General CREESY. Not that I know of. I can't state that. I couldn't say. Mr. DONOHUE. Have any other areas in this locality been taken into consideration for a possible move in addition to this Alameda set-up? General CREESY. I think several areas have been taken into consideration. The subject was brought up of naval supply base at Rough and Ready Island being transferred to the shipyard No. 3, and I think it is called the Richmond area. Any of these movements would require first the construction of a complete depot from the ground up. Mr. DONOHUE. Including the Alameda location? General CREESY. No; the other ones, not the Alameda. Mr. DONOHUE. Would you say there is ample storage facility at the Alameda installation? General CREESY. I think the storage facilities at the Alameda area would be ample. The square footage is practically the same. Mr. DONOHUE. How about the housing of your other activities carried on in your Islais Creek depot in addition to the storage end? General CREESY. Some of the shops would have to be-there would have to be some arrangements made for the movement of the shops such as the optical shops, ordnance, repairs; they have to be in buildings capable of handling the machinery, and so forth, which would be used during their operation. Mr. HOLIFIELD. May I interrupt there? You are speaking of the shops located at the Harrison Street address rather than the Islais Creek? General CREESY. That is correct. Mr. HOLIFIELD. If the Islais Creek location was given up, couldn't you still maintain your permanent Harrison Street buildings? General CREESY. That would have to depend on the decision by Washington, whether or not they would run the depot from this side and have the major activities over there. I couldn't say. Mr. HOLIFIELD. But you are running Barstow from this side? Mr. HOLIFIELD. It certainly wouldn't be too far to run it across the bay from Harrison Street? General CREESY. Well it is a little bit different proposition; Islais Creek and 100 Harrison Street are the same section, depot; Barstow is a semi-independent section of the depot, which has its own commanding officers, which comes under the depot proper. Mr. HOLIFIELD. But the properties are not joined together. The Islais Creek property is not joined to the Harrison Street property? General CREESY. No; indeed. Mr. HOLIFIELD. There is a gap of private property in between? General CREESY. There is a gap of private property in between, but the personnel which we maintain here are maintained as one complete overhead for the entire set-up. There are no people employed in San Francisco who are employed to work at Islais Creek or who are employed to work at 100 Harrison Street. The utility people-in fact, any of the personnel of the depot in this area are moved to where the work load is. If the work load is at 100 Harrison Street, the stevedore gang is there; if the work load is at Islais Creek, it is there. We maintain one crew of maintainers, one crew of auto mechanics, one crew of everything, and there is no distinction between those who work at Islais Creek and Harrison Street. I think it would increase our overhead considerably if the two installations were separated by such a large distance. Mr. DONOHUE. How active is the movement of the stock in your Islais Creek depot, sir? General CREESY. This is a supply depot and the stock is in constant motion. I think an inspection of the depot will show that the warehouses are in operation at all times. Shipments are being made up at all times. Shipments are on the floor to be taken out. I think an inspection will show that the depot is a continuous active operating agency. Mr. DONOHUE. Can you furnish us with the figures as to the amount of stock that has remained in that depot for a period of at least 18 months? General CREESY. I couldn't say whether I could or not, but I can attempt to get the data. Mr. DONOHUE. We would like to get figures indicating the amount of stock that has been there in excess of 18 months, for 12 months, and for the past 6 months, stock that has just stayed there for that period of time without any movement. Now, I noticed according to the figures of rail and ocean movement in one of your annexes to this statement, that better than 75 percent . of the transport was accomplished by rail for the past year, that is, from June of 1946 to July 1, 1947, something like eight-thousandsome-odd tons by ocean, and 28 or 29 thousand tons by rail. General CREESY. Do you know which annex that was? [Examining documents.] Would you repeat that again? I have it right here now. Mr. DONOHUE. The out-bound shipment from San Francisco appears as though in this year, from July 1946 to June 30, 1947, better than 