considers
So, I think that there is a good argument for national funding for certain parks. Like, take Yellowstone. That's nationally-unique. People travel from around the US to visit. Or the Washington Monument, which is something that's really memorializing something of national import.
But...does the Presidio really qualify? I mean, it seems to me that it mostly benefits people who live near it. It's in an urban area, so there's a source of funds from the people who do make use of it.
It looks like the National Park Service administers it.
Most of the national parks are in rural areas. They aren't really designed to serve just the local area, but a much broader area:
It looks like the same is true of national monuments, which are also administered by the National Park Service: they tend to be in rural areas, without much of a local population:
My impression is that a lot of current Trump administration goals are Heritage Foundation goals. So I'm gonna give odds that whatever their concerns are are probably on that website. Searching their website to see if I can find anything about it, it looks like they're basically making the same argument: that the Presidio has a local tax base that can support the thing without national aid.
$200 Million for Presidio Trust, aka “Pelosi’s Park”
Section 70203 of the bill earmarks $200 million for Presidio Trust, a park located in the north end of San Francisco, which is represented by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
The Presidio park contains many scenic views and even a golf course. San Francisco is one of the wealthiest parts of the country and can easily afford to support the park, which makes this handout egregious even without Pelosi’s involvement.
That does seem legit to me: the people who benefit from something should pay for it. If people in Virginia or wherever aren't principally the ones benefitting from it, doesn't seem reasonable to ask them to cover costs for it. As a Bay Area resident, I wouldn't want to pay for New York City's Central Park. That isn't to say that the place doesn't have value -- I think that New York City is probably much better off for having Central Park. But...it's really mostly there to serve people in the Big Apple, not me.
That being said, I do think that if the federal government doesn't want the federal government to operate a park there, that it should be willing to sell the land to the city or to the state so that they can do a park there if they want.