The hearing in Boston is supposed to be tomorrow. This is a timely article to preface such a hearing.
1 posted on
07/05/2005 9:35:53 AM PDT by
Paul Ross
To: Submariner; navyvet; Alamo-Girl; Travis McGee; Jeff Head; doug from upland; ALOHA RONNIE
E.g.,
Shipyard's Fate Hangs In Balance Tomorrow
(Union Leader, N.H., July 5, 2005)
The fate of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard could be decided Wednesday when four members of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission hold a hearing in Boston to decide whether to accept the Pentagon's recommendation that the yard be closed. The session is one of four hearings at the same location. Each will be crucial to determining the fate of other military bases in New England, including the Submarine Base at Groton, Conn., the Brunswick Naval Air Station in Maine and the Defense Finance Accounting Service center in northern Maine.
2 posted on
07/05/2005 9:40:11 AM PDT by
Paul Ross
(George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
To: Paul Ross
Florida netted a gain of 4,000 plus jobs as a result of this recent BRAC process. Maybe there are reasons, but how can you expect others to sacrifice when the President's brother's state gains 4000?
3 posted on
07/05/2005 9:41:10 AM PDT by
jackieaxe
(English speaking, tax paying, law abiding citizen.)
To: Paul Ross
We've already closed far too many bases. Time to start reactivating some.
4 posted on
07/05/2005 9:43:21 AM PDT by
dsc
To: Paul Ross
The BRAC decision on Submarine Base New London was influenced by the same entity that was behind the actions of New London city government in the recent Supreme Court eminent domain case-Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. This firm managed to have persons on the subcommittee that put the package together on the BRAC recommendation who were under financial influence of Pfizer.
To: Paul Ross
The BRAC hearing for Eielson AFB was a month ago. The presentation was good, attendance was good. Will it matter? If every base has equally good testimony, everything will cancel and the list will stand.
8 posted on
07/05/2005 9:53:45 AM PDT by
RightWhale
(withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
To: Paul Ross
Oh, I dunno ... I hear that waterfront property in the New London area is pretty valuable. Maybe the gubermint wants to unload theirs before the good folk in New London decide to take it. Serves them right. Ha!
Sarcasm aside, there are some good points in the article but let's take it one step further, then. Why not relocate ALL of those facilities to a lower cost state and save money in the long run?
9 posted on
07/05/2005 9:54:13 AM PDT by
NonValueAdded
("Iraq is the bug light for terrorists" (Mike McConnell 7/2/05))
To: Paul Ross
My wife's sister says that the base closings are punishment for the "blue" states. She uses Fort Monmouth here in New Jersey as an example.
If I understand what they do there correctly (communications & electronics R&D) they could move just about anywhere, and doing so would move their people out of one of the highest cost of living areas of the country.
11 posted on
07/05/2005 10:00:10 AM PDT by
JimRed
("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?")
To: Paul Ross
Closing military bases in a time of war.
I really believe the pentegon messed up with this whole concept.
To: Paul Ross
Sometimes the BRAC Process Gets it Wrong Dang straight. Six words: Plattsburgh Air Force Base, New York.
31 posted on
07/05/2005 12:32:12 PM PDT by
Mr. Silverback
(Proud to be 100% heteronormative.)
To: nutmeg
ping if you haven't gotten this yet
To: RaceBannon; scoopscandal; 2Trievers; LoneGOPinCT; Rodney King; sorrisi; MrSparkys; monafelice; ...
Connecticut ping!
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
49 posted on
07/07/2005 9:04:13 AM PDT by
nutmeg
("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton 6/28/04)
To: Paul Ross
After reading this thread a new term popped into my head:
BRAC NIMBY's!
55 posted on
07/07/2005 9:27:40 AM PDT by
Wristpin
( Varitek says to A-Rod: "We don't throw at .260 hitters.....")
To: Paul Ross
Why not use the recent Supreme Court argument? Take the whole government facility and sell it to a developer. This would be a financial windfall. Not only would the property generate revenues for the pimps of the election industry, but those large defense dollars wouldn't be spent!
Then when the next crisis happens, we can appoint another group of (former) pimps of the election industry (like BRAC) who are not elected, to recommend spending large sums of money to restore the integrated Submarine capability and support that exists presently!
To: Paul Ross
The value for readiness of co-locating submarine training, concept development and design work with a nuclear submarine shipyard cannot be over estimated. And the value as a lucrative target is also pretty high!
65 posted on
07/08/2005 7:11:08 AM PDT by
An.American.Expatriate
(Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson