Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118568802
label
Property Review Board
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118568802
contentType
document
title
Property Review Board
citationUrl
identifierLocal
94
collections
Records of the Office of the Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)
James Cicconi's Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118568802
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1985-12-31
year
1985
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a648ae2165cfc3fa
ocrText
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 21, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JOSHUA MUSS
FROM:
JAMES CICCONI
TWO
SUBJECT:
San Luis Obispo Survey Dispute
The main DOT objection to this property conveyance appears
to me to have been somewhat misunderstood. Their concern
is not that noise from the fog beacon would cause noise
pollution for those who at some point might reside on the
property in question. Instead, it seems to me that their
concern is rooted in a more pragmatic reading of the situa-
tion, namely, that future development of this property could
eventually lead to community pressure, as a result of the
noise, for removal or relocation of the sound signal -- an
outcome the Coast Guard would consider inadvisable both from
a safety and budgetary standpoint.
I hope you will agree that the above is somewhat different
from the DOT concern as expressed in the memorandum circulated.
It seems quite conceivable that community pressure could,
indeed, develop several years in the future along the lines
suggested, especially given the history in similar situations.
Such community concern would, of course, arise more from
annoyance than from any supposed harmful effects.
I would hope the staff would assess this conveyance in light
of the above. I recognize the contention that the noise
can be virtually eliminated through certain techniques, and
would suggest that the cost of this be considered in relation
to the amount we would expect to realize from any sale of
the property.
Thanks.
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
17th & PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
October 21, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JIM CICCONI
FROM:
BRUCE SELFON
B.
SUBJECT:
San Luis Obispo
Last evening, you asked me about the arguments of the
Department of Transportation for retention of this
property. I am attaching for your information their
letter of July 18 on this issue. You will note they
discuss only the noise polution concerns.
With respect to local concerns about the historic
significance of the lighthouse, I have discussed this
with our staff this morning. Apparently, the California
Lighthouse Commission has not identified this as a
historic lighthouse and one of their special targets for
restoration. In the immediate community, a local univer-
sity professor is the nominal chairman of a restoration
committee for this site. He was contacted by the
General Services Administration representatives who
conducted the property survey. Reportedly, he told them
there was little interest in the restoration project
except by the local Coast Guard officer in charge.
In so far as general environmental considerations are
concerned, the controlling factors affecting disposal
will be the noise from the fog beacon, the Coastal Zone
Management Act, NEPA, local zoning, and of course the
marketplace. I am also attaching xerox copies of some
of the photos in our files that give you an idea about
the vacant buildings there.
We have extensive files which elaborate further on this
issue. Please let me know if you would like more
information.
Attachments
( 18 '983
p.119
U.S. Department of
Assistant Secretary
400 Seventh St., S.W.
Transportation
for Administration
Washington, D.C. 20590
JUL 18 1983
Mr. Joshua A. Muss
Executive Director
Property Review Board
17th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Josh Mr. MUSS:
This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1983, to Mr. Barnett M.
Anceleitz, concerning the recommendation of the General Services
Administration (GSA) that 29 acres be reported excess at the U.S. Coast
Guard San Luis Obispo Light Station, San Luis Obispo County, California.
Our position, as stated in our April 14 letter to GSA, is that the entire
property should be retained because of the existence of and operational
requirement for the fog sound signal. The problem of noise pollution
caused by fog sound signals has widespread impact upon many Coast Guard
(CG) light stations. Sound Pressure Levels (SPL) of more than 60 decibels
(dB) constitute not only a physical hazard to the health and welfare
of personnel in the vicinity but also an environmental nuisance to all
activities in the area. The enclosed information explains the CG policy
for the protection of personnel in a fog sound-impacted area, with special
reference to San Luis Obispo.
The GSA survey of the San Luis Obispo Station and the noise contour
map indicate that the SPL ranges from 60 to 100dB over the entire property
despite the fact that the sound signal is baffled. An investigation
conducted by the Coast Guard indicated that the relocation of the sound
signal to another site on the station or to another location off-station
would be too costly and not economically justified to the Government.
We are greatly concerned that the disposal of 29 acres and its subsequent
utilization will result in local community pressure being exerted to
remove the sound signal because of its noise pollution effect upon even
occasional intrusion of personnel into the area. At San Luis Obispo,
the fog sound signal is required and cannot be reduced in intensity
if the needs of the mariner are to be met. We believe that under these
circumstances the land is being put to its highest and best use by its
present function, and that GSA survey conclusions to the contrary are
in error.
2
Your full consideration of these facts and of the potential liability
of the Government in the disposal of any portion of the San Luis Obispo
property is earnestly requested. We would also welcome the opportunity
to brief the Property Review Board on the continuing need for the retention
of the entire station.
