Local Reuse Authorities rate RABs

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITIES RATE RABS

The Base Reuse Consortium (sponsored by the International City/County
Management Association) recently surveyed 32 local reuse authorities
(LRAs) across the U.S., asking about their experience in the military
base redevelopment process. The questions touched several issues. I
present here, from the March/April, 1998 BASE REUSE CONSORTIUM BULLETIN,
only those responses relating to restoration advisory boards. While the
results appear to show continuing tension between RABs and LRAs, there
seem to be a wide range of relationships.

Lenny Siegel

If there is a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) for your base, please
rank the following:
a. The relationship between the LRA and RAB
b. The RAB's relationship with the milirary
c. The RAB's effectiveness

 excellent good fair poor very poor

a. 16% 21% 42% 21% 0%

b. 23% 41% 32% 4% 0%

c. 4% 20% 38% 38% 0%

* The military allows 96% of respondents to participate in RAB meetings.

* 23% of respondents feel that the military puts more time and energy
into its relationship with the RAB than it does with the LRA.

When LRAs were asked, "Briefly describe when the RAB is most valuable to
you," common answers were:

* As a public watchdog for cleanup actions
* As a community sounding board
* Can't recall any instances

When LRAs were asked, "Briefly describe when the RAB is least valuable
to you," common answers were:

* When there are attempts by members to overextend the RAB's stated
purpose and process to the domain of the LRA

* When it does not question BCT environmental decisions

Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight (AKA SFSU
CAREER/PRO)
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/968-1126
lsiegel@cpeo.org