land in that district was filled and the property was assessed for it. At the time the Government took over this land it was fit for industry then. The Government, however, saw fit to add to it 2 or 3 feet of fill wherever they cared to put a building or a yard.

As you know, this all came about just at a time when business was picking up. We went through the depression. In 1936 we had fair business, but up to 1941 or so, we had practically no industry coming around here or any place else. At the time business was picking up these people bought the property and the Government came in and took it.

Mr. DONOHUE. Were there thoroughfares property?

Mr. HARRIGAN. Evans Avenue was opened.

open through this

Oakdale, the southern boundary, was open. Toland Street was passable, but not paved, and Napoleon Street was usable.

Mr. DONOHUE. There were no buildings of any kind in the area at the time?

Mr. HARRIGAN. No buildings at that time in this area. the companies were using the land for the storage of lumber.

Some of

Mr. DONOHUE. At the time the Government took it over isn't it true that on part of the property there was standing water and that had to be filled in by the Government?

Mr. HARRIGAN. I wouldn't say so; no, because that property was assessed all the way from 5 cents to 60 cents a foot for the fill that was put in there. It was supposed to be filled above base, free of any chances of overflow. In the meantime, the Selby sewer was put in there, the big main sewer, which would have taken care of surplus water. South of Oakdale there was some flooded land, but not in this area.

Mr. HARLOW. Would additional filling be required before permanent, heavy structures could be put in?

Mr. HARRIGAN. The whole district will require heavy structure piling. In fact, the Government piled some of those buildings. In some instances some of the piling was treated with creosote and in other instances just the raw piling was put in.

Mr. RIZLEY. This property that you are talking about has been taken over since 1939?

Mr. HARRIGAN. Yes.

Mr. RIZLEY. The question, as I see it, is not whether the Government improved it, not whether it had water on it at the time, but the question is whether the Government still needs it. If it isn't needed by the Government then certainly, in my way of thinking, it ought to be declared surplus and it ought to go back for industrial use. doubt the Government improved lots of property it took over during the war. That doesn't necessarily mean they should keep it because they improved it, in my way of thinking.

Mr. HARRIGAN. Napoleon Street-have you a map there?
Mr. HARLOW. I have a map here.

No

Mr. HARRIGAN. The red outline [referring to map] represents the area taken over by the Marine Corps. The Government has released both the north and the south sides of Napoleon Street, which was immediately taken over by private enterprise. First, it was sold to Reliance Trailers. It was not large enough and they sold it to the Higgins Lumber Co. On this side [indicating] on Napoleon Street we have sold all that property in there to the San Francisco Ware

house Co., which is now starting the erection of a new warehouse. The same thing applies to them. If we could get that space out of there we could use every foot of it.

Last week we made an offer in here [indicating] for 400,000 square feet at a price just five times what was paid for it 3 years ago. offer was declined.

Mr. RIZLEY. How much acreage will that cover?

The

Mr. HARRIGAN. There are 43,000 square feet to an acre. That would be about 2% acres roughly. It is the only solid piece we have. Of course, all of this property in here [indicating] can be served, every foot, by spur track which adds to the value of this property.

There isn't anyone that can tell you that they can get, outside of that one particular piece, 400,000 square feet in one piece.

Mr. RIZLEY. What is it being used for now?

Mr. HARRIGAN. It is part of the apparel center, the westerly part of apparel center. They declined the offer because they are going to use it for enlargement of their project.

I know of parcels available of 200 feet, 400 feet, 200 feet, 100 feet, 100 feet, 200 feet, 400 feet. Firms in the city are looking for larger pieces and we cannot supply them. We are putting people in Modesto, Oakland, and San Leandro-anywhere to get the space. All of those people should be in San Francisco and be our taxpayers and a part of our pay roll.

If the Government needs the property that they have buildings on then certainly they don't need the property they are using for open storage because they can get that in Benicia, or some place else. I understand there is plenty of land available, for instance, in the Benicia district at $30 an acre.

