From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org> |
Date: | Mon, 30 Sep 1996 17:55:16 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | CIVILIAN CLOSURES |
From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org> CIVILIAN BASE CLOSURE With four rounds of Base Realignment and Closure either consummated or underway, the federal government now has a great deal of experience facilitating the transfer of former military base property. Special laws have been passed to compensate host communities hurt by Defense downsizing and, by both intent and coincidence, to make it easier for the military to cut back its operations. Civilian federal agencies, however, are stuck with the old Surplus Property Disposal Act, which provides no incentive for shedding federal property. Any revenues generated by the sale of surplus property go directly to the federal treasury. Leasing to private parties is usually impossible or impractical. Meanwhile, agencies must fund cleanup and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act out of their operating budgets. So, despite the fact that facility closure would often bring substantial long-term savings on operations and maintenance, federal property managers are reluctant to bear the up front costs. Learning from the base closure experience, some federal agencies are reportedly developing proposals for legislation that would allow them to keep a portion - such as half - of their property sales revenue. While this would reduce the deficit-reducing impact of sales which would happen without the change in law, it would certainly increase income - in federal terms, the sale of property is income - by encouraging more property transfers. Since such an approach means reducing the physical size of government and returning more property to the private tax rolls, it should appeal to conservative Republicans as well as Democrats. I haven't seen any draft bills, but I believe that there are more detailed lessons from base closure. Leasing should be encouraged as a short and medium-term form of transfer. Opportunities for local public involvement should be mandatory. And agencies should somehow be able to "borrow" - through revolving funds, escrow accounts, etc. - against future sales revenue so they can carry out activities, such as cleanup and infrastructure repair, to make cleanup possible. No seriously legislative proposal is expected, however, until next year at the earliest. Lenny Siegel | |
Prev by Date: RANDOM PIPES Next by Date: FUTURE LAND USE POLICY | |
Prev by Thread: RANDOM PIPES Next by Thread: FUTURE LAND USE POLICY |