result in a monopoly, so the result then is you must cannibalize these plants and take maybe 1 or 2 or 5 percent.

Mr. LARSON. That is correct.

Mr. BOYLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one more statement for the record.

In the nonindustrial division we have in the last year had declared to us approximately 60 airports. All of the major airports except Gardner Field have been disposed of. We have a few auxiliary fields that nobody had any use for. Since the enactment of the McMahon bill, as this statement will show, we have considerable 05 housing, some 07 housing, 07 classification, and it is all adjacent to airfields. We are faced now with retaking that or getting a waiver from the cities so that we can go ahead and dispose of it, and that is one reason why this residue is being held up until we can clear with the municipalities as to whether or not they are going to request, under the McMahon bill.

Mr. ANDERSON. I would like to ask a question of any one of you gentlemen who is qualified to answer: That is with further reference to this policy of some of the owning agencies sending you a letter of intent to dispose of a piece of property and then deciding to withhold it or withdraw from your jurisdiction and sell it themselves. To what extent is that true among other Federal agencies? We have had three instances here this afternoon of the Navy having done that. To what extent do you find that true of other Federal agencies such as the Army or Maritime Commission or Marine Corps?

Mr. BOYLEN. As far as nonindustrial is concerned, I don't think the Army has withdrawn anything for sale, except probably after declaring it they have discovered a use for it,-for instance, the National Guard or some instances like that, and then they have come in and asked for approval of withdrawal. Of course that is referred from the Washington office to us to see if we have made prior commitments to some others, and if we have not, we have usually consented to withdrawal of that for use by the Army.

Mr. ANDERSON. It isn't a general practice?
Mr. BOYLEN. No.

Mr. ANDERSON. With any of the agencies?

Mr. LARSON. I would say, Mr. Anderson, it is not a general practice. It is the exception to the rule. Many cases in which a preliminary letter of intent is issued are cases involving a leased facility, where the lease has a certain time yet to run. But in the spirit of cooperation, the owning agency issues us a letter of intent so that, as I stated a while ago, we can make our plans for the disposal of that when we do have such titles as we can dispose of.

Mr. ANDERSON. I see.

Mr. BOYLEN. I might refer to a particular instance, Vernalis, which was declared to us by the Navy. We assumed custody of it, advertised it-Vernalis was quite a large base but it was in an isolated community where no municipality or local government could possibly operate an airport of that size-we referred it back to Washington, telling them we could not find any sponsor for the airport. All cases are referred back to the owning agency, either Army or Navy. The Navy decided they would use it and then withdraw it, and they are utilizing it, the entire base, at the present time. We did have custody

of it for several months and made an effort to sell it, but could find no sponsor for it.

Mr. ANDERSON. Things like that are pretty largely white elephants? Mr. BOYLEN. Unless it is a community that is large enough so that they can sponsor an airport, it is a liability. Most of these airports are a liability.

Mr. ANDERSON. They were a definite asset during the war?
Mr. BOYLEN. That's right. Definitely.

Mr. RIZLEY. Mr. Donohue, does this inquiry this afternoon from these gentlemen cover all types of real estate situated in this section of the country, or just military installations? Does it cover public buildings such as office buildings and things of that kind that might be in the city of San Francisco or in some of these other places, that are held by some Federal agency?

Mr. DONOHUE. No, sir. We are going to call a man from the Public Buildings Administration.

Mr. ANDERSON. Is that all, Mr. Donohue?

Mr. DONOHUE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request the addition of several exhibits to the record. I have exhibit 14-A which is a letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy in connection with various pieces of property that have been released in the city of San Francisco, and a list of the properties that are intended to be permanently retained. I have that numbered as exhibit 14-A.

Mr. ANDERSON. All right.

(The document above referred to, marked "Exhibit 14-A," is filed in connection with this record.)

