2005 CPEO Installation Reuse Forum Archive

From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>
Date: 6 May 2005 05:16:47 -0000
Reply: cpeo-irf
Subject: [CPEO-IRF] Military construction and base closure
[In past rounds, military construction often continued on bases after the decision was made to close them. I doubt that the military has modified its contracts to eliminate this inefficiency. - LS]

BRAC signals don't come from spending

Ingleside pulls $26.2M in work in past 5 years

By Tara Copp, Scripps Howard News Service
Corpus Christi Caller-Times (TX)
May 3, 2005

WASHINGTON - Don't look to recent military construction to offer many clues as to the fate of the Coastal Bend's military installations during the next round of base closures.

One of the biggest myths about base closure is that "mil con" saves a base, a panel of congressional and defense officials said recently.

But military construction - which is congressional funding to build housing, upgrade roads, improve runways or docks - is a vital way to build up a base's "military value," which is one of the criteria by which a base is measured, they added.

Either way, each of the Coastal Bend facilities has absorbed millions of dollars in the past five years to improve housing, airfields and administrative facilities.


For the entire article, see

Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918

Installation_Reuse_Forum mailing list

  Prev by Date: [CPEO-IRF] "Towns can rebound after base closings"
Next by Date: [CPEO-IRF] Memphis Depot Industrial Park (TN)
  Prev by Thread: [CPEO-IRF] "Towns can rebound after base closings"
Next by Thread: [CPEO-IRF] Memphis Depot Industrial Park (TN)

CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index