the purpose of obtaining maps and data locally with respect to property holdings and installations of the Federal Government in the San Francisco Bay area. As a result of their great interest and cooperation on the general question and not with respect to any individual piece of property-the maps and data which I filed with your subcommittee last May were made available and a resolution was adopted by the board of supervisors on April 7 endorsing a congressional survey and the release of properties in San Francisco not needed by the Federal Government. In view of the importance of that resolution I desire to read it into the record at this point. RESOLUTION No. 6422 (SERIES OF 1939) Whereas with a present population estimated at 820,000 persons and confident prospects for a substantial increase-restricted for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes to a total area of approximately 22 square miles, developed or susceptible of development-the chief seaport and financial center of the United States on the Pacific, San Francisco suffers and must inevitably continue to experience an impairment of its economy and an impediment to its progress, failing conservation and fullest exploitation of available properties, and Whereas, in addition to the occupation of numerous and extensive office, warehouse, and other structural facilities, agencies of the United States Government, military and others, have instituted proceedings for the acquisition of or presently utilize approximately 61⁄2 square miles of San Francisco's limited territory precluding its development by private agencies for private purposes and, through sovereign exemption, while San Francisco faces an increase over the highest tax rate in its history, there will thus be rendered free or continued to be rendered free from local taxation, property with an estimated assessable value in excess of $92,000,000, and Whereas while there is no desire upon the part of the people or the official representatives of San Francisco to interfere with national defense or to suggest derogation from the efficiency, in any manner, of the operations of the agencies of the Federal Government or the maintenance of necessary facilities therefor, it is nevertheless earnestly contended that without one scintilla of jeopardy to its operations or purposes, the United States Government can find it easily possible to consolidate, relocate, or dispense with sufficient of the activities of its agencies, presently conducted in San Francisco, as to make available for private enterprise a very considerable area of urgently needed land, and Whereas, representing numerous property owners and taxpayers of the city and county of San Francisco, Mr. Francis Keesling, Jr., has recently petitioned several committees of the Congress and has urged, either independently or as an incident of congressional action, that a congressional committee be appointed to visit San Francisco and its environs; to study the problem with which San Francisco is confronted as a result of unnecessary and excess holdings of local property by Federal agencies, and to make recommendations for a solution of such problem, satisfactory and beneficial to the city and county of San Francisco, its economy and progress: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this board of supervisors representing the people of the city and county of San Francisco does hereby approve and endorse the proposal as outlined above and does respectfully urge the Congress and its committees to give such consideration to, and take such action in connection therewith as will result in early and effective relief from the oppressive burden under which San Francisco labors as a result of the situation in this resolution referred to; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be furnished His Excellency the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives accompanied by a request that they be transmitted to those congressional committees having jurisdiction to accomplish the purpose sought by the adoption of this resolution; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to Senators Downey and Knowland and to Members of the House of Representatives Welch and Havenner with the request that they exert their most effective efforts for the accomplishment of its purpose. Adopted: Board of Supervisors, San Francisco, April 7, 1947. Ayes: Supervisors Christopher, Colman, Gallagher, Lewis, MacPhee, Mancuso, McMurray, Mead, Meyer, J. Joseph Sullivan, John J. Sullivan. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco. Approved, San Francisco, April 9, 1947. JOHN R. MCGRATH, Clerk. R. D. LAPHAM, Mayor. In response to a request to the San Francisco Bay Area Council for its views concerning an impartial congressional survey I received the following telegram from Frank Marsh, executive director of the Bay Area Council: FRANCIS V. KEESLING, Jr., Shoreham Hotel. [Telegram] SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., March 24, 1947. In reply to your request for information on bay area attitude toward proposed survey to return duplicate military facilities to civilian usage. General area-wide opinion that survey to ascertain unnecessary duplication of military and of other Federal Government facilities less essential for peacetime uses or available for transfer to less congested areas would be extremely helpful to bay area industrial and civic progress. Bay area council recently adopted resolution urging Federal Government maintain adequate national defense facilities in bay area. Survey of duplicate or less essential installations, depots, or storage facilities should give every consideration to factor of national-defense requirements for emergency purposes. Basic premise for survey of military and Federal facilities is