Mr. DONOHUE. I would also like to offer in evidence the compilation made by the staff of the Surplus Property Subcommittee, listing the real property holdings in the San Francisco Bay area, including holdings of the Army, the Navy, the War Assets Administration, Federal Works Agency, the Maritime Commission, the Department of Agriculture, and the Treasury Department.

Mr. ANDERSON. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record.

Mr. DONOHUE. I have that numbered as exhibit 19.

(The document above referred to, marked "Exhibit 19," is filed in connection with this record.)

Mr. DONOHUE. I would like at this time, to call Mr. George Wilson.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to offer in evidence, as exhibit 18-A, a report of the industrial facilities in the inventory of War Assets Administration in this area.

Mr. ANDERSON. No objection.

(The document above referred to, marked "Exhibit 18-A," is filed in connection with this record.)

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE A. WILSON, REAL-ESTATE OFFICER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL WORKS

AGENCY, DIVISION NO. VII, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. DONOHUE. Will you give your name and identity to the reporter?

Mr. WILSON. George A. Wilson, real-estate officer, Public Buildings Administration, Federal Works Agency, Division No. VII, San Francisco.

Mr. DONOHUE. Now, Mr. Wilson, you are with the Public Buildings Administration? Is that correct?

Mr. WILSON. That's right, sir.

Mr. DONOHUE. And in your position you have sort of a landlord relationship to various Federal agencies here in that you take care of the housekeeping duties of various Federal office buildings in the city? Mr. WILSON. That's right, sir.

Mr. DONOHUE. Would you give the subcommittee at this time a picture of the holdings of the Federal Government in that respect, that is, the office buildings and such that come under your jurisdiction Iwithin this San Francisco area?

Mr. RIZLEY. Mr. Wilson, as you do that, will you for the record give us the approximate date that these buildings were acquired by the Federal Government?

Mr. WILSON. I did not come prepared with any detailed statement in connection with Federally owned-I beg your pardon-Federal office buildings and their areas. That can be supplied on short order for the record. I do have details with respect to areas under lease in the bay area, pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 413 of the Seventy-ninth Congress, which authorized and directed the Commissioner of Public Buildings to maintain a survey of the utilization of commercial space under lease by Public Buildings Administration or whatsoever other agency.

As of November 15, 1946, which was the first report pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 413, which was submitted to our Washington office, we reported a total area of 1,443,000 square feet. Since November 15, 1946, and up to the present time, there was reported as released not only by our own activity under leases, coming under our jurisdiction, but reported by leases coming under the jurisdiction of other contracting agencies, 670,000 square feet, leaving presently occupied commercial space at 773,000 square feet.

Mr. ANDERSON. In what area-what does that embrace?
Mr. WILSON. The entire San Francisco Bay area.

Mr. RIZLEY. Can't you break that down some other way except in square feet? I would like to know about the office buildings-maybe you have a huge office building when you just talk about square feet, I know that is a customary way to do it, but it doesn't mean quite so much. The average person to whom you give that sort of thing thinks maybe of some old warehouse or something of that kind. I would like to know how many office buildings the Government owns here in the city of San Francisco that have been taken off the tax rolls,

or how many hotels. Can't you put it in the record that way so that it will be a little more understandable? (See supplemental data, p. 168.) Mr. WILSON. I would like to call Mr. Osborne.

Mr. DONOHUE. Is he here in the room?

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Osborne.

Mr. OSBORNE. Yes.

TESTIMONY OF TOM OSBORNE, SPACE OFFICER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS ADMINISTRATION, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. DONOHUE. Will you give your name and identity to the reporter, please?

Mr. OSBORNE. Tom Osborne, space officer, Public Buildings Administration, San Francisco.

Mr. ANDERSON. Do you have the type of information Mr. Rizley was asking for, Mr. Osborne?

Mr. OSBORNE. I believe I can give you some information that will give you the indication that you want.

