Posted on 06/15/2005 8:09:40 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Faced with losing several thousand jobs in a proposed realignment of Eielson Air Force Base, state leaders have urged residents to show up en masse at a hearing to show their support for keeping the base intact.
More than 40 businesses have committed to closing or operating with skeleton crews so employees can attend, and supporters planned to line streets Wednesday as members of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission arrive for the first regional base closure hearing.
The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner even printed a two-page red and white poster proclaiming, "America Needs Eielson Air Force Base."
"We're fighting city hall on this issue," said Jim Dodson, a contractor who heads the Save Eielson state and local task forces.
The Pentagon has proposed shutting 33 large bases and scores of smaller ones across the country to save $48 billion over 20 years. The plan recommends moving Eielson's Air Force personnel and fighter aircraft to other locations by 2011.
The Base Realignment and Closure analysis concludes that the net loss of 2,940 military and civilian jobs at Eielson will result in the loss of 1,770 more jobs in the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
Together, that's a loss of 8.6 percent of all borough jobs, according to the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage. The borough quickly appropriated $500,000 to protect Eielson and the Legislature matched it with $1 million more.
The Pentagon says it could save $2.7 billion over 20 years by shifting Eielson to a "warm" status — staying open but removing most permanent personnel. The Air Force covets Eielson's vast flying space and would use it to rotate in units from across the country for training sessions.
But the proposed realignment is an especially bitter pill in North Pole, where residents have loyally supported Air Force requests such as permanent flying space.
Eielson is located 30 miles southeast of Fairbanks and even closer to North Pole.
On Wednesday, Alaskans planned to highlight Eielson's location, which allows its aircraft to reach hotspots by flying polar routes. Eielson is only nine hours out from 95 percent of the developed world, said University of Alaska President Mark Hamilton, a former Army major general.
The base is virtually in the middle of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline and it's a stone's throw from Fort Wainwright, allowing for joint training operations.
Dodson is incensed that the Air Force refuses to release more information on how it made its decision on Eielson. The lack of information has left Alaskans shooting in the dark when trying to rebut military reasoning, he said.
He's also aware that in past reviews the BRAC Commission has backed 85 percent or more of DOD recommendations.
Underlying the Alaskans' urgency is the economic effects, a matter the BRAC Commission can consider in the second tier of criteria. The Department of Defense plugged in Eielson's numbers to an economic model that simply does not apply to Alaska, Dodson said.
"They failed to realize that Alaska is in fact a frontier economy," Dodson said, isolated from other regional economies that could help absorb change. People displaced by Eielson's changes cannot simply drive to another job — unless they're willing to drive at least 300 miles.
state leaders have urged residents to show up en masse at a hearing to show their support for keeping the base intact.
Are these leaders conservative or liberal?
Fairbanks...Tampa
Fairbanks....Tampa
Jelly doughnut...Kick in the head
Jelly doughnut...kick in the head.
Out of all the cities on the list, Fairbanks would best survive a base closure. There would be some economic impact, but for the most part, Alaskans are a resourceful, resiliant people. They'd be less likely to end up in a bread line than folks in other areas.
People thought Ketchikan (my old alma mater) would shut down for good when the Clinton EPA finally shut down the pulp mill, which was thought to be the town's life blood. Some of the mill workers may have moved on, but the town redirected towards tourism and has done well. Alaskans are an amazing lot.
All the local emphasis on the economic hit is misguided IMHO and the few military points brought up are outdated and weak. I view this realignnment to a warm base in economic terms as a fair trade for the ABM at Greely and a return to pre-1993 conditions at Fairbanks, which were tolerable.
No, they are apolitical. It is a community thing.
The fighter wing showed up when they were kicked out of the Philippines. 1993. Fairbanks was actually doing okay at the time and the increase has changed this little town into something it isn't prepared to be and didn't really want to be. They do like the Federal money, though.
Someone now is representing the history of how this commission arose. He is a good speaker and is giving a set speech that takes the Federal and general view, surge manning and homeland security.
Alaska needs to start drilling.
The Alaska delegation to the Brack hearing is now speaking.
He [I didn't catch who he is, the pres of the Univ of Alaska, I think] is speaking for the red shirted, red blooded Alaskans. He forgot to say red-necked.
The speaker is talking about strategic importance. He is talking through his hat and the committee knows this. But the citizens of Alaska like it and don't care because that's what we do best.
Every one of his points is moot.
Here comes Ted Stevens.
The slide show didn't come up. Stevens covers instantly. He is a sharp cookie.
I am going offline to listen to the hearing elsewhere. There will be no revelations today anyway. Sept 8 is the next big day for base closure news.
Lining the streets in a show of support may make the people who participate feel better, but the BRAC members will not be swayed by a show of emotion. They already know that the people of this area support keeping the base open (as do the people who live near every other base on the list). If you are to have any chance of influencing the commission, you'll have to do it by addressing military value, and by demonstrating that the data used to evaluate the base that resulted in the recommendation was incorrect.
I work at a base in the Northeast that is also targeted for closing. We had a visit by two members of the BRAC about two weeks ago. The local community leaders, and the union (why do federal employees need a union?) urged the workers to stage a show of support outside the main gate when the commissioners arrived. About 250-300 people gathered at the gate, holding signs and chanting "save the fort!". In my opinion, this was not appropriate during working hours. If I were the commissioners, I would have asked why these people were hanging around out front, instead of doing their jobs.
Almost all of the testimony was toward military strategy. The main community impact of a military nature is the local oil refinery, which would change its product mix and wouldn't be able to instantly provide certain military products. The procedure itself in selecting this base for warm status was questioned. It sounds like if an enemy were able to slip a nuke in on Eielson that it would destroy the US war-making ability. Not bad for a little country that has maybe six nukes to begin with.
Stevens:> Adak was a loss of several billion dollars of investment.. Greeley was a failure of the warm base concept and 900 families. Alaska has lost many bases, some before BRAC, Adak and Greeley in BRAC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.