I think it is waste of money and will retard the growth of San Francisco for the Government to keep this land.

Mr. ANDERSON. Any questions?

Mr. DONOHUE. No.

Mr. HARLOW. No questions.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you. (Witness excused.)

Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Fox?

Mr. RIZLEY. I would like the record to show at this point that a member of my subcommittee, Chet Holifield, from Los Angeles, is now here and I am mighty glad to have him here as he is the ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee, of which I have the honor to be chairman.

Mr. ANDERSON. I want the record to show that I am delighted to have both members of your committee in here.

TESTIMONY OF G. L. FOX, MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, SAN FRANCISCO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

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

Mr. Fox. My name is G. L. Fox, manager, industrial department, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.

May I say, Mr. Chairman, that we are always very glad to welcome anyone from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

I want, on behalf of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, to tell you we are very happy that your committee has seen fit to come to San Francisco for this very interesting investigation.

While I have no prepared statement, in view of some of the statements which have been made heretofore today, there is just a little background of information from a community viewpoint that I would like to give to you, particularly with reference to the policies of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and the property in the Islais Creek district occupied by the Marine Corps.

Certainly all of us are most vitally interested in the efficiency of all governmental agencies. I want to say to you that during the war, and since the war, we have had very fine cooperation in San Francisco by those agencies representative of the Federal Government, by various real estate departments of the Navy, the Public Buildings Administration, and the Army.

It is true that during the war San Francisco became terrifically congested. It was our policy then, and it still is, to endeavor to find in San Francisco accommodations, not only for all of the agencies of the Government which require them, but also private. enterprise which requires accommodations in San Francisco.

Theoretically you get into an exceedingly complex subject when you endeavor to define the duty of land in terms of pay roll, or in numbers of employees.

Going back to the latter part of 1945 property owners properly questioned the use of some of the property in the Islais Creek district for Marine Corps purposes. We began inquiries at that time as to what purposes the Marine Corps proposed to devote this property to. Mr. ANDERSON. When was that?

Mr. Fox. In the latter part of 1945.

Along in the spring of 1946 attorneys in behalf of the Islais Creek property owners appealed to us, appealed to the city of San Francisco to protest to the Federal Government the use of this property by the Marine Corps. That matter immediately was reviewed by what is known as the sites and buildings section of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce concerned with the industrial development of San Francisco, and also had the attention of what is known as the naval affairs committee of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.

In the course of our demonstration of our interest attorneys on behalf of certain of the landowners appealed to the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco in order to enlist their support in protest against the utilization of the property by the Marine Corps.

As a consequence, on behalf of this community, a very thorough investigation of the use of that property by the Marine Corps was made.

I am happy to have this opportunity to say to you that the attorneys representing certain of the property owners who originally requested the board of supervisors to protest the use of that property by the Marine Corps withdrew from the board of supervisors, in committee, their request for the protest against the use of the property, and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce went on record officially in favor of the continued use of the property by the Marine Corps for purposes to which it was then, and to which it is now being put.

We will endeavor to find locations for industry which requires them in San Francisco, but we do feel that if, in the judgment of the Navy Department and the Marine Corps, it is essential that they should have their major depot of supplies in San Francisco, this is the place for the operation.

There are a few figures which I recall that may be of interest to you as to why we were influenced as we were. The property occupied amounts to about 94 acres. Prior to it being taken over by the Government it had an assessed valuation which would have yielded to the city in round numbers about $10,000 a year in taxes. When I say "city," in this case it is the city and county of San Francisco. We found, upon investigation, that about 200,000 yards of fill had been placed on the property by the Marine Corps, and up to the latter part of last year they had expended something in the neighborhood of $3,000,000 on the improvement of the property. That property is nonoperative for storage purposes. It is a transit depot operated in conjunction with the Marine Corps facilities at 100 Harrison Street in San Francisco.

We found, most important from our viewpoint, that the depot operated in conjunction with the Harrison Street property affords employment for around 1,600 to 1,800 persons, with a monthly pay roll of something in excess of $600,000. The last time I asked for actual figures the disbursements through the depot at San Francisco for a 9-month period was $13,000,000.