Sincerely,
BC
Robert L. Fairman
Enclosure
U.S. Coast Guard
San Luis Obispo Light Station, California
Fog Sound Signals
References: a. Noise Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-574: 86 Stat 1234)
b. EPA Report No. 550/9-74-004, dated March 1974
C. EPA Publication, GPO #5500-0072 dated August 1972
d. HUD Report from Contract H-1095
The subject of disposal of properties impacted by noise pollution has
been directly affected by the passage of the Noise Control Act of 1972.
The Congress declared therein "that it is the policy of the United Sates
to promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes
their health and welfare." Section 4(a) of the Act "directs that Federal
agencies shall,
,
carry-out the programs within their control
in such a manner as to further the policy" stated above.
Based upon several studies, references b, C and d above, the Coast Guard
has selected Sound Pressure Levels (SPL) of 60dB at any exterior exposure
location as the maximum at which they will construct standard quarters
for military personnel. Additionally, personnel entering an area where
an SPL of 80dB or more is present are required to wear hearing protection.
An exterior SPL of 60dB was selected as it is the highest level that
can be tolerated by personnel sleeping in a normally constructed building,
assuming the walls will attenuate the sound to an interior SPL of 40dB.
The studies cited above generally addressed the problems of random noise
and are not directly applicable to the pure-tone noises produced by
the Coast Guard sound signal at San Luis Obispo. Hearing loss has been
reported for single tone levels that exceed 60dB, possibly caused by
the physiological hearing mechanism, i.e., inner ear, resonance. The
sound signal generator at San Luis Obispo is one of the strongest utilized
by the Coast Guard, and even though it is already baffled, adversely
impacts the entire area with an excess of 60dB (measured on a calm day
with no wind noise). The Coast Guard has internal instructions that
require no one to remain within 1000 feet of the signal for over eight
hours and that personnel approaching within 25 feet must secure the
electrical power for the sound generator and carry the key in their
pocket until they leave that distance.
14
RC
LEI
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 18, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES BAKER
EDWIN MEESE
DAVID STOCKMAN
GERALD CARMEN
WILLIAM CLARK
MARTIN FELDSTEIN
FROM:
JOSHUA A. MUSS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT:
Survey Dispute at San Luis Obispo
Light Station, San Luis County,
California
John A. Svahn recommends resolution of the survey
dispute on the subject property by declaring the
property excess.
In accordance with Board guidelines, if no member of
the Property Review Board objects within five working
days, Mr. Svahn's recommendation will be considered
final.
Attached is his recommendation and a brief fact
sheet.
Attachments
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 18, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES BAKER
EDWIN MEESE
DAVID STOCKMAN
GERALD CARMEN
WILLIAM CLARK
MARTIN FELDSTEIN
FROM:
JOSHUA A. MUSS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Survey Dispute Johnsburs at San Luis Obispo
SUBJECT:
Light Station, San Luis County,
California
John A. Svahn recommends resolution of the survey
dispute on the subject property by declaring the
property excess.
In accordance with Board guidelines, if no member of
the Property Review Board objects within five working.
days, Mr. Svahn's recommendation will be considered
final.
Attached is his recommendation and a brief fact
sheet.
Attachments
ISSUE:
Resolution of Survey Dispute
San Luis Obispo Light Station
San Luis County, California
DESCRIPTION:
The San Luis Obispo Light Station is located on the
coast of the Pacific Ocean approximately four miles west
of the unincorporated community of Avila Beach and
approximately two hundred miles south of San Francisco.
The station contains 30 acres of fee-owned land.
DATE OF SURVEY: February 18, 1982.
BACKGROUND:
The property was acquired May 28, 1888, as an aid to
navigation. The station was manned until 1975 when it
was fully automated. A light, fog detector, fog signal
and attendant power generators are needed to carry out
the aids-to-navigation mission. Approximately 29 acres
are licensed to the Port San Luis Harbor District for
caretaker and limited maintenance responsibility. Two
employees of the Port District occupy two sets of
quarters at the station and perform maintenance
activities. The Lighthouse located on the site has
historic value.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S POSITION:
The Coast Guard's Board of Survey report for this
property indicates a need for only one acre of the land
to directly support the aids-to-navigation mission. The
remaining 29 acres and facilities are identified as
excess to mission needs, but to be retained as a buffer
zone to preclude public exposure to excess sound
pressure levels caused by the fog signal. It is the
Coast Guard's general policy to retain all land where
noise pollution constitutes a physical hazard to the
health and welfare of personnel in the vicinity or an
environmental nuisance to activity. They point to
numerous complaints at other facilities with fog signals
as additional evidence that the land is unsuitable for
public utilization.
Also, in the followup discussions, the Coast Guard
indicated that increased vandalism and exposure to
liability lawsuits would likely result if this property
were declared excess.
GSA'S POSITION:
GSA has recommended that 29 of the 30 acres at this
facility be excessed, with the following rationale:
1.
The property is not required for Coast Guard's
mission.
2.
