General CREESY. At the time the matter was taken up before the board of supervisors, the entire proposition was discussed, the streets, 'the keeping of property, and so forth. I have a record that was taken down of the last meeting of the board of supervisors, which I do not believe could be considered as direct evidence because it was taken down by our stenographer. However, if what our representatives heard there could be entered, it might be of some value in answering the question.

Mr. ANDERSON. I think it would be an excellent idea to have it entered as part of the record. I think it would be well, too, in entering that for the record to make a notation that you are not sure as to its accuracy, that it was taken down by your own reporter. General CREESY. This was taken down by Mr. Cathey, the purchasing agent of the depot, one of our most trusted employees. Mr. ANDERSON. Did you want to quote from that, General? General CREESY. I will quote from that:

Re: Islais Creek property.

The fourth, and what proved to be

OCTOBER 16, 1946.

This is Mr. Cathey's report to me, by the way, after the meeting the last meeting of the committee of board of supervisors called upon to hear opposition to condemnation proceedings of Islais Creek area, convened in board of supervisor's room at city hall 2:45 p. m., October 16, 1946, with Chairman Dewey Mead presiding. Supervisors Colman and Meyer of the committee were present. Four representatives of the landowners were present, several observers, Messrs. Fox and White of the chamber of commerce, Lieutenant Colonel Holmes, and the undersigned.

Upon opening of the meeting, Attorney Wrigley made a statement summed up as follows

And I stated before, this is Mr. Cathey's idea of what he said:

That he,

That he understood that all interested parties had visited the area. also, had visited the area. That he was impressed, as were other opponents to the condemnation proceedings, with the installation there and the activity carried on by the Marine Corps, which was entirely different from that originally assumed. That Andrew Gallagher had informed him of his intention to notify the board of supervisors that he was withdrawing his support in opposing the condemnation proceedings.

I have also a copy of Mr. Gallagher's letter to the Honorable Richard J. Welch in which he withdraws his support.

That Mr. Monico, also representing the landowners, has been asked to view the area and submit his recommendations, and that such recommendations bore out the fact that the area as used and operated by the Marine Corps was a distinct credit to the city and county of San Francisco, even though all concerned believed the area should be put to industrial use.

Mr. Wrigley, then speaking in behalf of the landowners, informed the board of supervisors that he desired to withdraw the application petitioning the board of supervisors to go on record in opposing the condemnation proceedings with resultant withdrawal of the Marine Corps from Islais Creek area.

Others were asked to speak. Mr. Monico verified his recommendation as expounded by Mr. Wrigley. Mr. Fox answered queries put by other members of the committee as to pay rolls, expenditures made for improvements, and importance of the area to efficient functioning of the Marine Corps in this area. He also stated that the chamber of commerce would be the first ones to recommend the area be turned over for commercial use, if and when it was indicated the property was not being used by the Government as an active base. Mr. Sherwood, representing rice-milling companies adjacent to the area, explained the difficulty experienced in having to circle around the area in order to get from one side to the other, such area being closed to traffic.

Chairman Mead stated that no apparent attempt had been made to improve the property adjacent to the area and that the premises surrounding the area looked like a junk yard. He and Mr. Fox both stated that they had not been approached by representatives of industrial concerns evidencing a desire to obtain any part of Islais Creek area for proposed building sites.

It was finally moved that the matter be tabled, which was carried unanimously. Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, General Creesy.

Can you give me any idea as to what is represented in that area, based on present assessed valuations, in tax loss to the city and county of San Francisco?

Mr. DEASY. I am sorry I can't offhand.

General CREESY. Tax? We have that figure here.

Mr. ANDERSON. Oh, you have? I would like to have it very much for the record.

General CREESY. I have it right here. We were asked to look that up and we sent a dispatch to Washington some time ago.

The approximate taxes considered to be as follows: 100 Harrison Street, land, $14,883.99; buildings, $95,016; Islais Creek, land, $10,831.90; buildings, $60,408.97.

The speedletter with details follows. I have a copy of the speedletter:

MASTER GENERAL OF THE MARINE CORPS:

TO THE QUARTERMAS

1. The following information requested by reference (a) is forwarded to supplement reference (b).

Reference (b) was a dispatch.

Premises

Do you want 100 Harrison Street brought into this?

Mr. ANDERSON. As long as it was referred to in the wire, we might just as well read the whole thing, General.

General CREESY (reading):

Mr. RIZLEY. Let me interrupt you there, General. You mean there were buildings on this Islais Creek property at the time you took it over that had a value of one million-some-odd dollars?

General CREESY. No; no, sir. This is our answer to the Quartermaster General when he asked us some little time ago what the city of San Francisco would get from this property if it was taxable. Our buildings

Mr. RIZLEY. You mean after you improved it?

General CREESY. Yes, sir; as it is right now. We don't know what it was worth before. [Reading:]

Islais Creek land only, assessed valuation, *$195,170.00; taxes, *$10,831.90; percent tax rate, 0.0555.

