From: | Greg Bischak <ncecd@igc.org> |
Date: | Fri, 03 Mar 1995 10:41:40 -0800 (PST) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | BRAC 95--ECD Press Release,2-27 |
The following was ECD's press release just prior to the Defense Department's Feb. 28 announcement of its 1995 base closure & realignment recommendations. COMMISSION CALLS FOR MORE BASE CLOSURES AND ADVANCE PLANNING IN CURRENT ROUND For Immediate Release February 27, 1995 Contact: Greg Bischak, 202/728-0815 Jim Bridgman, 202/728-0815 A Smaller Fourth Round? On January 24, Defense Secretary William Perry announced that the next and fourth round of base closings "will not be as large as the last one." This represents a sharp change from previous plans to make the next round larger than the previous three combined. Secretary Perry claims the closure process is being slowed by the rising costs of base closure and the current shortage of funds. Yet "postponing closures only means the likelihood of greater closure costs in the future," said ECD Executive Director Greg Bischak, Ph.D., "and the delay of savings that could be realized from these closures." Driving the base closure process is the goal of saving money while bringing the base structure in line with the Administration's force structure plans. These intentions have come up against the political pressures provided by the '96 elections as well as short-term budgetary pressuresQbecause it takes money to make money through the base closure process. Yet "closing fewer bases now will only exacerbate the current mismatch between an extravagant base structure and a smaller force structure," said Dr. Bischak. "The far-flung base structure of the Armed Services is still not scaled to the reduced threats of the post-Cold War world. The taxpayer still pays too much and more downsizing needs to be done." Force Structure Reductions Should Shape Current Round In the last three rounds of base closures, over 70 major bases were selected for closure. The majority of the 20 bases targeted for closure in 1988 in the first round were Army bases. During the 1990 round the Air Force closed 13 and the Navy nine major installations. In the 1993 round the Navy was targeted for the bulk of the closures. Planned reductions in the 1995 round will likely focus on downsizing bases home to heavy armor, bomber wings, Air National Guard tactical air wings and Navy air maintenance depots and ship repair facilities. A number of DoD laboratories sited on bases may be affected by the base closure round. "Additional force structure reductions are also possible without compromising this nation's security," said Dr. Bischak. This would permit additional base closures, for additional savings. According to Commission estimates, over $3.5 billion could be saved from the defense budget on an annual basis by closing unneeded additional bases. Advance Planning is Needed Efforts to keep bases off the final list constitute the predominant strategy of communities facing possible closure. According to Bischak, "In past base closure rounds, a 'Save the Base' impulse led communities across the nation to spend millions of dollars to save bases while not spending a dime on promoting conversion." In the last round of closures, Charleston, South Carolina spent over a million dollars to protect five installations, but managed to save only the local Navy hospital. California mounted a full-court press costing the state millions of dollars. Already this year San Antonio has commitments worth $250,000 to save Brooks Air Force Lab, Kelly Air Force Base and other local facilities. Oklahoma has raised $200,000 to save Tinker Air Force Base and Utah has already spent $300,000 to protect Hill Air Force Base and plans to spend another $300,000 before the final decision is made. A Commission report by Catherine Hill with James Raffel, Military Base Closures in the 1990s: Lessons for Redevelopment, concludes from a review of past base closure experiences that communities doing the most advance planning reap the greatest returns in jobs and economic opportunity. Those communities on the hit list in this round of closures should take advantage of protection offered by the FY95 Defense Authorization Act which allows communities to do advance planning without prejudicing them for closure in the decision-making process. ----- Table showing spending on base closure conversion-related programs went here ----- Base Closure Conversion-Related Funding In addition to legal protection for advance planning, funds are available for communities affected by proposed base closures that wish to pursue planning for economic development, worker retraining, and facility conversion. DoD was appropriated $2.8 billion for base closure implementation for FY95. The $2.3 billion appropriated for environmental restoration of Defense Department facilities may be the most important investment, because toxic contamination remains the greatest obstacle to base redevelopment. According to Bischak, "Up-front investments are required to enable rapid and environmentally responsible economic development." In addition, the assistance provided by the Defense Department's Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) is invaluable in providing technical assistance and grants to communities seeking to do advance planning. The implementation of communities' conversion planning is made possible by grants from the Economic Development Administration within the Commerce Department. These grants provide substantial funds for a range of