Noise pollution alone is not in their opinion,
justification for retention. Adequate safeguards
can be established to protect the government from
noise complaints. The property is permitted to Port
San Luis Harbor District, and two families live
at the site with no apparent ill effects from
noise.
DISCUSSION:
(1) It is not clear that retention is the only, or even
the best method, for meeting the Coast Guard's concerns
pertaining to noise pollution and liability for private
damage claims. PRB Counsel and GSA have concluded that
noise concerns could be addressed by a number of
alternative methods:
(a) There is an alternative baffling technique--one used
at the Point Loma Light Station in San Diego--that
would eliminate the noise problem altogether. It
does not appear to be an expensive undertaking.
Considering the Coast Guard's concerns about
liability and the two families that currently live
at the San Luis Obispo facility, this alternative
should be adopted, if feasible.
(b) The existence of a noise problem can be identified
clearly and specifically to potential purchasers as
a part of the sale process.
(c) Where Coast Guard feels noise levels represent a
clear and present danger, use restrictions can be
included in the Deed of Transfer, for as long as the
noise situation exists.
(d) Purchasers should be given an option to relocate or
improve baffling to improve the noise situation, SO
long as the modifications meet Coast Guard
standards.
(e) The government may wish to include a Waiver of
Liability clause in the Deed.
A combination of these actions may actually improve the
government's position concerning private damage suits.
(2) Also, the Board's staff undertook some additional
study of Coast Guard's noise pollution criterion and
concluded that the use of the 60 dB absolute sound level
as their hearing conservation criterion for retaining
property is questionable from at least two standpoints.
First, it is not the sound measurement technique
recommended by EPA nor that used by other agencies as
being most representative of the effects of noise on
people in a public utilization context. Secondly, it is
a very conservative hearing conservation level. EPA
estimates that over 60 million people live in areas with
average day-night sound levels (LdN) of 60 dB or greater
and at least 300,000 live in areas with an LdN of 80 dB
or higher.
RECOMMENDATION:
For the reasons cited in the discussion above, the Board
should resolve this dispute by having the Coast Guard
declare the San Luis Obispo Light Station excess.
Therefore, I recommend that you send the attached letter
to the Secretary of Transportation.
Attachment: Honorable Elizabeth Hanford Dole Letter
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
The Honorable Elizabeth Hanford Dole
Secretary of Transportation
Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Madam Secretary:
The Property Review Board has reviewed the disagreement
between the Department of Transportation and the General
Services Administration regarding property disposal at
the San Luis Obispo Light Station, San Luis County,
California. The Board is responsible, under Executive
Order 12348, for resolving such conflicts.
The Department of Transportation's position is that this
property should be retained as a buffer zone because of
excessive noise pollution which renders it unacceptable
for public utilization. After reviewing all the
information provided by the Agencies, the Board has
concluded that the property should be declared excess.
The principal reason for arriving at this decision is
that the Board believes that noise pollution problems
can be addressed satisfactorily through use and
protection stipulations in the sale announcement and
Deed of Conveyance.
The Board also urges the Coast Guard to consider
installation of a noise baffle similar to that at the
Point Loma Light facility in San Diego. This type of
baffle would virtually eliminate the noise problem and
represents the optimal solution to concerns of both the
Coast Guard and potential purchasers.
Please report this parcel as excess to the Administrator
of General Services. Thank you for your support of the
President's efforts to make the highest and best use of
the taxpayers' real property assets.
Phil M
Review Board
CC: Gerald Carmen
Robert L. Fairman
4917
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE.
WASHINGTON
August 13, 1983
CiCCONi-
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWIN MEESE, III
JAMES A. BAKER, III
DAVID STOCKMAN
MARTIN FELDSTEIN
GERALD CARMAN
FROM:
WILLIAM P. CLARK
whe
SUBJECT:
Presidio of Monterey, Excess Property
GSA has proposed that acreage at the Presidio of Monterey,
California be approved as excess federal property for sale or
transfer. The Presidio of Monterey is home of the
Defense Language Institute (DLI), a key national security
resource supplying needed linguists to support vital
intelligence related activities.
The Property Review Board should properly seek to maximize the
Government's use of all its property, and to sell unneeded land
or facilities where possible. Noting, though, the national
security importance of DLI, we ask that the PRB take no actions
that would limit the military utility of this institute.
Specifically, no property disposal actions should be taken that
would limit the mobilization surge capability or the readiness
features of this facility.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter. I look forward
to reviewing future information on the Presidio issue which
addresses these national security concerns.
CC: Roger Porter, Acting OPD Member
Joshua Muss, Executive Director
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
8/25/82
TO: JIM BAKER
FROM: PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
FYI
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
17th & PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
August 24, 1982
TO:
MEMBERS, PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
FROM:
EDWIN HARPER 20
CHAIRMAN, PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 1982 BOARD MEETING
The third meeting of the Property Review Board was held
on August 7, 1982, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House.
