“I have lived in the Presidio for five years, and watched it turn into Pacific heights South, with a touch of downtown Redwood City. The emphasis is on real estate development, not on preserving the park, or wildlife….This is supposed to be a park, not an exclusive country club.”
∙ A Not So New New Neighborhood Opens Back Up In The Presidio [SocketSite]
The fees collected pay for the upkeep of the park. This is in contrast to the other national parks in other states in which your tax dollars pay for the upkeep.
This allows the federal government to ship more of your tax dollars to the rest of the country to pay for THEIR parks. And in return, the congressmen from the rest of the country have traded votes for nonbinding “resolutions” on global warming, stopping wars, etc that Pelosi wants more than tax money sent to her district.
Pelosi gets what she wants (votes for nonbinding resolutions), and the rest of the country gets what they want (a disproportionate share of our tax dollars) so everyone is happy and I don’t see what the problem is.
Of course, in other states, you would be able to get one of the rental homes for 1/5 of what is being charged here in order to keep the process more “democratic” instead of a country club like atmosphere. However, because the homes would be under market rates, the only way to get such a nice home in a nice facility would be to know someone. The way you would do that would be by donating the other 4/5 of the rent being charged in the presideo, to the re-election campaign of the congressman who had traded votes to pelosi.
So you see, in the end, it really makes no difference. As long as Pelosi can keep delivering votes on nonbinding resolutions that bay area voters can’t get enough of, she looks to bay area voters like a “leader” and so Pelosi has the reelection sewn up, so she doesn’t need the money in her reelection fund. If she needed the money, the system would be very different.
Shouldn’t that be Pacific Heights west or maybe north? And isn’t that exactly what it is? Assuming you’re going to keep these residences around, and I think it makes sense to do so – they’re very cool old houses, shouldn’t they match the character of the surrounding neighborhoods?
Now as for $10k+ a month, I think they’re smoking crack. It will be interesting to see whether they get any takers.
The Bay Guardian and its fellow travelers have never reconciled themselves to the concept of the Presidio being a self-sustaining national park – they oppose anything that smacks of “privatization” (heaven forfend!) on principle. But the practical reality is that the Presidio Trust has done a superb job of restoring historic buildings, replanting an aging forest and renovating dilapidated infrastructure. And if you have any doubt, just compare conditions in the city-maintained Golden Gate Park with the Presidio – large parts of the former are run-down, dirty, neglected and overrun with homeless. I rest my case.
the free market should dictate this. Why should a person with less resources have equal access to this home? More rent = more money for the park
We certainly don’t need govt subsidized homes in the presidio.
I was looking at the listings on Craigslist…according to their ads there, only two of the four remain. So at least two households out there are willing to fork over that kind of cash on a rental.
They are beautiful places, and I would love to live there, but just cannot justify the cost of any of the nicer units.
I was looking at the listings on Craigslist…according to their ads there, only two of the four remain. So at least two households out there are willing to fork over that kind of cash on a rental.
They are beautiful places, and I would love to live there, but just cannot justify the cost of any of the nicer units.