I think you have to look at this problem from the perspective of not pointing a finger but understanding that we are suffering from a legacy of military priorities. We had base commanders who had limited budgets and they had a responsibility for military preparedness and training. When they got around to dealing with the toxic contaminants, they could either spend the money on cleaning up those contaminants or having their ships and sailors ready for duty. I suspect there is no Navy captain who ever became an admiral because he said, "Well, my guys aren’t ready to go to sea, and the ships don’t work, but I sure cleaned up the base." So that’s what we’re left with. The problem now isn’t lack of will. It’s a lack of money. The last figures I saw were that nationwide Congress had appropriated on the order of 20 or 25 cents on the dollar of what is needed to clean up all the closed military bases. This situation is acute in the Bay Area because there have been more military bases closed along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay than in any other state of the union outside California. So we have had a lot of experience with planning the reuse of closed military bases. The Pentagon looked at a these closed bases and saw them as having schools and churches, bowling alleys and roads and said, "This base is an asset worth millions of dollars." The surrounding community that was getting the base looked at it and said, "None of the houses are built to state or local code. The buildings are filled with asbestos. There are environmental contaminants all over the place. The sewer, water and electrical systems are so bad that our local utilities won’t take them because of liability. We won’t take this base unless you give us millions of dollars." And that’s the way the negotiations process started.

The challenge in base reuse planning has been to attract private capital to revitalize the bases. The advantage we have had over other communities around the country, which are also trying to attract that private capital, is that our bases are on the front door of the Pacific Rim. So we have been working with local communities to take advantage of that location and urging them to "celebrate the majesty of San Francisco Bay" in their re-use planning. Thus far, they have done that very well. I sure wish that there would be more money to clean up the bases more quickly, but I think in the end, we will come out just fine.

I have heard that. I don’t know whether that’s an urban legend or whether it’s true.

First off, we’re not pulling down anything. There was an agreement reached between the Port of San Francisco, which wanted to have greater flexibility to use their piers for non-maritime purposes, and BCDC and Save San Francisco Bay Association. In return for BCDC providing greater flexibility in the regulatory process, the Port of San Francisco agreed that it would build three large plazas along the waterfront and remove some of the dilapidated piers that were falling into the Bay and some that were not being used for maritime purposes. The rest of the piers can now be used for non-maritime purposes. They can also continue to be used for maritime purposes. The problem is there aren’t a lot of proposals for maritime uses. Instead, there are proposals for offices, shopping centers and for health clubs.

The challenge in San Francisco is that the finger piers along the northern waterfront are configured based on 19th century shipping technology, but what we have in the 21st century is the need for large expanses of space for container operations. We have that on the southern waterfront in San Francisco and in Oakland, but we don’t have it on the northern waterfront. So as much as some people would like, simply retaining the piers in their existing condition won’t bring back the clipper ships. We would still like to see as much maritime use as possible, but that’s simply not what is being proposed anymore. So the best way to preserve the historic waterfront is to allow the piers to be used for a mix of uses that will pay for the restoration of the piers.

Most of the piers, in fact, are not being used for blue-collar maritime jobs. Most of them are used for parking and storage. The new plan that we and the Port of San Francisco have adopted allows for a variety of uses that will provide for job creation.

I also think it’s offensive to suggest that only rich white people appreciate the Bay and use it. The jobs that are being created are available to everybody. And again, simply retaining the piers and hoping that we will have break bulk cargo come back is just a fantasy. It’s not going to happen. We want to see maritime jobs. The place to provide them is the southern waterfront of San Francisco. The challenge that the Port has is that San Francisco is, after all, on the end of a peninsula. Cargo that is unloaded in San Francisco and destined for anywhere other than the San Francisco peninsula, has to be shipped by either rail or truck. If it’s by rail, it goes down the rail corridor where it has to compete with the commuter trains, be shuttled in San Jose and then ultimately ends up back in the Port of Oakland in the rail yard there. By truck, it has to go across the congested Bay Bridge. So the Port of San Francisco is really emerging into kind of a niche port for those commodities that are, indeed, destined for San Francisco and the Peninsula. And I think that along the southern waterfront there are ample opportunities for maritime jobs and port development. The northern waterfront where we have finger piers and urban development right up against the waterfront, there simply isn’t the space that the Port needs for an ongoing real port operation.

Since every Commissioner has an alternate there are actually 54 people that I answer to. And it is, surprisingly, pretty easy. The law provides very clear policies that guide the Commission. The Commission, in turn, has adopted a Bay Plan which guides the staff. So we have very clear policy direction.