75 percent of the shipments have been accomplished by rail. General CREESY. During that period, early period of 1946, we were engaged in giving up what is called the Bel-Air area, and also many of these properties which I listed on this property list here [indicating], I think, you will find that most of the excess tonnage out-bound by rail was the motor transport spare parts and other stock which was shipped from San Francisco to Barstow for storage at that point in order to clear out the leased areas here in San Francisco. Mr. DONOHUE. Is it expected that in the future that same ratio will pertain, comparing your rail and ocean shipments? General CREESY. No. That ratio should not be the same by anv means. Mr. DONOHUE. You mean then that the major portion of your shipments in the future will go by ship rather than by rail? General CREESY. The major portion of the out-bound shipments in the future will go by ship. Mr. DONOHUE. That is what I mean, the out-bound. Mr. HOLIFIELD. From a strategic standpoint, what is the difference between the rail communications down the peninsula there to Islais Creek and to the Alameda facility? General CREESY. The railroad situation in the San Francisco area depot is approximately as follows: Both the Santa Fe and the Western Pacific ship into San Francisco on car barges at all times. Their freight cars come over in barges. Mr. HOLIFIELD. From across the bay? General CREESY. From across the bay. The Southern Pacific goes over Dumbarton Bridge and comes up the peninsula. In Oakland the same railroads would go directly into Oakland. However, during the war period, the peak use of the depot-the railroad facilities, through the use of the Western Pacific, the Santa Fe, and the Southern Pacific, were entirely adequate. Where you might put out a rail line by bombing, it isn't so bad having the rail barge because by the time the all-clear went, there can be another barge under way, where the railroad line might be out permanently. Mr. HOLIFIELD. But the shipment-you wouldn't need a rail barge line if your shipments were made direct from the Alameda facility and right out into the ocean? General CREESY. Well Mr. HOLIFIELD. Is it true that the Western Pacific line, in coming up the peninsula from the east, goes through several tunnels which could be blocked by bombing? General CREESY. Western Pacific or Southern Pacific? Mr. HOLIFIELD. Southern Pacific. General CREESY. As far as I know, the Southern Pacific comes through several tunnels. Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is not true on the other side; is it? Mr. HOLIFIELD. From a strategic standpoint, as a layman strictly, your railroad transportation facilities from the east would be safer coming to Alameda than they would be coming up that peninsula or coming across by barge? General CREESY. There might be several points on that. The Alameda location is so close to the naval supply depot that if the naval supply depot were put out of action, we would go out of action at the same time. Here there is enough distance between them that one bombing raid, unless they picked their targets, perhaps might not put them both out of action. It is putting all your eggs pretty close in one basket to put everybody in one tight area. Mr. HOLIFIELD. But as far as continuity of supplies by rail to Alameda is concerned, you would be in a safer position there than you would be over in the peninsula; wouldn't you? General CREESY. That is correct. Mr. ANDERSON. Anything further? Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is all. Mr. RIZLEY. Are you through? Mr. DONOHUE. Yes. Mr. RIZLEY. What is the land situation out here, General? You have 94 acres, as I understand it, in this tract. General CREESY. That is correct. Mr. RIZLEY. At the present time title to it is still in litigation; is that your understanding of it? General CREESY. My understanding of the present situation, I think, should be cleared up by the naval real-estate officers. It is as follows: There was a declaration of taking by the Navy of 90.6 acres of land, more or less, signed by the Acting Secretary of the Navy on October 4, 1946, which is the Islais Creek area. My understanding is that that area is now in the hands of the Navy Department, but I would like to have that verified by the district real estate officer. Mr. ANDERSON. Excuse me, Ross. Why not ask for someone who can verify that question now? General CREESY. Mr. Deasy can do that. Mr. ANDERSON. I think we might as well clarify that right now. TESTIMONY OF PIERCE J. DEASY, REAL ESTATE OFFICER, Mr. DONOHUE. Will you identify yourself to the reporter? Mr. ANDERSON. Will you give us the exact status of the Islais Creek property