Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Pelosi Betrays Her Constituents (Including Newfies)

(Congresswoman Pelosi and her co-conspirators, Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy Executive Director Greg Moore and GGNRA Superintendent Lyin Brian O'Neill, hold hands, sing "Kumbaya" and plot the end of recreation as we know it in the soon to be extinct Golden Gate National Recreation Area)

HR Bill 6305 Would Wipe Away Recreation In The GGNRA

Nancy Pelosi submitted a bill, HR 6305, to Congress on June 19, 2008. Much of the bill covers administrative details (allowing the Presidio Trust to move their visitor center, and allowing a concession contract at the Maritime Historic Park). But Section 2 is very dangerous:

(a) Name Change-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is hereby renamed the `Golden Gate National Parks'.
(2) REFERENCES- Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area is deemed to be a reference to the Golden Gate National Parks.
(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS- The Act titled `An Act to establish the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the State of California, and for other purposes' (Public Law 92-589, approved October 27, 1972) is amended--
(A) in sections 1 and 2 by striking `National Recreation Area' each place it appears and inserting `National Parks'; and
(B) by striking `recreation area' each place it appears and inserting `national parks'.
(b) Change of Unit From Recreation Area to National Park-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Golden Gate National Parks, as so renamed by subsection (a), is hereby designated as a national park and shall be administered as such by the Secretary of the Interior.
(2) CLARIFICATION- This section designates the recreation area known as Golden Gate National Recreation Area as a national park and renames that unit Golden Gate National Parks. Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating a new `national parks' category of designation with the National Park System."

* * * * * * * * * *

For years, off-leash advocates have been told by GGNRA staff that changing the name from "Golden Gate National Recreation Area" to "Golden Gate National Parks" will make it easier for them to further restrict recreation within GGNRA boundaries. There is no other reason for this name change. The National Park Service wants to remove recreation from the Park just as they wish to remove it from their name. It would remove any question as to whether or not GGNRA land should be treated differently from national park land such as Yosemite. This name change says the same management policies must apply.

This proposed name change ignores the historical reality that the GGNRA was specifically created to preserve land for the "outdoor recreational needs of the people of the metropolitan region", according to a 1972 Report from the US House of Representatives. The objective of the GGNRA, according to the 1972 House Report, is "to expand to the maximum extent possible the outdoor recreational opportunities available in the region." The name-change provision of this bill flies in the face of the intent behind the founding of the GGNRA and the promises made to the people of the Bay Area when it was formed and under which they gave their municipal parkland to the federal government to manage.

Section 2 of Pelosi's bill has nothing to do with the rest of the bill, which it says is "[t]o clarify the authorities for the use of certain National Park Service properties within Golden Gate National Parks and San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park, and for other purposes." Clearly Section 2 is the other purposes. Not making that part of the description of the bill is highly suspect. Was Pelosi hoping to sneak this through with the public not knowing what she was doing?

Please contact Pelosi and demand that she remove Section 2 from HR 6305:
District Office - 450 Golden Gate Ave. - 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102 -
(415) 556-4862
Washington, D.C. Office - 235 Cannon HOB - Washington, DC 20515 - (202) 225-4965

Also contact the Committee on Natural Resources to which the bill has been referred:
1324 Longworth House Office Building
(202) 225-6065 Fax: (202) 225-1931
MR. NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
MR. DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
and the Subcommittee on National Parks Forests and Public Lands to which it was referred on June 25:
1333 Longworth House Office Building
(202) 226-7736 Fax: (202) 226-2301
Mr. Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona, Chairman
Mr. Rob Bishop, Utah, Ranking Republican Member

Let Pelosi, the Committee and the Subcommittee know that you want Section 2 removed from HR 6305. The simple introduction of the bill now creates an obligation on the part of the City and County of San Francisco to institute proceedings for reversion of former City properties deeded to the GGNRA, such as Ocean Beach, Fort Funston, and Lands End. The deeds conveying these properties clearly state that any deviation from the recreation-first mandate of the GGNRA shall result in reversion of the properties. Let's get the feds out of our front yard and take back the land!
Newfies need places to swim!!!!!

This bill is not aimed soley at off-leash recreation, but at the elimination of all forms of recreation. The irony from the off-leash recreation litigation is mindboggling. In United States v. Barley, 405 F.Supp.2d 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2005), the Court cited a "March 1999" letter from "Superintendent O'Neill to the Honorable [???] Nancy Pelosi stating that the GGNRA had adopted a pet policy more liberal than pet regulations at other national park sites throughout the country." And, with respect to the GGNRA's attempts to rescind the Pet Policy, the Court found the NPS to have "wiped away two decades of policy, practice, promulgations, and promises to the public." Don't let them try it again.


Anonymous said...

Pelosi is a crook.

JB said...

Crook, politician, same thing. Ultimately, she has sold us out.


Anonymous said...

This really is nothing short of fraud by Pelosi, et al.

presidiopal said...

The change in name and emphasis on recreation may be based on a court decision a few years ago dealing with off road bicycles in the GGNRA that emphasized the the predominant mission of the Park Service and national parks is preservation of resources - natural, cultural and scenic for the enjoyment of he public.

Another TERRIBLE effect of HR 6305 is to reduce NPS authority on the Presidio ruled by the arrogant Presidio Trust of appointed real estate moguls to build 200,000 sq ft of new construction, including a huge white modern art museum, in the historic heart of a national park and national historic landmark. This is done by seemingly innocent changes in paragraph 102 (b.) STOP THE FISHER MUSEUM. STOP THE PELOSI AMENDMENT. Show up at the Presidio Monday night, 6:30 for a public hearing on the construction.

onecoatsam said...

Good point on the Bicycle Trails Of Marin v. Babbitt decision. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs in that case did a terrible job and did not put into evidence all of the pertinent provisions of the GGNRA enabling legislation and its history, which no one can argue mandate that the Park is recreation first and a unique urban national park.
You are absolutely correct that all of this is about getting money primarily for the Presidio Trust, which is run by millionaires and is only interested in turning a profit. Of course, Pelosi is one of them.

Thanks for the comment.

Anonymous said...

This is a complete rewrite of the GGNRA enabling legislation. What an outrage Pelosi has turned out to be, from rubber-stamping everything Bush wants (more money for Iraq, warrantless wiretapping) to selling out to the Presidio Trust. Shameless politician.

Anonymous said...

Pelosi, O'Neill, Meyer -- all criminals.

Flahaghan the Newfie said...

The City must act, if not to stop this change then to take back the property given to the National Park Service for the GGNRA only for the purpose of recreation.

MJ said...

Time to rid ourselves of the feds and take back our land.


Anonymous said...

Just a couple of days ago, she said she would scrap the bill's elimination of the word "recreation" from the text of the enabling legislation. Then she reniged on her promise. Shame on her but typical of a politician.