All figures above which are marked by a single asterisk (*) were furnished by the chamber of commerce as their best assumption but must be taken as an assumption. The assessed valuation is reputed to be 50 percent of the fair market value. The figure indicated by a double asterisk (**) represents 50 percent of the known construction costs.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you very much, General.

Mr. RIZLEY. I would like to know what was the assessed value of this property on the tax rolls prior to the time that the Government took it over.

Mr. DEASY. I haven't that information, but I can get it very quickly.

(See supplemental data, p. 107.)

Mr. ANDERSON. I think that would be excellent for the committee to have. It would give us some idea of what the valuation is now since the Marine Corps took over the property and improved it as compared with what it was prior to that time.

General, is the depot now in just about the condition you expect to maintain it? Have you done most of the construction work that the Marine Corps contemplates on that property?

We

General CREESY. They have several open-storage lots on the property today. An inspection of the depot will show that those open-storage lots contain property that should be in storage. would like to have the larger open-storage lots covered by the same type of building as there at present.

Mr. ANDERSON. Same type of large warehouses that we saw yesterday?

General CREESY. Yes, sir; in order that we can get everything that needs storage under cover and protect the property.

Mr. ANDERSON. Do you have anything further that you wish to offer?

General CREESEY. May we go off the record?

Mr. ANDERSON. Off the record.

(A discussion off the record followed.)

Mr. ANDERSON. On the record.

General CREESY. In regard to the statement concerning Mr. Gallagher, Southern Promotion Association:

and I am only quoting the part that pertains to this property— We withdraw the protest of our association to the condemning of the land for Marine Corps base, 73 acres of property, 21 acres of streets, because of permanent improvements which you and I saw when inspecting the base, also because of the amount of pay roll involved. But now that need of secrecy is passed, it would seem that the Navy might show a cooperative spirit, and where the allowance of traffic on a street like Rankin would facilitate heavy traffic and save expense, that should in a community spirit remand good patriotic citizens by some leniency.

Cordially yours,

Mr. ANDERSON. Did they get the cooperation?
General CREESY. We always cooperate. [Laughter.]

Mr. HOLIFIELD. But they didn't get to go through the streets?
General CREESY. Not yet, sir.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. They just got cooperation. [Laughter.]

Mr. RIZLEY. At the risk of being tedious or repetitious, I would like to get the judge to state definitely what the status of the title is

67877-48-pt. 1- -8

or see if I understand it. The title to this 94 acres is now vested in the Federal Government?

Mr. DEASY. In the United States of America; yes, sir.

Mr. RIZLEY. The remedy of the property owners is simply one of trying to increase the amount of damages by reason of your taking that property? You have deposited $878,000 and they have filed a declaration of whatever is necessary to go before a jury to increase the amount of their damages?

Mr. DEASY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIZLEY. So what will happen? The property owners will have either $878,000 or any additional amounts that a jury may award, but you still have title to the land?

Mr. DEASY. That's right, or a less amount.

Mr. RIZLEY. Of course. [Laughter.]

Mr. DEASY. That is very important, sir.

Mr. RIZLEY. A less amount. You have already exercised-the Government has already exercised its right of eminent domain. Mr. DEASY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIZLEY. If you move off the property, then the property, of course, is subject to a declaration of surplus to the needs of the Navy? Mr. DEASY. That's right, sir.

Mr. RIZLEY. Then it will go over to War Assets Administration? They offer it, then the Federal Government will have the first priority? Mr. DEASY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIZLEY. So the Navy may take it back and move the Marines back in. [Laughter.]

Then comes the State of California, I believe?

Mr. DEASY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIZLEY. Then the city of San Francisco and then the former owners, I believe?

Mr. DEASY. City of San Francisco and then the county of San Francisco.

Mr. RIZLEY. The county and then the former owners. That is about it?

Mr. DEASY. I don't know

Mr. RIZLEY. Well, there is some question about where the former owners come in, but there isn't any question about the Federal Government having the first priority to purchase and then the State of California and other subdivisions of the State, and, of course, there is some argument, I guess, now about where the owners come in. Mr. ANDERSON. Has this cleared it up to your satisfaction? Mr. RIZLEY. Yes; I guess so.

Mr. ANDERSON. Anything further from members of the committee? [No response.]

Now, gentlemen, owing to the fact that we are going to tour the Presidio and the adjacent forts, it becomes necessary to terminate these hearings for today. We will be back here again at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. The meeting stands adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 4 p. m. on Tuesday, September 16, 1947, an adjournment was taken until Wednesday, September 17, 1947, at 10 a. m.)

Paid installment $11.02; paid second in- Dwight E. and Ruth M. Burgess.

1944-45

1944-45

_do__

3, 880

1944-45

9

708,000 square feet (3

26, 940

1944-45

Paid first installment $95.68; second in- Boyd Investment Co.

stallment $95.68.