today? Mr. DEASY. Original condemnation action was filed in the district court in October of 1945. In October of 1946 the declarations of taking were filed and a judgment on the declaration of the taking was entered, vesting fee simple title absolute in the United States of America. At that time the Government, in conformance with the requirements of law, deposited with the registry of the court, a sum of money which in its opinion was sufficient to pay the amount of money required at the condemnation of the land. Mr. RIZLEY. What was that based upon? Mr. DEASY. That was based upon Government appraisals. Mr. RIZLEY. Yes. I wish you would enlighten me a little bit on this business. There was an appraisement at the time appraisers were appointed by the court, were they not, to make an appraisement of the value of the real estate? Mr. DEASY. No. The Navy Department obtained its own independent appraisals prior to the filing of the condemnation action. Mr. RIZLEY. Well, that wouldn't be binding on anybody-not at all. You made your own independent appraisal? Mr. DEASY. That is correct. Mr. RIZLEY. When you filed a condemnation proceeding, didn't you ask to have an appraiser appointed for the purpose of determining the value of the lands? Mr. DEASY. No. Mr. RIZLEY. Tell me how they do that. Mr. DEASY. The condemnation action is filed and thereafter, at the option of the condemner, the Federal Government under the law may file a declaration of taking. By filing the declaration of taking, it also requires that the Government deposit with the registry of the court sufficient money in its opinion to pay for the land taken. That amount of money is not binding on the person against whom the condemnation action was brought. Mr. RIZLEY. That is based upon some independent appraisement that you have made? Mr. DEASY. Government appraisal; yes. Mr. RIZLEY. I see. Mr. DEASY. However, upon the strength of the filing of the declaration of taking, the court has the power, and did in this case, file its judgment upon such declaration vesting within the United States of America as of that time-which in this case was October 1946the fee simple title of all of that land in the United States of America Mr. RIZLEY. Then what remedy has the owner of land? What remedy do I have? Mr. DEASY. None presently, under existing law. Mr. RIZLEY. You mean under existing law that the Government of the United States can make its own independent appraisal of real estate, file a declaration of taking, and if some judge will then take the title-let's say my title-away from me, based upon an appraisal made by some Government agency, I have no recourse at all? Mr. DEASY. Yes. Your recourse is your day in court to fix the reasonable value of the land taken, but it doesn't stop Mr. RIZLEY. You said there was a judgment rendered here, though, vesting the fee simple title to this property in the Government based wholly and solely upon the declaration that you made plus an appraisal, independent appraisal, that you had made? Mr. DEASY. Yes, sir. However, that judgment reserves unto the defendant in the condemnation action the right to come into court to prove or their day in court for the purpose of proving-the fair value of the land taken. Mr. RIZLEY. In other words, while a title is vested in the Government and the owner has no recourse to come back and take the title away, he can come in and contest the amount you are paying him for it? Mr. DEASY. Very definitely. Mr. RIZLEY. What was the amount of the appraisal that was made by the Navy at the time of the declaration? I mean, on this particular tract of land? Mr. DEASY. The Navy appraisals are restricted, sir, and I would rather not answer that question. Mr. RIZLEY. Isn't that known by the court? Mr. DEASY. That is a different thing. However, there was deposited with the registry of the court some seven-hundred-odd thousand dollars. Mr. RIZLEY. Was that based on Mr. DEASY. That is based on the Secretary of the Navy's then determination of the reasonable value. Mr. RIZLEY. What did he base that on? Mr. DEASY. Basically on various factors and appraisals that had been obtained. Mr. RIZLEY. You mean you can make an appraisal, but that is restricted? You keep that within your breast? Mr. DEASY. Yes, sir. Mr. RIZLEY. But you did deposit $700,000 in court? Mr. DEASY. Yes, sir. Mr. RIZLEY. At the time you filed this declaration of taking? Mr. DEASY. Yes, sir. Mr. RIZLEY. And that was based upon what? I didn't understand how you arrived at that value? Mr. DEASY. That value was partly based upon various appraisals that had been made. Mr. RIZLEY. Maybe the one that was restricted? Mr. DEASY. Well, the actual amounts of the appraisals themselves. |