urgent need for additional building, storage, and industrial space to serve expanded postwar business and community activities. Bay area population has increased by 50 percent or 800,000 new residents since 1940; more than 100,000 family housing units are currently needed to place estimated 320,000 residents now living in temporary war housing, doubled up in crowded dwellings or seeking home space. Key problem is solution to industrial, storage, and office-building space shortages needed to provide employment for increased residential population. Metropolitan communities also sustaining loss on tax-exempt properties held by Federal Government, thus restricting city budget plans for additional transportation, health, and community assistance in working out amicable agreement based upon impartial survey of bay area Federal and privately owned facilities. Joint survey should lead to plan for more economical and efficient utilization of available buildings and property sites in interests of entire bay area. FRANK E. MARSH, The California Chamber of Commerce has had a resolution of long standing reading as follows: That the Federal Government dispose of surplus real estate acquired for war or other temporary purposes, which is not required for established permanent functions of the Government and so forth. That the State chamber of commerce urge such cuts in the national budget as are necessary to give effect to every attainable economy which can be reasonably and safely adopted under prevailing circumstances. Later, on May 15, 1947, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, in that issue of Bay Region Business-again not with respect to any piece of property but with respect to the general subject-had this to say: 1. That this State and this region receive from Congress as favorable consideration as given to any other State in the Nation. 2. That in return for this equitable treatment, this State and region should make its proportionate sacrifice to reduce the aggregate of Government spending to the minimum essential to proper functioning of the Federal Government. I believe that is well put. 67877-48-pt. 1- -2 The first point of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce is, of course, very important. No one community wants to be hit and have installations run out of there to other parts that are not being investigated. That is why it is important for your committees to investigate other areas as well as this. The chamber's second point concerning sacrifices is well taken for the reason that if unnecessary expenditures are not curtailed in one area we cannot very well expect them to be curtailed in other areas, with the result that there would be no reduction in Federal expenditures and consequently no reduction in the national debt and/or taxes. Last December before a hearing at a Senate Public Lands Subcommittee in this area Congressman Richard J. Welch, one of your colleagues he may appear at these hearings, but I don't knowpresented the following statement: I was very happy to accept your invitation to be with you this morning. The matter of public lands, which your committee is considering, is of vital importance to the State of California and the city and county of San Francisco. The city and county of San Francisco contains an area of 44.2 square miles— the smallest in area of any large city and county in the country. The tremendous strategic importance of this great international seaport city, by reason of its geographic location, as demonstrated during the recent war, caused the Government to take title to some of the most valuable property in the downtown business section of the city. The Government has also taken title to large parcels of land for warehouse purposes in the most desirable sections within our limited industrial areas. Due to the topography of San Francisco and its hilly terrain, approximately only 14 percent is level land, of which about 4 percent can be reached by industrial spurs. Recently the Navy Department secured title by condemnation, for the Marine Corps, approximately 100 acres of land for warehouse purposes. This land is located in what is known as the Islais Creek Basin, where ship and rail meet. This and other parcels of land taken by the Federal Government are necessary for the commercial and industrial development and economy of this community. Every piece of land thus taken by the Government is, as you know, removed from the tax rolls with resultant increases in the local tax rate. This will be explained to you in more detail by Mr. Russell Wolden, assessor of the city and county of San Francisco. While the Government has seen fit to deprive San Francisco of valuable lands and improvements thereon, it has at the present time absolute title to over 1,000 acres of land formerly used for shipbuilding on San Francisco Bay, with a covered area of approximately 3,500,000 square feet, which could be used for the very purposes the Government acquired and is still holding industrial property essential to the development of this city. San Francisco cooperated with the Government and gladly yielded these properties when the emergency required it to win the war. Now that the emergency has passed these valuable properties should be returned to private use and restored to our tax rolls. In any event, by reason of our limited area, the Federal Government, if it holds these properties in perpetuity, should contribute proportionate taxes toward the cost of Government of this great international seaport city, so essential to national security in time of war and the Nation's peacetime economy. Congressman Franck R. Havenner has repeatedly recognized that there is a great scarcity of industrial property in San Francisco. You gentlemen are familiar with his views. Local real-estate