Re: VaBeach gets to keep Oceana - at a price
- From: "John Carrier" <jxc2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:20:13 -0500
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1125012944.582641.47980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> John Carrier wrote:
>> "Peter H. Granzeau" <pgranzo@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:inpPe.729$nq.634@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > The BARC evidently felt strongly that Virginia Beach needed to put
>> > their money where their mouth was in order to keep Oceana.
>> > Encroachment on the air base's flight paths totals something like $267
>> > million of assessed valuation, and the BARC wants the city and state
>> > to buy all of that property back from current owners.
>> >
>> > It will never happen, of course, but meantime, they get to keep Oceana
>> > until the next BARC cycle.
>> >
>> > It is possible that someone will drop an F/A-18 into a schoolyard or
>> > movie theater or someplace like that, and the city fathers will
>> > finally learn WHY the USN kept asking them not to permit people to
>> > build things there...
>>
>> I think you read the amendment wrong. Va Beach got 120 days to come up
>> with
>> a plan and the legislation to implement it to accomplish compliance with
>> the
>> commission's ruling. While I think that a comfortable majority of the
>> city's citizens and the people of Virginia want to retain Oceana, there's
>> a
>> loud minority that talks the "good riddance" game. I think they'll have
>> sufficient horsepower to block (or at least slow) any initiatives to meet
>> the commission's requirement. And there's the question of bucks and
>> individual cooperation given such a massive effort.
>>
>> While I'm amazed by the turn of events (and unsure about the Cecil
>> relocation meeting the meaning of BRAC legislation ... offering up a
>> previously closed base so you can close another), it looks to be a done
>> deal.
>>
>> OBTW, there is no "next" BRAC cycle. At least that's what the pols want
>> right now. But I suspect that players like Lieberman, who was very
>> anti-BRAC 36 hours ago, will be champions of the concept by next week.
>>
>> R / John
>
> There always Moody AFB near Valdosta, GA. Can you see a nuclear support
> facility for Jacksonville so they can have more than one aircraft
> carrier? Can you see Norfolk losing ground as the overcrowding of their
> facilities gets more and more status? Cecil is a case of calling the
> Navy's requirement for one massive jet base and not planning for any
> other contingency.
I don't disagree with your logic. Cecil is an excellent facility and has
relatively little encroachment (just look at the satellite pics). Given the
relative merits of each base, I think it made more sense to close Oceana
vice Cecil in 1993. BUT, they didn't. I was wondering if there are any
legal hurdles to the concept. (BRAC legal council seems to think not, but I
wouldn't be surprised if Va Beach takes the litigation path vice the
compliance one.)
As an aside, "complexes" (or whatever the buzzword was for that week)
consisting of several bases in one location (San Diego Complex, Norfolk
Complex, etc) were the hallmark of the Navy's BRAC 1993 and 1995. If you
were a relatively isolated "onesy" base, you were a prime candidate for the
list.
R / John
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: VaBeach gets to keep Oceana - at a price
- From: Jack Linthicum
- Re: VaBeach gets to keep Oceana - at a price
- References:
- Re: VaBeach gets to keep Oceana - at a price
- From: John Carrier
- Re: VaBeach gets to keep Oceana - at a price
- From: Jack Linthicum
- Re: VaBeach gets to keep Oceana - at a price
- Prev by Date: Re: Varyag
- Next by Date: Re: VaBeach gets to keep Oceana - at a price
- Previous by thread: Re: VaBeach gets to keep Oceana - at a price
- Next by thread: Re: VaBeach gets to keep Oceana - at a price
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|