BRAC 95--ECD Press Release,2-27

[Greg Bischak <ncecd@igc.org>]

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.