firms are on record concerning lack of industrial property and indicate there are many unfilled requests for the same. I understand that Mr. Harrigan, of Harrigan & Weidenmuller, will testify today in connection with this matter. I do not pretend to be an expert on that, but I believe he is. Other representatives of real-estate firms may be testifying, too. I don't know about that. I have already placed in the record, before Mr. Anderson's subcommittee, letters from Buckbee & Thorne, and other real-estate firms, on this point, the point that there are private industries who are very anxious to come into this area close into San Francisco. Gentlemen, I respectfully submit that yours is an assignment that requires great courage and intestinal fortitude. With the exception of congested areas such as San Francisco, you will be pressured throughout the Nation to continue Federal installations and expenditures whether needed or not. Throughout the Nation you will find many who, on other occasions, repeatedly condemn Federal bureaucracy and expenditures but who, on such occasions as this, will remain silent and tell you to do your cutting in some other community. I desire to say that, from personal acquaintanceship with you gentlemen during the war, and after the war, and from my knowledge of your records, and also from seeing your staff experts at work, I hav full confidence that you gentlemen have the intestinal fortitude, the ability, and the courage to carry on, and I am convinced, and have full confidence, that this all-important project which you are initiating here will result in effecting major economy and efficiency in the operations of the Federal Government, and it is my belief that it is within the power of your committees to surpass the accomplishments of such committees as the Truman and Byrd committees. Certainly it was contemplated that the standing committees proceed to do these investigations. I appreciate the opportunity you have afforded me to participate at the inception of these hearings and I assure you that I shall continue to do everything in my power to assist in the successful prosecution of this endeavor. Thank you. Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Keesling. Do any of the staff members have any questions they desire to ask Mr. Keesling? Mr. DONOHUE. No questions. Mr. HARLOW. No. Mr. ANDERSON. Do you have any questions, Congressman Rizley? Mr. RIZLEY. No. Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you very much. (Witness excused.) Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. E. L. Turkington. TESTIMONY OF E. L. TURKINGTON, THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA COUNCIL, INC., SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. Mr. DONOHUE. Will you identify yourself for the reporter? Mr. TURKINGTON. E. L. Turkington, of the San Francisco Bay Area Council. I simply want to make a statement, not in the line of testimony. You already have in the testimony presented by Mr. Keesling a statement to the effect that certain information was prepared concerning the bay area by the San Francisco Bay Area Council affecting the entire area. It has since been revised. I understand, however, additional information has come to your subcommittee, which does not necessitate the repeating of certain statistics here. However, I do want you to know, and I want the people here, the assessors and others interested in the Federal owned property throughout the area, that we are prepared to reproduce this for their own information, and for yours, and if there is any way we can cooperate with your committee or staff we want to do so. Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you very much. We appreciate your offer of assistance. Do I understand that you want to file that statement? Mr. TURKINGTON. I believe you have this, but not the corrected copy which will be made available to you. Mr. ANDERSON. Do we have that, Mr. Donohue? Mr. DONOHUE. We have other information that brings this up to date. Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you very much. (Witness excused.) Mr. DONOHUE. Is Mr. Russell Wolden in the room? (No response.) Is anyone present from the San Francisco city or county assessor's office? (No response.) Is Mr. H. M. Springer, from the city of Oakland, present? TESTIMONY OF H. C. GREEN, CHIEF DEPUTY ASSESSOR, Mr. DONOHUE. Please give your name and position to the reporter. Mr. GREEN. H. C. Green, chief deputy assessor, Alameda County. Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Green, you are prepared at this time to present to the committee a résumé of the opinions of the people in your area relative to Federal land holdings and information from a statistical standpoint as to the effect of Federal land holdings on your tax picture in your area, is that correct? Mr. GREEN. Yes. Mr. DONOHUE. Proceed. Mr. GREEN. What statement I may have to make would be a reiteration of the statement made by Mr. Keesling. We have in our county, in round figures, something over 4,000 acres of land which is federally owned or under lease. Many of these properties should be returned to the local tax rolls in order to give the industrial interests an opportunity to expand. The total assessed valuation of properties owned by the Federal Government in Alameda County is approximately 10 percent of our total tax roll. Many organizations, Government organizations, hospitals, and so forth, are now apparently being abandoned. As we get those back on the rolls quickly it will enable the subdivision work to start, resulting, naturally, in many more new homes which are badly needed in our community. Mr. DONOHUE. In what way does the Federal holding of land affect the tax paid by the citizens of your community-what extra burden does it impose upon them? |