If the Marine Corps is going to have a depot of supplies at a Pacific coast port, and if this is the proper location for that depot of supplies, and if it is going to operate an installation where the outgo in money is going to be some $13,000,000 for 9 months, or one million and a half a month, certainly the commercial interests in San Francisco feel that that depot should have the support of this community, and we are glad to give it our support and will continue to give it our support. Do not let me be misunderstood. That has nothing to do with whether or not the Army, Navy and the Marine Corps, as agencies, are operated efficiently, or otherwise, or whether or not there is an opportunity for consolidation of facilities throughout the country. That subject has been considered by our committee and they feel that is entirely beyond their jurisdiction and they have had no part in that general over-all subject.

When it does come to the continued use of 92 acres of land in San Francisco which provides a pay roll of some $600,000 a month, we appreciate it, we are glad to have it here, and we want the Army, Navy, and the Marine Corps to continue to regard San Francisco as being prepared to continue in seeing that their services are efficiently conducted.

If there are any questions I will be glad to try to answer them. Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you very much.

I want the record to show at this point that our colleague, Congressman Havenner, has just arrived and we are glad to have him with us.

Are there any questions you desire to ask Mr. Fox?

Mr. RIZLEY. No.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Donohue?

Mr. DONOHUE. No.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Harlow?

Mr. HARLOW. No questions.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you very much.

(Witness excused.).

Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, at this time we have run out of witnesses by name. However, I understand that there may be some

persons in the room who would like to offer some information to the committee on this situation.

At this time I would like to ask if there is anyone in the room who wishes to offer any testimony. If so, I wish you would kindly step forward.

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE W. HALL, COUNTY ASSESSOR, MARIN COUNTY, SAN RAFAEL, CALIF.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. My name is George W. Hall, county assessor of Marin County.

Mr. DONOHUE. We did not expect you until this afternoon.

Mr. HALL. I told you at our preliminary meeting the other day I was afraid it would not be possible for me to be here until this afternoon. However, I was able to get here this morning.

I assure you I will take but a few moments of your time.

I represent the county of Marin, just to the north across the Golden Gate from San Francisco.

I have no prepared statement, other than that which is already included in the statement which is before your committee from the Bay Area Council. I have given them the figures, the areas, and so forth.

Our problem, very briefly, is not a new one in Marin County because we have put up with the Federal installations for a great many years, with one or two exceptions. There are one or two points I think the committee should know about and which we feel, over there on our side of the bay, are fast becoming surplus.

Angel Island, included in the boundaries of Marin County, I understand is already in the process of disposition. We have no objection to the Federal Government turning it over to the State, or for recreational areas, or what disposition they make of it. It will not affect our tax situation if the Federal Government sees fit to turn that island of eight hundred and eighty-odd acres back to the State, or to the district for recreational purposes. It still will remain tax exempt. Mr. RIZLEY. How long has the Federal Government had it? Mr. HALL. Long before my time, sir.

Mr. RIZLEY. Always?

Mr. HALL. Always, I believe; yes, sir.

Mr. RIZLEY. It is not property that was acquired for war purposes? Mr. HALL. No.

Then there are Forts Baker, Barry, and Cronkhite. Those are the heavy installations to the north of the Golden Gate. Baker and Barry have been in existence further back than my experience goes. Cronkhite, some eight hundred-odd acres, has been acquired for World War II purposes. Those installations are all heavy coastal fortifications. I had the pleasure of serving at all but Cronkhite.

We feel, over there, that that type of protection, coastal fortifications, is fast passing out of the military picture. They have tremendous back areas, back of those fortifications, running into considerable acreage. Baker and Barry alone consist of some 1,898 acres, just those two reservations. Cronkhite has about 808 acres. There alone are three areas which we feel are fast becoming surplus due to the change in the type of fortifications.

Marinship Corp. was a World War II product, located in Sausalito. There are six hundred and fifty-odd acres there.