IT'S NOT OVER YET, BUT CELEBRATE FOR NOW

Yes, Donald Fisher has finally realized that his vision is not going to happen to convert the Presidio's Main Post, which is the center of a National Historic Landmark, into a grand mall for his contemporary art museum . He is packing up his marbles to play his game somewhere else. Let's hope that he finds the right spot in San Francisco.

I believe that three things happened.

First over 3,000 official comments from the public were overwhelmingly opposed to the art museum as the wrong idea at the wrong place. The public respected the Presidio as a special place with a remarkable history.

Second, public voice gave political backup to the National Park Service, those people who wear funny Smokey the Bear hats. The Park Service devastated the Trust for its plans. The Park Service has a proud tradition carrying out its legal role to protect the nation's historic landmarks from well intentioned bad ideas. I'll thank every Smokey the bear I see for their courageous stand. After all, they had to oppose the Speaker of the House, who can cut their budget or blackball their promotions. Bravo, Park Service! Gutsy bureaucrats standing up for what they believe !

Third, comments submitted June 1 from historical organizations and neighborhood groups were very well prepared. In contrast to previous environmental reviews by the Trust, this time the public organizations understood the legal framework and played hardball instead of rolling over to be "partners" with the Trust. The Trust finally recognized that if this mess were presented in court, the courts would throw out the environmental review. It has been badly mismanaged. The Trust Board members did not want that kind of embarrassment.

The terms of fours of those people appointed by the White House to the Trust Board have expired. They serve only until replaced. They are the ones who wasted about five million dollars of your money on this fiasco. They forced about 12,000 hours of the public's time to be spent opposing their plans. They are the ones who have been tone deaf to public outrage. They are the ones who should be replaced if the Trust is to regain public confidence. Will Nancy Pelosi name people who are sensitive to public concerns and who value historical parks, or will she ask the President to appoint more of her real estate mogul Pacific Heights cronies who again will try to make the Presidio their private playground? How about an educator and a historian instead? Let Pelosi know who you want on the Presidio Trust Board: write her, call her office or e-mail.

The Big Bad CAMP is gone. Let's celebrate today and get back to work on the next steps at the Presidio tomorrow! No new hotel building. No movie theater. But, yes a real honest to God way to teach the public about America's history found at the Presidio.

What are your comments?

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN --- THE PRESIDIO TRUST FACES NEARLY UNANIMOUS OPPOSITION

Hundreds of letters and e-mails slammed the Trust before the June 1 deadline for public comments.  Trust plans for a contemporary art museum and a hotel in the center of the national historic  landmark and the illegal review process were opposed by every major comment that I have read. (The Mayor and some form messages were the exceptions.) Many were detailed, expert and legally important papers: for example, by  the City and County of San Francisco, Presidio Historical Association (presidioassociation.org,) Save the Presidio (savethepresidio.org), the Cow Hollow Association, the Sierra Club, the Marin Community Association,  the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Descendants of de Anza and Portola Expedition, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and many, many more organizations and private individuals.

THE PUBLIC WANTS AN UNDERSTANDABLE PROCESS, HONEST DOCUMENTS, A REAL NEED EXPRESSED, AND PROJECTS TO PRESENT HISTORY, NOT HOTELS OR ART UNRELATED TO THE PRESIDIO.

NEXT: The Trust will need several months and a lot of lawyers to revise their messed up environmental review. If they persist with their reckless plan, then the public sees a "final" Impact Statement and has 30 days to comment before the Trust can declare its approval for Fisher's museum. That looks possible (but unlikely) in early Fall. 

A lot is going to happen before then, I predict. My personal belief is that the Trust will find a way to kill this skunk before it becomes a real stinker in court. How deep into the doodoo will the individual Trust board members, who otherwise have prominent and respected reputations, wade before they wake up to the fact that they are being associated as individuals with the stink coming from this mess? 

THE PUBLIC WANTS AN HISTORIC PARK THAT WELCOMES ALL THE PEOPLE.

I Sense the Tide Has Turned

On April 7, the Trust Board held a public meeting. A revised - but the same- plan for the art museum was presented with a lot of spin. The first hour of comments was dominated by well dressed people we had never seen at a previous meeting. I am told that they arrived by bus and were headed to a cocktail party. Hmmm? Then a Cal law school class gave its comments. Very interesting and pointed criticism. The public was well prepared and thoughtful in opposing the "preferred alternative" of an art museum, hotel and movie house located near San Francisco's birthplace.

The knockout punch was delivered April 17 by the National Park Service in a formal report to the federal government's top historical preservation council. This report stated five times in no uncertain terms that the Trust proposals "threaten" the Presidio's national landmark status, which is the highest form of protection an historic site can have. The Trust is bound by law to protect that status. There is very little wiggle room in this report that requires the art museum to be moved to the edge of Crissy Field if it is to be located on Main Post. Stay tuned: will the Trust ignore the report at its peril, try to wiggle around it with halfway changes, or use the considerable political muscle of its board members and Don Fisher to put on the fix in Washington?

The Park Service Report is called a "section 213" report. To see it , go to presidioassociation.org and click on "Issues".

Play Ball! Entering the Eight Inning of the Presidio Game

Today, April Fool's Day, the Trust begins another round of hearings and written comments. Are you tired of the Presidio Trust wasting your time and millions of public dollars on an illegal intrusion into a national park and historic landmark? SAY SO!

It will be a battle royal at the Palace of FIne Arts Theater commencing at 6:30 P.M, TUESDAY, APRIL 7. Come early and sign up to express your mind. Specific comments with examples are the most powerful. Point out specific propaganda that has insulted you or procedures that have confused the public. Say what you value in the national park and why what the Trust proposes is damaging to the values of the park. Wonder aloud why the Trust supported the CAMP proposal with great fanfare and paraded out the Mayor and art museum directors to do so, and only later it said that it had not made up its mind, and that is why we are enduring this tedious environmental review. Do some homework. Look at the Save the Presidio. org and presidioassociation.org websites for more information.

YOUR VOICE ON APRIL 7 COUNTS! BE THERE!

Turn Out to Tell the Tone Deaf Trust Board What You Think about an Art Museum and Hotel Near the Heart of the Presidio's Most Historic Area

The meeting will be on April 7, at 6:30 PM, Palace of FIne Arts Theater. Come prepared with a short comment about what bothers you most. Be specific to say why what the Presidio Trust is planning is wrong or why the enviromental review process has confused you and the public. Has any information been misleading or incomplete? Give an example.

FISHER ART TEMPLE II

Another Glassy White Intrusion into a National Park and a National Historic Landmark District

This is the rendering that the Fisher people leaked to the Chronicle. Can you believe the Trust's lack of sensitivity to the historic site? Law requires that any construction permitted in a National Historic Landmark be "compatible" with the structures on the site. This is compatible? Trust documents imply that the National Park Service approved this contemporary museum. That is not true. The Park Service participated in a workshop to identify characteristics of a design that might be acceptable from an historic preservation point of view. This building is not what the NPS described.