Finally, I want to make an unusual request, but one that is fully justified. Fort Sam Houston's military dependents receive their elementary and high school education at Fort Sam Houston Independent School District This is one of only a few school districts in the nation that is contiguous with a military installation---and therefore has no property tax base. Fort Sam Houston Independent School District has been in operation since 1951. There are presently 1500 students enrolled in the schools there. The schools are supported by a combination of state aid and Federal assistance through the Impacted Areas Assistance programs. The Federal aid programs have been subjected to---as the Committee knows--severe cutbacks in the past several years. The schools at Fort Sam Houston are not air-conditioned, and I am asking that funds for providing air conditioning be put into the military construction program, since there is no possibility that funds will ever be provided through the Public Law 815 facilities program---despite the fact that the air conditioning project has been approved by the Department of Education since 1975. There has not, is not, and will not be money available through the Public Law 815 program for this project. The military construction program offers the only alternative, since there is no way that the district can impose taxes or find any other funding source. Fort Sam Houston Independent School District has the only facilities in San Antonio that are not air-conditioned. Air conditioning in schools there is a necessity, if the schools are to do their job effectively. It would cost about $2 million to provide teh necessary improvements at the Fort Sam Hoston schools, and I request that this amount be added to the FY 1983 budget. I I do not believe the Committee should fear that it is setting a bad precedent here; there are other military school districts in San Antonio, but none have the problem of lacking air conditioning. konw of no other district in the nation that has a problem like this, and believe that the action I am requesting would be unique, limited to this one case alone, and not repeated. I appreciate the time the Subcommittee has afforded me. I will be grateful for your consideration of my requests, and I offer these only because I know that they are fully justified, they are urgent, and they are essential for the best interests of the taxpayers and the Government. I thank you for your courtesy. STATEMENT OF HON. DANTE B. FASCELL ON NAVY PROPERTY LAND Mr. GINN. And there is a statement from the Honorable Dante Fascell of Florida concerning Navy property land use at Key West [The prepared statement of Mr. Fascell follows:] STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN DANTE B. FASCELL, 15th DISTRICT, FLORIDA, BEFORE THE IILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. April 1, 1982 Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I very much appreciate having this opportunity to provide you with this statement regarding recent Navy actions as they affect Key West, Florida. While I am aware that the subcommittee is not considering any specific legislation or request dealing with this situation, I believe it is important to have on the record a discussion of this particular matter because it tells a great deal about the way our military functions and how the military can affect an entire community. Key West. Fifteen years ago, the Navy maintained an outstanding base in The ideal weather and water conditions, along with its strategic location as the point closest to Cuba and the Caribbean, made it a perfect site for both training purposes and as the key U.S. watchdog in this vital area. However, for a variety of reasons, from time to time individual units that were based in Key West were relocated elsewhere until it got to the point that it was difficult for the Navy to justify economically keeping the base open. I, along with our two Florida Senators at the time, argued vehemently that the Navy would be making a dreadful mistake if it were to disestablish and close this facility. We cited its strategic location and its ideal conditions for training missions. However, we were told that U.S. defense of the Caribbean need not rely on ships any longer; that Navy air facilities as far away as Mayport (near Jacksonville) could adequately cover the area. In 1973, the Navy formally announced its intention to close Key West, leaving operational only the Naval Air Station at Boca Chica, just north of there. The base was closed in 1974. From 1974 to 1981, with hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal funds from the President's Economic Adjustment Assistance Program, EDA, GSA and a number of other agencies and with countless man-hours of work by these along with state and local agencies, the City of Key West developed a land use plan for the Navy property which was designed to help Key West recoup its economic base from one that was heavily dependent on the Navy to one that was not. The development of this plan was not easy. There were local conflicts to be resolved; conflicts between local and federal officials; and the problem of finding a developer who would be willing to invest large sums of money at today's high interest rates to make a new economic beginning for Key West. All of these problems were ultimately resolved. During this period, the Navy or DOD placed and then lifted seven separate "holds" on the property, each time leaving the City in "limbo" until the hold was removed, as to whether any or some of the property might continue to be available for redevelopment purposes. The last two "holds" were particularly frustrating and significant. In August, 1981, virtually weeks before GSA was to formally transfer the property, the Department of Defense called for a "hold" to determine whether it needed to retain a portion of the property for a classified operation. In conversations with DOD officials at the time, I stressed the availability of other federally-owned property in the area on which such activities could be conducted. It also seemed to me to be ridiculous to claim the entire 120 acre parcel when the activity under consideration required a much smaller area. In November, 1981, DOD did determine that it would not require the land after all but that it would place certain restrictions on the types of activities that could be conducted on the property to ensure was to prepare the list of these restrictions so the Key West Redevelopment Agency would know what it could do with the property. At this point, a developer had already been selected; the Redevelopment Agency had accepted the appraised value of the property submitted by GSA; and the actual transfer was ready to be made. When, by late January of this year, the Navy had still not advised GSA and the Redevelopment Agency of the restrictions, I contacted Navy officials thinkingthat the only problem was bureaucratic to try to spur them along," sluggishness. When the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics requested an appointment to see me on February 1st, I assumed it was to tell me the list had been completed. Instead, he advised me that the Navy had determined to place still another six-month "hold" on Key West and was considering the option of re-establishing it as an operational base. Mr. Chairman, if the Navy believes that it has a real and pressing military use for this property, then it has every right to claim it and I will offer my full support. After all, it was I who fought its closure in the first place on the grounds of its strategic value. However, it will cost a great deal of money to rehabilitate the old buildings or build new ones since the property has been vacant for eight years and has not been maintained. Furthermore, if the Navy is not prepared to come back to Key West with a major operational mission, with ships, personnel and needed shore establishment to support such a mission on a long-range basis, it would be extremely callous to continue to withhold this extremely valuable property from the community. Key West is an island. It is exceedingly land poor. The Navy property 93-949 0-82-29 |