The privatization greenwash

Thanks to the Bay Guardian for continuing to make the connection between the selling-out of the Presidio and the wider movement to privatize public lands ["Nancy Pelosi's Legacy" and "The Presidio's Progeny," 12/21/05]. On rereading past coverage, I was struck by your allusion to the pro-privatization agenda of the Pew Charitable Trusts, which you indirectly linked to the Presidio through the Tides Foundation.

Today, Pew is pushing privatization in a much more direct way. In the process, it's redefining the whole notion of wilderness in much the way the Presidio debacle fashioned an insidious new definition of public space.

Through a nonprofit called the Campaign for America's Wilderness, Pew is funneling millions of dollars into state-by-state national legislation that links privatization and land and water development to wilderness designation. With Pew money, and through hands-on work and board participation, groups such as the Wilderness Society and Natural Resources Defense Council – some of the same groups complicit in the Presidio sellout – are promoting "wilderness" bills that have thus far brought about the privatization of more than 250,000 acres of public land.

A current example is a bill sponsored by Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) called the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act. HR 3603 includes the outright giveaway of more than 7,000 acres of public land to local interests. It bars federal water rights within the newly designated wilderness. Inside the "protected" area, it allows activities totally inconsistent with the Wilderness Act, such as motor vehicle use and stream poisoning. It creates a 500,000-plus-acre priority area for off-road vehicles, including 200,000 acres of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area.

Pew's funding has been instrumental in getting three similar bills passed since 2000, and more are lined up for Utah, Nevada, and Idaho. Proponents shrug off the implications of linking land "protection" in one place to public land destruction elsewhere. It's the only way to get wilderness, they say.

Well, the privatization gang (also known as the "western congressional delegation") has these groups exactly where it wants them. The recent failure of Rep. Richard Pombo's massive federal land sell-off proved once again that the public won't stand for naked, unabashed privatization. Whether it's in the Presidio or the Sawtooths, privatization needs greenwash. With the help of Pew's lavish funding, some conservation groups are happy to accommodate.

Janine Blaeloch Director, Western Lands Project Seattle, Wash.

More disasters, please

Your Dec. 21 editorial maintains that the last 10 years in the Presidio have been a "terrible disaster" for San Francisco. Funny, but when I drive through the Presidio, I see something different: conversion of a gigantic parking lot to open space in Crissy Field. An ugly, abandoned '50s-era Letterman Hospital replaced by a handsome digital arts center bringing creative employees and a dynamic, nonpolluting employer (George Lucas) to San Francisco. Preservation and renewal of native plant areas. Historic 19th-century buildings finally being renovated and reused. And a growing cluster of nonprofits, schools, and businesses (including Friends of the Urban Forest, Arion Press, Swords to Plowshares, and even the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic!) that's creating a unique community in a unique environment. If that's a "disaster," I wish more such disasters on San Francisco.

Mike Sullivan Plan C San Francisco

Souder the champion

It is without doubt that a sufficient amount of outrageous proposals have been floated recently – those threatening to commercialize our national parks, to mine them, sell them off, or give them away to other federal agencies. But we should take care not to pigeonhole any one group with the blame for wreaking havoc on our national treasures.

Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) may be an unexpected national parks champion, but he is indeed a champion. The National Park Centennial Act (HR 1124, S 886), to which your editorial referred, has bipartisan support in both the House and Senate because it offers an innovative way to increase funding for maintenance and natural and cultural resource preservation needs in our national parks through 2016 – the 100-year anniversary of the National Park System.

While sufficient annual appropriations for parks are absolutely necessary, developing nongovernmental financial support for parks should not be dismissed outright. The Centennial Act would give taxpayers the opportunity to make voluntary contributions to national parks through a checkoff box on the federal tax return. The bill specifically aims to supplement, not replace, government funding with individual philanthropy. Moreover, the bill guarantees that the federal government make up any difference in additional funding needed to eliminate the enormous backlog of park maintenance projects. We are pleased that the Centennial Act also has the support of seven California representatives, including Bay Area representatives Pete Stark and Mike Thompson.

Ron Sundergill Pacific Regional Director National Parks Conservation Association San Francisco