services including: infrastructure development, technology initiatives, revolving loan funds and other economic development strategies. These funds are of vital importance because they they leverage private sector and local public sector dollars for targeted investments to alleviate the sudden economic dislocation caused by base closures. Funds from the Labor Department's Dislocated Worker Program and the Defense Department's Military Personnel Transition Assistance Program round out the palette of available assistance for communities and workers facing base closures. Both defense industry workers and employees of closed bases are eligible for assistance under the $195 million going to dislocated defense worker retraining, and active duty personnel and civilian base employees are eligible for military transition assistance. Successful Conversion Models Communities at risk should look to successful models of conversion for instruction and encouragement. Both past and current bases possess assets of considerable potential use to the surrounding communities. Reuse is largely conditioned by the nature of the facilities on the base. Such facilities may include airfields, hospitals, or clinics, child care facilities, stores, theaters, recreational facilities and housing. Successful base reuse usually results from a community's ability to identify the comparative advantages of its regional economy and connect its base redevelopment effort to them. Urban base reuse is generally easier than rural base reuse given a city's economic diversification and demand for the real estate and services that a redeveloped base might provide. As an example, the transformation of McCoy Air Force Base in Orlando into an air cargo transport hub brought about the employment of 6,000 people, easily compensating for the loss of 395 jobs. Rural base reuse can also be successful given the proper planning. Presque Isle, closed in 1970, was located in an isolated rural location. However, the local leadership was able to transform the base into an economically diverse center by planning strategically, inviting outside companies to the site and prorating rent to the number of new jobs created. 1,302 jobs were created with new industrial tenants including Indian Head Plywood, Aroostook Shoe Company, International Paper, Converse Rubber Company, Northeast Publishing and a vocational training school. Industrial parks are a popular option for base reuse. However, communities should be conscious of the wide variety of other possible projects. Air Force bases and naval air stations remain clear candidates for new municipal or regional airports and air cargo hubs. Redevelopment of former bases as schools has been a successful model with 47 bases closed in the 1960s and 1970s now having schools on them. And while using bases for low-income and homeless housing does not raise money through sale, it does achieve other important national objectives while allowing local governments to acquire the property at little or no cost. Other government uses are also possible, including administrative facilities, hospitals, postal distributions centers and offices, rehabilitation centers and prisons. Often, bases are large enough to accommodate public services and private developments under a "mixed-use" strategy. Ingredients of Successful Base Conversion (1) Advance Planning: Communities should take full advantage of the protection provided by the law as well as the assistance provided by the Office of Economic Adjustment in the Defense Department to plan for base reuse before a closure occurs. They must evaluate the comparative advantages of alternative civilian purposes and the means of linking these economic development strategies with retraining options. (2) The programs responsible for funding advance planning, economic development and retraining must all be funded sufficiently to provide adequate resources to support the base closure process. (3) These programs, spread out over the Departments of Defense, Commerce and Labor, must be coordinated so that they can deliver comprehensive services efficiently. (4) Cleanup funding should come from the DoD budget to discourage further pollution. The Federal Facilities Compliance Act enables nonfederal officials to enforce environmental laws by levying fines and other penalties for environmental regulations. Regions hosting military bases should make use of this legislation to the largest extent possible. (5) There are many stakeholders in base reuse development. Local, state and federal government officials, private developers, universities, and local citizens and citizens groups all have a valuable role to play. No single party should be excluded or allowed to dominate the process. An active government role is essential to ensure that in instances where reuse is feasible, conversion plans carefully weigh the interests of private developers and the community's social and economic needs. Since the bases are government property, the opportunity to use these former bases for public purposes should not be overlooked. A concerted planning effort, informed by an understanding of the differences among bases, is essential. With federal leadership and local activism, the downsizing of the military base structure could produce a host of assets to spur new economic development in communities across the nation. | |
Prev by Date: Re: Senate Appropriations Rescissions. Next by Date: dera funding | |
Prev by Thread: Re: Senate Appropriations Rescissions. Next by Thread: dera funding |