Presidio Trust Act Revisions Heard by Subcommittee
H. R. 6305 was reviewed this morning by the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. I listened to the hearing via audio webcast from the subcommittee website.
Initial discussion was directed towards the renaming of the “Golden Gate National Recreation Area” to the Golden Gate National Park. There seemed to be a lot of support for this idea. But the idea goes even further:
We would then recommend including in the same section of the park’s law, a separate provision stating that Golden Gate National Park, Muir Woods National Monument, Ft. Point National Historic Site, and the Presidio, each of which have their own governing laws, shall collectively be known as the Golden Gate National Parks. Finally, we would recommend the Secretary be given the authority to use this collective name for public relations and other administrative purposes, similar to how we use the name and reference similar groupings of park resources such as the National Parks of New York Harbor, or Redwood National and State Parks.
The current version of the bill, H.R. 6305 also contains “Technical Corrections” to the Presidio Trust Act.
Craig Middleton, Executive Director of the Presidio Trust, left the Main Post Meeting last night at around 9:30 p.m. PST, caught the red eye for Washington D.C., and provided testimony at the subcommittee hearing this morning. The hearing began at 7:00 a.m. PST. I salute you, Craig.
Daniel Wenk, Deputy Director of the National Park Service also provided comments on the entire bill and specifically the Presidio Trust technical corrections, as well.
The Trust and Park Service are trying to work out funding for law enforcement at the Presidio, as the costs are increasing.
With regard to expanding the role of the Trust in interpretive services and education the Park Service welcomed the Trust’s assistance. The Park Service wishes to retain overall responsibility for oversight of the programs and wanted all programs to be conducted in accordance with National Park Service Standards for interpretation and education.
The Park Service also wanted to retain jurisidiction of Building 102 until a mutually agreeable alternate site is selected. The Park Service wishes for the Presidio to be retained within the National Park system. The NPS was supportive of Fort Scott Task Force and wanted to ensure that the Park Service’s interests were represented on the Task Force.
When asked about the Park Service requests, Craig Middleton seemed to indicate that these items could be worked out. He did indicate that he would like clarification on the National Park Service Standards for Interpretation and Education.
–Doug Kern
Tags: Craig Middleton, Legislation, National Park Service, Presidio Trust, Presidio Trust Act
There is real mischief in the Trust proposed language concerning “interpretation,” “Interpretation, in National Park usage, is the process of education, Ranger tours, way stations, and museums to present THE RESOURCES OF THE PARK. The Park Service is quite clear that interpretation must be related to the resources of the Park. NPS policies for interpretation therefore would oppose construction of a contemporary art museum in a park that had no relationship with contemporary art or artists. The sharp-eyed lawyers of Mr. Fisher saw this vulnerability and introduced the Trust wording that would have separated the Trust from any control whatsoever concerning the programs they wanted at the Presidio. If successful, the Trust could redefine the identity and purpose of the park.
Fortunately, the Presidio HIstorical Association picked up on this vulnerability and alerted the Park Service and the National Parks Conservation Association. NPCA has introduced a supplementary amendment and the NPS position supports that supplement to protect NPS authority over interpretaton. This is Pelosi’s bill, however, and she will get her way. WRITE PELOSI TO SUPPORT THE NPCA SUPPLEMENT TO HR 6305, please.
http://www.presidioassociation.org
When all is said and done, there is only one thing that is at the heart of this bill — Pelosi’s desire to keep her baby, the Presidio Trust, from reverting to the DOI in 2013 unless it is then running a profit without federal assistance. If that means eliminating all forms of recreation from the GGNRA, then so be it according to Pelosi. She will do whatever it takes, including building a museum of modern art in the Main Post of the Presidio, to keep the income stream into the Presidio Trust (comprised of real estate developers) thriving. She is just a complete sellout to big business, and any notion that as a Democrat she is progressive is just a joke. She has betrayed everyone who values the GGNRA for what is was set up to be - a unique urban recreational area.