Going back to the date that Mr. Wilson mentioned, and the amount of space which was—amount of commercial space-held at that time, the Government was then occupying in whole or in part some 65 locations in San Francisco, 65 separate locations.

Mr. ANDERSON. That is San Francisco only?

Mr. OSBORNE. In San Francisco.

Since November 15 of 1946, the number of locations has been reduced to 29.

Mr. ANDERSON. Right there, please, may I interrupt?

Mr. OSBORNE. Yes.

Mr. ANDERSON. Are those 29 locations property that was held by private interests prior to their acquisition during this last war by the Federal Government?

Mr. OSBORNE. None of this is property that was acquired by the Federal Government. It is all property, commercial property, which has been under lease to the Government.

Mr. ANDERSON. But it is property held by private interests prior to its being leased by the Federal Government? All of it, every one of the 29 locations?

Mr. OSBORNE. Yes, sir.

Now, at the present time, as Mr. Wilson stated, the amount of commercial space has been reduced to 773,000 square feet of space in these 29 buildings.

Mr. ANDERSON. No. What we would like to have for the record, for the information of the committee and the staff members, is a break-down of those locations, where they are, whether they are in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda—I mean, by address— and how many square feet of space or what type of building each one of these locations is. Is that what you want?

Mr. RIZLEY. Exactly. Blank lot in blank block in the city of San Francisco on which there is a four- or five-story building, consisting of so many rooms.

Mr. OSBORNE. I am not in a position to give you that information at this time.

Mr. ANDERSON. That is what we want for the record; you don't have to give it to ús now.

Mr. OSBORNE. I think this will be helpful, breaking down the 773,000 square feet of space: 37 percent of that space is office space, commercial office building space; 40.8 percent, or 315,000 square feet, is commercial loft space; and 22.1 percent is storage-type space. Mr. ANDERSON. What is the difference? Explain to us the difference between loft space and storage space.

Mr. OSBORNE. The difference is that the storage space is used primarily for just storage purposes, whereas during the war the Government took over a number of a good amount of space which is classified as loft space, and that space was converted to office use. Mr. ANDERSON. I see.

Mr. OSBORNE. For commercial use, it is primarily loft space. When the owners receive it back, it will be reconverted to loft space. Mr. ANDERSON. Well, with the demand for office space in this city, I wondered if they wouldn't keep it as office space and see that it is utilized as such.

Mr. OSBORNE. A good deal does not lend itself to regular commercial office use in that it is in very large blocks, and very large tenants requiring office space are not numerous.

Mr. ANDERSON. Then you will prepare the type of statement that Mr. Rizley has requested for the record, and see that the subcommittee gets it?

Mr. OSBORNE. Also, for the record, and for the benefit of the evidence that has been given by the Army and Navy, it is only fair to mention that space in the amount of 210,000 square feet, now controlled by Public Buildings Administration, was space formerly under lease to Army or to Navy or to some military service and taken over for the benefit of other Federal agencies. At the time the military was giving up a great deal of space, as was indicated by General Hale, I believe, this morning, we had a very critical demand for space on the part of the Veterans' Administration and War Assets Administration, and it is quite true that the building which was released by the Fourth Air Force, I believe, was required by the Veterans' Administration.

There is another factor in the space picture that I think you will be concerned with because it deals with former military space.

There are two locations in San Francisco where the Government has erected on leased land structures that were used by the military. However, those structures are now being used by a civilian agency, and in each instance the agency is War Assets Administration, an activity which we consider temporary. In reasonable time that will be returned and the improvements removed or the transfer of the improvements negotiated to the owner of the land.

Mr. WILSON. May I supplement Mr. Osborne's observations with respect to those properties that came off the tax rolls, either during or since the war, in which we have had any jurisdiction?

That property formerly occupied under Army Air Forces lease, transferred to Public Buildings Administration, was a building at 49 Fourth Street, which has now been acquired by the Veterans' Administration as Government-owned property. And the RFC