Members present were:
Edwin Harper (Chairman)
Gerald Carmen
James Baker
William Niskanen
David Stockman
Secretary of Agriculture John Block and Assistant Secretary
John Crowell attended at the request of the PRB to present
their Asset Management program. Bruce Selfon, Acting
Executive Director, served as Secretary.
AGENDA ITEMS I and II were deferred until a later meeting
of the Board.
AGENDA ITEM III: Ex parte contacts with Property Review
Board Members and Staff.
The Board approved Option 2 which was recommended by the
White House Counsel's office. In accord with this option,
PRB members and staff should avoid discussing details of
specific cases before the Board and encourage interested
parties to submit written comments. Dick Hauser will be
responsible for preparing draft guidelines which will be
circulated to Board members for review prior to formal
adoption.
Page Two
AGENDA ITEM IV: Conduct of surveys by GSA
The Board approved the staff recommendations in this
agenda item with a modification. The Board endorsed the
concept of having GSA and PRB staff prepare criteria for
selecting properties to be surveyed. However, it was
agreed that the Office of the Secretary of Defense
would participate in the development of criteria for
Defense properties.
In addition, the Chairman asked Bill Niskanen to present
at the Board's next meeting a proposal developing
incentives for the various agencies to dispose of unneeded
property. The Office of Management and Budget and GSA
staff will also participate in preparation of this proposal.
AGENDA ITEM V: The Department of Agriculture Asset
Management Program
The Board, in general, endorsed the approach of the
Department of Agriculture in the Asset Management Program.
Specifically, the Board in Agenda Item V(A) agreed that
USDA should develop an approach that used a combination of
options. However, it was felt that final decisions on
specific tracts that should be candidates for disposal
would await enactment of needed legislation.
In Agenda Item V(B), the Board endorsed placing USDA
lands in three general categories: retention, sale and
further study. However, it was considered that only lands
where statutory authority exists for disposal should be
placed in Category II. This category, at present, would
be limited to 60,000 acres. It was further understood
that the lands in Category III would quickly be reviewed
to identify those that merited further study for possible
disposal and those that should be retained in Federal
ownership.
In Agenda Item V(C), the Board endorsed Option 2 as the
general policy on future exchanges of Forest Service
property. The USDA will review all pending exchanges
on their merits and develop guidelines for use in that
review. It was understood that the priority would be
sale rather than exchange but that there should be a
phasing in of the new policies.
Page Three
In Agenda Item V(D), it was agreed to pursue Option 3
and seek general sales authority, but enumerate in the
legislation categorical exceptions to that authority.
A legislative working group under the direction of
Assistant Secretary John Crowell and including OMB,
GSA, Interior and PRB staff will begin work on the
legislation.
The Board also agreed that a coordinated sales plan
of Agriculture and Interior properties should be
developed. A target date of August 1983 was set for
this plan. The PRB staff will coordinate this activity
with Agriculture, Interior and GSA.
LATHAM, WATKINS & HILLS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1333 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, N.W.
LOS ANGELES OFFICE
SUITE 1200
NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE
555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1400
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
teLEPHONE (202) 828-4400
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
TELEPHONE (213) 485-1234
TELECOPIER (202) 828-4415
TELEPHONE (714) 752-9100
CABLE ADDRESS LATHWAT
TWX 710 822-9375
TELECOPIER (714) 759-8891
TWX 910 321-3733
TELECOPIER (213) 680-2098
SAN DIEGO OFFICE
PAUL R. WATKINS (1899-1973)
DANA LATHAM (1898-1974)
701 "B"STREET, SUITE 2100
CHICAGO OFFICE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
SEARS TOWER SUITE 6900
TELEPHONE (714) 236-1234
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606
TELEPHONE (312) 876-7700
TELECOPIER (714) 239-3624
TELECOPIER (312) 993-9767
TO:
The Honorable James A. Baker, III
Chief of Staff and Assistant
to the President
FROM:
Carla A. Hills
RE:
Land of William Davis and Others
DATE:
December 10, 1982
Government inertia is unnecessarily and profoundly
prejudicing private landowners. This memorandum outlines the
facts which have led to our clients' efforts to exchange their
land in Hawaii for unneeded federal acreage and the problems
currently faced.
The Government's Actions
For the past two decades the government for all
practical purposes has without any payment taken an option on
the landowners' acreage in Hawaii. In the 1960s the area was
declared an historical landmark. Beginning in 1969, the future
of the land was clouded by a Congressional park study. In 1978,
the land was designated for the Kaloko-Honokohau National Park.
In 1980, Congress directed that the General Services Administration
and the Secretary of the Interior exchange surplus land of equal
value for the acreage. Yet the landowners' efforts to exchange
their property have repeatedly been frustrated.
