Mr. WALKER. You are talking about $340 million appraised value, and 47 acres. I am not a very good mathematician but when I do that in my head it sounds to me as though that is something less than $1 million an acre.

MS. ANDERSON. I can't make numbers come out either.

Mr. HEFTEL. If the gentleman will yield, you are talking about $8 million an acre. But that $8 million

Mr. BURTON. Wait, could I ask a question right now, because this is important to me. If it is $8 million an acre, plus development costs at 25 feet, how much am I going to pay for a room at that hotel?

Mr. HEFTEL. It would be absolutely impossible

Mr. BURTON. Do they have Government rates?

Mr. HEFTEL. There is no way that that land is worth $7, $8, or $9 million an acre when there is a height limitation of 25 feet. I think that is what we are all trying to share here today. If you understand the height limitation and what the chairman has tried to suggest in terms of what a room costs, you would be lucky to get an evaluation of $1 million an acre, because with a 25-foot height limitation, $1 million an acre would even be high. That is what we must realize, that so long as the city does not change its zoning, you are dealing in less than $100 million of value.

Mr. WALKER. I understand that. What private appraisers may be saying is that they thought the 25-foot limitation could be changed. There could be a number of things that could enter into that. They were going by the fact that there is an area that is presently zoned as resort hotels that is Fort DeRussy property which, under present standards, would be worth a considerable sum of money.

Mr. HEFTEL. If I may, I would like to ask our mayor if she would respond.

MS. ANDERSON. We have been through a series of planning efforts, the Waikiki special design district, which set that aside as a resort hotel, happened a number of years ago, 1977 is my recollection. Since that time, we have now adopted the general plan and a development plan, the general plan, putting it in military, the development plan putting it in military. So that we have several different kinds of ordnances that are applying to this, not necessarily all of them being exactly the same.

We now have to look at our specific zoning to see whether it is appropriate, given the way the general plan and development plan have been adopted. But, you know, because the Waikiki design district preceded those other-

Mr. WALKER. The only point I am making, as I said at the outset of my remarks, is we are spending too much time on the Fort DeRussy issue. The chairman is absolutely right, it is a part of trying to say the Government does own some valuable properties and when we start taking a look at those valuable properties, we think perhaps there is a chance that we can raise considerable sums of money by selling off Federal land. It may or may not be the case. I think the far more important aspect of it is cataloging these plans and finding out where there is $400 million worth of land that the Federal Government has declared surplus as one estimate has shown, where 5 percent of that, about 25 million dollars' worth of that land could be sold off and that would come very close to

being what the administration is projecting over a period of the next 5 years or so.

So, there may be some reasonableness in those figures, this kind of example being one. But the reason why they come up with those kind of figures is because someone, in taking a look at the present zoning, can say that, in fact, there is a hotel resort zoned. One can therefore ascribe a value to it far higher than if, in fact, you all decide at some point you are going to keep it totally zoned as farmland. That is where the figures come from.

Mr. HEFTEL. If the gentleman would yield, I think it is important for Mayor Anderson to answer a specific question concerning utilization, making it as clear as she can to you that she feels that the council and the mayor would not change the zoning limitation of 25 feet that applies to Fort DeRussy.

Mr. BURTON. It is important to understand you are not talking about imposing new restrictions, you are talking about the fact that those restrictions exist, they are part of the public record, and whoever it was that floated the dollars and cents in the first place should have taken those into consideration along with the fact that it is zoned for resort use, but it is the most restricted resort use going.

Mr. WALKER. How much would it be worth an acre? How much is this 47 acres worth an acre, zoned as they are presently?

Ms. ANDERSON. I would not want to put forward a dollar, Mr. Walker. I think-

Mr. WALKER. There must be some figure on how much it is worth.

Mr. BURTON. That is the only one left in Waikiki.

Mr. HEFTEL. With the 25-foot limitation, you would get▬▬

Mr. BURTON. Two stories?

Mr. HEFTEL. I don't think you would get to more than $2 million an acre because of the limitation.

Mr. WALKER. We are talking then about $74 million worth of assets that

Mr. HEFTEL. Under present zoning?

Mr. BURTON. You think that is worth $2 million? I wouldn't want you to appraise stuff for me, Heftel; $2 million an acre for 25 feet, 100 feet back. The beach is going to be used-I have to spend money tearing down that museum?

Mr. HEFTEL. If you only used it for retail

Mr. BURTON. Can we put a TV antenna in?

MS. ANDERSON. Could I make one comment about what has been said previously?

