Public draws short straw in private-public partnerships

Supporters of a plan to allow a private developer to lease and rehabilitate 36 buildings at Fort Hancock on Sandy Hook often point to the Presidio in San Francisco as an example of how well public-private partnerships in the national park system have worked.

Fort Hancock and the Presidio have little in common, other than the fact that they previously served as military installations. But anyone looking for insight into what is likely to happen to the buildings at Fort Hancock, should the public-private partnership there proceed, should take a few moments to read a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle, "Presidio's future - less cash, more culture: Market-driven development needs a dose of soul-searching." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/18/MNGAOJENV01.DTL

Among other things, it points out that two thirds of the commercial and residential buildings at the Presidio have been set aside for private use. Typically, the decisions about what kinds of commercial development to allow have been driven by which tenants can pay the most rent.
Tenants in some of the Presidio's 469 historic buildings include financial services firms, insurance companies, computer software companies and an Asian-themed health spa. More than 1,100 former military residences have been renovated and leased - for rents up to $4,200 a month.

This is what many opponents of the plan at Fort Hancock fear - broad-scale commercialization of prime taxpayer-owned land. The Presidio proves the legitimacy of those fears. The Press' concerns are raised in today's editorial. http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060802/OPINION/608020455/1029