The Equities
The landowners have been prevented from developing
their land, which is zoned for development. They have been
prevented from selling the land, except at a distress price,
because no purchaser would be able to develop it. Yet the
landowners continue to pay taxes on the land at its development
value.
LATHAM, WATKINS & HILLS
The Honorable James A. Baker, III
December 10, 1982
Page Two
The landowners are elderly; one suffered a massive
stroke last fall. In the event of the owners' death, their
heirs will be assessed estate taxes based on the property's
high appraised value.
The Uniqueness of the Situation
The two-decade old cloud on the landowners' right of
ownership is unique. The acreage, the last open stretch of coast
on the Island of Hawaii, is unique. The fact that the land is
zoned for development is unique. The Congressional mandate in
the FY 1981 Interior Appropriations Act, directing the government
to effect a land exchange, is unique. And the injustice worked
on the elderly owners is unique.
An Exchange Would Correct the Inequities
The Secretary of the Interior has identified ten
specified unneeded federal properties in Hawaii to exchange for
the landowners' acreage. Such an exchange would not deplete the
government's inventory of land. It would, however, stop the
enormous inequity being perpetrated upon the landowners by the
government.
The Problems
The Property Review Board has delayed granting an
official exemption thus preventing any exchange from going
forward. The General Services Administration has fought to
prevent any exchange from taking place.
The Solution
1. Obtain expeditiously an official exemption from
the Property Review Board.
2. Cause GSA to cooperate in implementing an
exchange expeditiously.
Request
The landowners want to know whether the Administration
will establish as an objective a solution to the problems
presented.
LATHAM, WATKINS & HILLS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1333 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, N. W.
LOS ANGELES OFFICE
SUITE 1200
NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE
555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1400
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (202) 828-4400
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
TELEPHONE (213) 485-1234
TELECOPIER (202) 828-4415
TELEPHONE (714) 752-9100
CABLE ADDRESS LATHWAT
TWX 710 822-9375
TELECOPIER (714) 759-8891
TWX 910 321-3733
TELECOPIER (213) 680-2098
5AN DIEGO OFFICE
PAUL R. WATKINS (1899-1973)
DANA LATHAM (1898-1974)
701 "B" STREET, SUITE 2100
CHICAGO OFFICE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
SEARS TOWER SUITE 6900
TELEPHONE (714) 236-1234
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606
TELECOPIER (714) 239-3624
TELEPHONE (312) 876-7700
TELECOPIER (312) 993-9767
TO:
The Honorable James A. Baker, III
Chief of Staff and Assistant
to the President
FROM:
Carla A. Hills
RE:
Land of William Davis and Others
DATE:
December 10, 1982
Government inertia is unnecessarily and profoundly
prejudicing private landowners. This memorandum outlines the
facts which have led to our clients' efforts to exchange their
land in Hawaii for unneeded federal acreage and the problems
currently faced.
The Government's Actions
For the past two decades the government for all
practical purposes has without any payment taken an option on
the landowners' acreage in Hawaii. In the 1960s the area was
declared an historical landmark. Beginning in 1969, the future
of the land was clouded by a Congressional park study. In 1978,
the land was designated for the Kaloko-Honokohau National Park.
In 1980, Congress directed that the General Services Administration
and the Secretary of the Interior exchange surplus land of equal
value for the acreage. Yet the landowners' efforts to exchange
their property have repeatedly been frustrated.
The Equities
The landowners have been prevented from developing
their land, which is zoned for development. They have been
prevented from selling the land, except at a distress price,
because no purchaser would be able to develop it. Yet the
landowners continue to pay taxes on the land at its development
value.
LATHAM, WATKINS & HILLS
The Honorable James A. Baker, III
December 10, 1982
Page Two
The landowners are elderly; one suffered a massive
stroke last fall. In the event of the owners' death, their
heirs will be assessed estate taxes based on the property's
high appraised value.
The Uniqueness of the Situation
The two-decade old cloud on the landowners' right of
ownership is unique. The acreage, the last open stretch of coast
on the Island of Hawaii, is unique. The fact that the land is
zoned for development is unique. The Congressional mandate in
the FY 1981 Interior Appropriations Act, directing the government
to effect a land exchange, is unique. And the injustice worked
on the elderly owners is unique.
An Exchange Would Correct the Inequities
The Secretary of the Interior has identified ten
specified unneeded federal properties in Hawaii to exchange for
the landowners' acreage. Such an exchange would not deplete the
government's inventory of land. It would, however, stop the
enormous inequity being perpetrated upon the landowners by the
government.
The Problems
The Property Review Board has delayed granting an
official exemption thus preventing any exchange from going
forward. The General Services Administration has fought to
prevent any exchange from taking place.
The Solution
1. Obtain expeditiously an official exemption from
the Property Review Board.
2. Cause GSA to cooperate in implementing an
exchange expeditiously.