I am very glad to hear Mr. Walker indicate that the Federal Government does intend to take into account the local government regulations and our intent and willingness to give up tax revenues. I am glad to hear that because we had a representative from Senator Percy's office in my office just last week and went through this whole thing, expressed the community's concern, and laid out for him what the present zoning restrictions were, what our intent was, what the community sentiment was. And according to what I can read and from what I have heard, regardless of that, Senator Percy's staff and certainly Senator Percy's testimony to you today, he is still recommending the sale of Fort DeRussy.

I hope the members of this committee and the House are serious about that because I do not get that sense from my meeting so far with staff members of the Senate of the United States.

Mr. BURTON. I would say this, just in closing, that everybody can say everything that they want to say. It is highly questionable if this legislation will pass this year. I can't say what is going to happen to it next year, but I think the most important thing to find out from the standpoint of taxpayers is what are we talking about and forget the baloney. I mean, I have dealt with the guy downtown 8 years in Sacramento. We all do that with the figures here. The figures are there, the important thing is the cataloging of it. The important thing is to find out if under present circumstances, as my friend Bob Walker said, if it is $100 million, it is $10 million.

I have a feeling as soon as the city council over there finds out that there is really a chance this thing could get developed, they might even downzone it from 25 feet. The important thing is that whatever happens, there is no way we can take away the power of local government to restrict the kind of developments they are going to have.

I think it would be very helpful for the record if you send us that report on how much they think it would cost, to tear down that which is in existence there, because it just isn't some small structures, there is that cement bunker.

So, we thank you very much for your testimony. The State has two fine Representatives-I mean a small State like that, they have ways and means and appropriations. That tells you something. Again, thank you very much.

Mr. AKAKA. Thank you very much.

I want to close by saying, you are correct. The reports that have been made on the sale of Fort DeRussy have been overstated and exaggerated and the disposal of Federal lands, and particularly Fort DeRussy, is improper and imprudent.

Thank you very much.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much.

I would like to make an announcement that the OMB witness had to go to the White House to work on this year's budget. Both OMB and GSA will be put over to a future date.

We will hear now from Barry Tindall, director of public affairs for National Recreation and Park Association, and Len Rippa, director, congressional affairs for the National Taxpayers Union.

We have your statement for the record, so proceed. If you could summarize it a bit or highlight it, we would appreciate that greatly because there are some questions for you.

STATEMENT OF BARRY S. TINDALL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION Mr. TINDALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, we will attempt to do that. Our testimony focuses on GSA administered properties. We will only peripherally address the national resources land administered by BLM and other Federal resource agencies. However, there is a coalition of organizations of which we are a part, that is extremely interested in Federal public land issues. The

coalition includes the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society. With your permission, I would like to submit for the record a statement from each organization.

[The Sierra Club and Audubon statements follow:]

STATEMENT

OF

DEBBIE SEASE,

WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE,

SIERRA CLUB

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:

I would like to thank the Committee for providing the Sierra Club this opportunity to express its views on federal land sale proposals. The Sierra Club is a conservation organization with some 280,000 members nationwide. We are most appreciative of

your efforts to seek constructive comment from conservation organizations on this important issue.

All of the various "privatization" proposals for selling federal lands to offset the national debt raise serious concerns for our organization. This statement will focus on H. Res. 265 and the administration's Real Property Management Program. I am sure there are many individual aspects of these proposals which we can agree upon, for there are certainly parcels of property owned by the federal government that should be sold. However, the underlying premise of "privataization" is one with which we strongly disagree, and which runs counter to most of the public land legislation of the last few decades. That premise, as it is reflected to varying degrees in all of the proposals, is that public property should be managed for its highest economic return.

Economic return cannot be used as the sole yardstick for measuring public benefit from federally owned property. Public benefit must be computed using a more complicated formula which considers other values, for what serves the public interest does not always provide the highest economic return. The public interest may at times be best served by using a particular parcel for a park, a hospital, or other use that may not be as economically attractive as private development.

Our most serious concern with the various privatization proposals is their potential effect on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. The Real Property Management Program relies on significant sales from these two agencies, and H. Res 265 as introduced would call for an inventory of lands managed by those agencies. We hope that any legislation developed by this committee on this issue will offer express protection for the public lands from those who would use this process to effect their disposal, and will reaffirm the policy of retention and management of the public lands.

As I noted earlier, there is property owned by the federal government that we can all agree is not in the public interest to retain. It then becomes a matter of determining which kinds of properties should be reviewed for possible sale, and arriving at an acceptable process for deciding whether the given property should be retained, transferred to another federal, state or local agency for public benefit use, or sold. These are not simple determinations to make, and laws and regulations have been devised over the years to ensure that such determinations include consideration of the full range of public benefits from federally