[CPEO-IRF] Challenges for receiving bases and communities

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

While most eyes are focused on the Pentagon's soon to be released list 
of base closures, the re-alignments are equally important. Military 
missions, equipment, and troops will be moved from closing 
installations, not only in the U.S., but from bases abroad, to those 
that remain open.

Many of those facilities are currently ill-equipped to receive large 
numbers of personnel and their families. Setting aside for the moment 
the question of industrial and training facilities - the military 
workplace - receiving facilities will need to quickly expand family 
housing as well as transportation capacity. This is particularly true at 
major Army forts.

Though the likely receiving bases generally had larger garrisons in the 
past, the profile of the U.S. soldier, seaman, and airman has changed. 
They are older, often female. They have families. And they have cars. 
This is a far cry from the 18-year olds who lived in barracks in the 
past. So even if existing housing is in good condition - a rarity - it 
will still be insufficient.

If the receiving bases do their jobs properly, the housing and 
transportation demand will be quickly identified. If not, Environmental 
Impact Statements should flag those needs - but those usually take a 
while to prepare.

Rather than fund housing construction from their own budgets, the armed 
services will seek partnerships with the private sector. Private 
homebuilders will build and own most of the housing, leasing the 
underlying base property. They will rent the units to military 
personnel, who will pay with their housing allowances.

It's essential to thoroughly assess the environmental condition of these 
privatized housing sites before any deals are struck. Existing housing 
projects on military bases have been encumbered by both explosive and 
toxic contamination. At both Miramar Marine Corps Air Station and Beale 
Air Force Base, new privatized housing areas have been designated on 
World War II munitions impact areas. In fact, at both bases the housing 
sites are directly across the fenceline from Army Corps munitions 
response projects, addressing the formerly used defense sites that were 
part of the Camp Elliot and Camp Beale. At Moffett Military Housing, 
also in California, plans to develop housing have been scaled back and 
delayed by the presence of an underlying plume of volatile organic 
compounds.

Given the history of pollution at most major bases, similar problems are 
likely to emerge at forts and other bases receiving realigned units.

Road construction will be another major requirement, both on and off 
base. While the military is likely to foot the bill on its own property, 
host communities are likely to be stuck with unexpected construction 
expenses and perhaps difficult environmental trade-offs. As with any 
other form of economic expansion, military re-alignment  comes with 
costs, not just benefits.

Demand for other services, such as schools for military dependents, may 
experience rapid, unexpected growth, as well. But it's unlikely anyone 
has assessed those needs, either.

Thus, just like communities losing bases and the closing bases 
themselves, receiving bases and their host communities have a great deal 
of environmental review and planning on the horizon.

Lenny
--
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
http://www.cpeo.org



_______________________________________________
Installation_Reuse_Forum mailing list
Installation_Reuse_Forum@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/installation_reuse_forum