Request
The landowners want to know whether the Administration
will establish as an objective a solution to the problems
presented.
call
- EH why on Hawaii deleg, dealathoiz
Harper:
- if not, effect swag them Prop. Rev. Bd
Aills says
Haw not delea imppt will wealthour
- waiting on word from Hills; deleg wkg on ?
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Cilloni
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWIN MEESE
JAMES BAKER
WILLIAM CLARK
DAVID STOCKMAN
MARTIN FELDSTEIN
FROM:
EDWIN GERALD L. CARMEN HARPER 21
CHAIRMAN, PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT:
Report to the Property Review Board on
Privately-owned Lands within the Boundaries
of National Parks or National Forests
At the last Board meeting, the Executive Director was instructed
to determine the extent of private inholders in National Forests
and National Parks and to report on the progress towards solution
of the inholder problem at Kaloko-Honokohau, Hawaii. Attached is
his report.
To: Ed Harper
If it becomes clear before march 1
Attachment
That the acquisition cannot be made
via ceded lands
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
17th & PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
January 24, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWIN L. HARPER
CHAIRMAN, PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
FROM:
JOSHUA A. MUSS Johlevess
SUBJECT:
Report to the Property Review Board on
Privately-owned Lands within the Boundaries
of National Parks or National Forests
Enclosed is a revised copy of the above report together with
a transmittal memorandum to the members of the Property Review
Board.
Attachments
Report to the
Property Review Board
on Privately-owned Lands within the
Boundaries of National Parks or National Forests
Issue:
a.
What is the magnitude and nature of the inholder
problem?
b. What can we do about the problem in general and
the Kaloko-Honokohau inholders in specific?
Background:
The size of the inholder problem is immense; there are
39,000,000 acres of privately-owned lands within the boun-
daries of the National Forests and 3,300,000 acres of
privately-owned lands within the boundaries of the National
Parks. While there are no accurate estimates of the value
of the holdings, rule of thumb would indicate that they
exceed $30 billion. (The value of private lands in the
Santa Monica Mountain NRA alone exceeds $2 billion.)
The attached memo from the Justice Department confirms that
there are few legal inhibitions on the use of private pro-
perty which lies within the boundaries of a Park or Forest.
In fact, in many cases there are substantial commercial or
aesthetic benefits from being an inholder and many have
actively resisted any attempt to change their status.
The practical effects of being an inholder vary with the
nature of the property, its location and the proposed use.
In the case of inholders who (like those at Kaloko-
Honokohau) intended residential or commercial development
of their properties, the practical consequences of being
included in a National Park or Forest is to preclude
development. This occurs because local governments often
use the Park or Forest designation as an excuse to down-
zone the property. (For example, after Congress designated
Kaloko-Honokohau a National Park, the County of Hawaii
changed the zoning from development/resort to open space.)
Additionally, the prospect of imminent condemnation dis-
courages land holders from investing in the development of
their property and inhibits their ability to finance
permanent improvements.
Neither the Forest Service nor the Park Service has any
information on the number of inholders who are anxious to
have their property acquired. Both contend that to attempt
to accumulate hard data would take a great effort and
unnecessarily stir up controversy.
At the present time the agencies' acquisition policies are
similar. Except in special, Congressionally-mandated
instances (e.g. Lake Tahoe); the agencies purchase fee
estates in inholdings only when pressed; and then only when
an exchange or acquisition of a lesser interest cannot be
arranged.
In regard to Kaloko-Honokohau, Congress authorized, but did
not appropriate $25,000,000, for the acquisition of the
Park. The inholders believe the market value of their pro-
perties aggregate $60,000,000. Congress also authorized
the acquisition of the park lands by exchange.
Alternatives for Kaloko-Honokohau:
a)
Acquire the inholders with appropriated funds -
Strongly opposed by Department of Interior,
because of limited funds available, potential
adverse precedent , and low priority of this
Park.
b)
Acquire the inholders using the exchange
authority - Opposed by PRB staff because of
precedent and potential adverse effect on debt
reduction initiative.
c)
Retain the status quo - Unfair to the inholders.
d)
De-authorize the Park - Despite the limited
National interest in this Park, it is unreason-
able to expect that Congress would pass legis-
lation de-authorizing the Park.
e) Use State-owned, but Federally-occupied lands
(ceded lands) to acquire the properties.
Recommendation:
1. Allow the current approach to the acquisition of
inholdings in Parks and Forest Service to continue.
2. In regard to Kaloko-Honokohau attempt to arrange
acquisition with ceded lands (Alternative e). If
substantial progress cannot be achieved towards
concluding this arrangement by March 1, 1983,
selectively acquire the inholders by exchange
(Alternative b).
-2-
Present Status:
On January 14, 1983; I met with Governor Aryoshi and
proposed that ceded lands of sufficient value to acquire
the property be returned by the Federal Government to the
State with the understanding that the State would use
either those lands, the proceeds of the sale of those
lands, or other assets, to promptly acquire the Park lands.
