From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org> |
Date: | Sun, 18 Dec 1994 09:20:28 -0800 (PST) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | Re: Re: re: BASE CLOSURE Pease Ruling |
The Presidio case is not unique. Moffett, for example, is a fed-to-fed transfer. It's up the receiving agency (the Park Service or NASA) to negotiate a Memorandum of Agreement that clearly defines the military's liability, responsibility, and knowledge prior to the transfer. The Pease decision applies when the Park Service wants to lease portions of the property. It won't be able to enter into any long-term agreements until the parcel in question passes muster under CERFA: the Finding of Suitability to Lease. There is a Federal Task Force that looks closely at these issues. (It met in SF in January.) And The California Base Closure Environmental Advisory Committee looks at these issues, in less detail, as well. Once the lawyers get involved, it gets very complicated. Lenny Siegel | |
References
| |
Prev by Date: Re: RAB Guidelines Next by Date: Re: RAB history | |
Prev by Thread: Re: re: BASE CLOSURE Pease Ruling Next by Thread: RAB history |