your doorstep, yet a stone's throw from the city.

Many of my friends from the city and the East Bay also spend their weekends cycling, picnicking or hiking in Marin or at the forts along the seashore in the city, so this area benefits not only the people of Marin.

I therefore strongly urge the establishment of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area as proposed by Congressman Burton and that this be accomplished with the urgency it requires.


Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,

Mill Valley, Calif.

Berkeley Calif., August 7, 1971.

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN TAYLOR: I am writing this letter in favor of proposed legislation to establish a Golden Gate National Recreation Area in and near San Francisco, California. I ask that this letter be included in the record of hearing.

Simply stated, it is my opinion that providing open space for all the people must be the responsibility of the Government. Without government protection this land will surely become a victim of the developer's efforts.

An urban area is composed of people living shoulder-to-shoulder, and on top of and underneath each other. For these people to be unable to escape back to the land, even if only for a brief period, is to be confined to an urban prison. While the affluent can afford to escape far away to the wilderness for a vacation, the poor are often trapped in the immediate vicinity of their home. Therefore, open space in close proximity to the city is not simply another

weekend playground for the rich, but a necessity for the poor who cannot afford to "getaway for a while." Open space must no longer be considered a luxury, but just as much of a necessity as water and sanitation services.

There are already plans to develop this open space being considered. Housing projects, new roads, and accompanying commercialization must surely spoil these areas. Perhaps development of these areas would provide an attractive environment for the affluent few who could afford to buy in to them, but it would deprive the rest of the people of the Bay area of much needed open space.

The existing open space is already overcrowded. Golden Gate Park is beginning to resemble Coney Island. Mount Tamalpais is a traffic jam. With the anticipated population growth in these areas, more open space is urgently needed. To defeat this proposal would be a victory for the forces of commercialization which have despoiled much of our land. To approve it would be a victory for the people. There can be no compromise.

Very truly yours,


Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,

San Francisco, Calif., August 1, 1971.

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN TAYLOR: The San Francisco Young Women's Christian Association, serving thousands of young women and their families in the counties surrounding San Francisco Bay, is vitally concerned with expansion of recreation facilities in Northern California.

Considering the high density of population already in this area, and projected future density, if modern trends continue, it would appear a simple necessity to plan now for extensive park and recreation areas near our urban center.

Time is of the essence in the establishment of a National Recreation Area on both sides of the Golden Gate where military control and large ranch holdings have preserved large open areas thus far.

A Golden Gate National Recreation Area has been proposed by Congressman Phillip Burton, and Congressman William S. Mailliard has submitted similar legislation to maintain this open space.

We urge favorable action on the most extensive Golden Gate Recreation Area possible, for the sake of our present and future populations in this area. Sincerely,


Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,


San Francisco, Calif., July 28, 1971.

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: The Board of the Mount Olympus Neighbors Associations voted to go on record in support of H.R. 9498.

Because we are so close to the Golden Gate Park we understand the great asset such open space is to the total community. In the years to come the open space that we do have now will be of very great value and any effort to preserve these areas is very important.

There is a very strong sentiment among us and our friends that such open space should be accessible to all the community, both poor and well-to-do and that any charges for entry would defeat this intent. The fact that Point Reyes is open is very important to many people.

We feel that it is also very important to encourage community participation in the planning of uses and functions in the park areas. Participation of such a kind brings people closer to such a development and gives them "a stake" in


78-016-72- -26

We strongly suggest that you and your staff give these ideas some study.
Yours truly,


President of the Board.

Berkeley, Calif., July 26, 1971.


Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: The Save San Francisco Bay Association strongly endorses the proposal for a Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

Our Association is a voluntary group of citizens organized to conserve the waters of the Bay and promote the best long-run use of its shoreline. There are 286 miles of shoreline and less than twenty available for public use. This project will make it possible to give public access to some of the most scenic areas of the Bay which should be available to our densely populated urban





Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members Of the Committee: My name is Eugene Block. I appear before you as executive director of the Council for Civic Unity of the San Francisco Bay Area, a non-profit membership supported agency which has concerned itself for the past 27 years with public welfare and civil rights.

I am here to inform you that the Council's Board of Directors by unanimous vote has given its whole-hearted support to the proposed Golden Gate National Recreation Area and we respectfully ask you to give the project your fullest measure of support.

We are convinced that the project falls fully within the announced policy of President Nixon and his administration who have vigorously supported the setting aside of additional park and recreation lands not only as a conservation measure but as a means of affording increased recreational facilities to all of the people.

May I remind you that conservation estimates indicate that in 50 years the San Francisco Bay Area may have a population of 15 million people. Moreover, San Francisco has the highest population density in America, second only to Manhattan.

In the critical times in which we live, with unemployment, social tensions and like problems facing our communities, the maximum in recreational facilities is needed. We again urge your support.


We now meet on land begotten by guns and deeply wounded by greed and poor husbandry.

To the south of our city lie houses in regimented rows, affording their occupants precarious and lonely privacy but small sense of community.

To the east is a shrinking, often stinking bay.

To the west is an ocean dying from oil and filth.

In the center of our once fair city the ugly towers rise higher and higher, monuments to perverted egos, greenless Babel baubles of babbittry.

To our north lies a remnant of our conquests, a beautiful pristine wilderness now almost helpless agains the onslaught of heedless and greedy men.

We now desperately need brave men with honor to defend this land. I therefore request that you support H.R. 9498. I know your costs will be great, but our children's children will thank you.

« AnteriorContinuar »