The Governor was interested in the proposal and suggested
that I meet with the members of the Hawaiian Congressional
delegation. Those meetings are scheduled over the next two
weeks. The Governor and I will meet again in February,
during his visit to Washigton for the National Governors'
Conference,
-3-
U.S. Department of Justice
Land and Natural Resources Division
Office of the
Washington, D.C. 20530
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
December 28, 1982
Mr. Bruce Selfon
Deputy Director
Property Review Board
Room 497 Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Selfon:
Pursuant to your request to Anthony C. Liotta, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, on December 27, 1982, the following
information is submitted for your consideration.
Generally, an inholder (an owner of private property
within a designated national park area) may exercise any of his
property rights subject to the restrictions established by state,
county or local laws. However, if this "inholder" requires ingress
or egress within the national park and over the lands of the United
States, the landowner is subject to the various rules and regulations
as may be prescribed by the National Park Service. These regulations
are generally found in 36 C.F.R. Chap. I, et seq.
In many instances, property is sold to the National Park
Service reserving use and occupancy for a fixed term or life of the
former owners. In those instances, restraints are usually placed on
that inholder's use of the property; generally such as prohibiting
the change of topography, means of access, cutting trees, etc., and
restricting the use of residential purposes. General guidelines
setting forth appropriate restrictions are prescribed by the National
Park Service.
Sincerely,
F. Henry Habicht
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Land and Natural Resources Division
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
CICCONT
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWIN MEESE
JAMES BAKER
WILLIAM CLARK
DAVID STOCKMAN
MARTIN FELDSTEIN
GERALD CARMEN
FROM:
EDWIN L. HARPER
CHAIRMAN, PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT:
Board Procedures on Resolution
of Survey Disputes
Attached are the new Board procedures for handling property
survey disputes. Two comments were received on the draft
procedures you have already seen. These comments suggested
(1) that the Board members be given an opportunity to review
the Chairman's proposed resolution of a dispute and (2) that
the Chairman formally notify the agencies of the Board's
views. These suggestions are incorporated in the new
procedures.
Attachment
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURES FOR RESOLUTION
OF SURVEY DISPUTES
In accordance with Executive Order 12348, the Board
will follow these procedures in handling the resolution
of interagency disputes that occur as a result of
property surveys:
The Administrator of General Services will
forward the survey report, including agency
views, to the Executive Director along with
any additional written comments that the
Administrator desires to make.
The Executive Director will request the
agency holding the property to provide any
additional written comment within 14 days.
The Executive Director will notify all Board
members of survey reports referred for
resolution.
The Executive Director will prepare a brief
written summary for the Chairman. The
Chairman may resolve the dispute if (a) the
dollar amount of the property in question is
less than $20 million, and (b) the decision
will not require the relocation to another
facility of a continuing agency activity. If
conditions (a) and (b) are not met, the dispute
will be referred to the full Board for
resolution.
If the Chairman is authorized to resolve the
dispute, his recommended resolution will be
provided by memorandum to. all Board members
for review. If any Board member so requests
within five working days, the dispute will be
referred to the full Board for resolution
at its next meeting. If no request is made,
then the Chairman's resolution will be con-
sidered final.
The Chairman of the Board will notify the
agency, or agencies, involved and the
General Services Administration of the
Board's views.
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
-
17th & PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
March 17, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES BAKER
EDWIN MEESE
DAVID STOCKMAN
GERALD CARMEN
WILLIAM CLARK
MARTIN FELDSTEIN
FROM:
JOSHUA A. MUSS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT:
SURVEY DISPUTE ON THE NATIONAL
CENTER FOR TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH,
JEFFERSON, ARKANSAS
Edwin L. Harper, Chairman of the Property Review
Board, recommends resolution of the survey dispute
on the subject property by retention of the land in
Federal ownership.
In accordance with Board guidelines, if no
member of the Property Review Board objects within
five working days, Mr. Harper's recommendation will
be considered final.
Attached is his recommendation and a brief
background memorandum.
Attachments
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 17, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR GERALD CARMEN
ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
MARGARET HECKLER
SECRETARY, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
FROM:
EDWIN L. HARPER
CHAIRMAN, PROPERTY S REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT:
GSA SURVEY REPORT ON THE NATIONAL
CENTER FOR TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH,
JEFFERSON, ARKANSAS
Executive Order 12348 directed the Property
Review Board to resolve conflicting claims which
arise from real property surveys performed by the
General Services Administration. The GSA has
recommended that 250 acres at the National Center
for Toxicological Resarch, Jefferson, Arkansas,
which are unused be declared excess to the needs
of the Department of Health and Human Services.
I have reviewed the HHS response to this
report and I conclude that due to the possible
health hazard on account of the current or
potential contamination of the site, the property
should be retained in federal ownership.
CC: JOSH Mvss (497)
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
SEAL
17th & PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20500
March 15, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR ED HARPER
FROM:
JOSHUA MUSS Johnson BC
SUBJECT:
GSA SURVEY REPORT ON THE NATIONAL
CENTER FOR TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH,
JEFFERSON, ARKANSAS
In 1980, the GSA surveyed the National Center for
Toxicological Research, Jefferson, Arkansas, and
recommended that 250 acres be declared excess.
In accordance with our procedures we have written
HHS, the holding agency, and invited their comment
on the GSA report.
HHS has replied that while they are willing to
dispose of the subject property, they note:
- the property is within the Pine Bluff Arsensal,
a high security DOD facility
- the adjacent property is highly contaminated
with toxic chemical munitions and, therefore,
the subject property is restricted against
human habitation and the assemblage of human
beings. Legitimate concern exists that the
adjacent uses may contaminate the soil or
ground water of this site.
- about 62 acres of the property are in the
flood plain and the entire site has a low
value, perhaps $100,000.
Recommendation: The present or potential future
contamination hazards of the site dictate against
disposal of the property and for retention in
federal ownership. The low market value of property
at this time does not warrant the expenditures for
engineering studies necessary to determine the extent
of present and future contamination and the method
and cost of decontamination if necessary.
- 2 -
For your information the HHS letter is attached.
If you agree with my conclusions, attached
is a letter for your signature. Under our procedures
we are required to circulate our recommendation to
the Board members for five days prior to issuance
of the letter.
Attachment
3/10/83
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
TO:
June Baker
FROM: Richard A. Hauser
Deputy Counsel to the President
FYI:
COMMENT:
ACTION:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 9, 1983
cicconi 3/"
MEMORANDUM FOR JOSHUA A. MUSS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
FROM:
RICHARD A. HAUSER
RAS
DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Letter to Qualified
Investment Bankers
This is in response to your memorandum of March 3, 1983 in
which you request our comments on your proposed letter to
"qualified investment bankers" with respect to the sale of
"several large and valuable tracts of Federally-owned
[surplus] properties. "
While the general concepts set forth in your letter appear
to have considerable merit, I strongly recommend that such a
letter not be sent until the details of your proposal are
discussed with this office, OMB General Counsel and the
Department of Justice to ensure that applicable Federal
statutes and regulations would sanction the contemplated
procedures for the disposition of the property at issue.
Additionally, given the controversy that may be generated
from this proposal, you may wish to discuss it with the
appropriate White House offices, including, but not limited
to the Offices of Intergovernmental Affairs, Political
Affairs and Legislative Affairs.
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
iTh & & PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NV. \ 7.
DATED JON,
March 3, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD HAUSER
FROM:
JOSHUA A. MUSS
SUBJECT:
Draft of Proposed Letter to
Qualified Investment Bankers
For your comments, enclosed is a draft of a letter which
we discussed. I would appreciate hearing from you as
soon as possible.
Attachment
DRAFT OF PROPOSED LETTER
TO QUALIFIED INVESTMENT BANKERS
Gentlemen:
I anticipate that, in the near future, several large and
valuable tracts of Federally-owned properties will become
surplus and available for sale to private interests.
These parcels are located in urban areas and are ready
for development, but are not suitable for disposal
through normal Government procedures because of the
extremely large value of the properties, the complexity
of the required planning, and the necessity for obtaining
local zoning. I am exploring the possibility of
disposing of these properties by using the services of
investment bankers to assist in organization and
finance of a publicly-owned entity for the acquisition of
these properties.
I anticipate that the Government would negotiate the sale
for fair market value of two or three of these properties
to this entity. The sale cold be for all cash or
partially on terms, and could be subject to the
satisfaction of agreed-upon conditions. While statutory
authority currently exists which permit any of the above,
we expect that the size and complexity of the transaction
will dictate Congressional oversight. In addition to the
normal and customary investment banking services, the
investment banker to the acquiring entity might advise
and assist in:
1. Selection of the appropriate organizational form
(e.g. land trust, corporation, partnership).
2. Selection of management team.
3. Analysis and evaluation of the properties to be
acquired.
4. Negotiation of the terms and conditions of
acquisition of the property.
5. Preparation of operating projections.
6. Determination of the type of securities to be
issued.
7. Obtaining a firm commitment for underwriting
of the sale of securities in an amount
sufficient to fund the cash portion of the
purchase price of the property acquisition.
I expect that the properties to be purchased will have a
market value of about $500 million.
I am writing to you, as I have to several other large
investment banking firms, to ask if you would be
interested in developing and financing an entity
suitable for the transaction which I've outlined. Since
you will be representing the acquiring organization, not
the Government, in this transaction, the Government would
have no responsibility for your fees or expenses. If you
have any questions before responding to my inquiry, do
not hesitate to call me. Would you please let me know in
writing if you are interested in pursuing this matter by