http://www.azcentral.com/news/columns/articles/0201talton01.html
For those that care, what's everyone's take? IMO, if we need to close a base because it is truly no longer needed, then there's no need wasting money on excess infrastructure. I don't believe that bases should be kept simply because the local economy would be "devastated" if the base closed. Local governments should realize that they should plan their finances as if there was no local base; the base simply being "icing on the cake" to the local economy. Too many bases remain open that probably would've been better off being closed, simply due to this reason. A prime example was the closure of Reese AFB in Lubbock, TX in 1994. Reese was a pilot training base that had excellent MOA airspace for 360 degrees, and good weather. A pilot training base had to be closed by the Air Force, and, IMO, Laughlin AFB located in the border town of Del Rio, TX would've been far better; since they effectively had only 180 degrees of airspace from the northwest to the southeast due to the Mexico border. But the little town of Del Rio would've "washed away" without Laughlin, with the ciy of Lubbock being relatively unscathed by the closure of Reese; and so it ended up getting the axe.
The reduced size of the military, with more reductions to come, and the concept of "jointness" among the services will demand a reduction in excess and redundant infrastructure. Agree or disagree with these facts, it is what is happening with the military these days.
For those that care, what's everyone's take? IMO, if we need to close a base because it is truly no longer needed, then there's no need wasting money on excess infrastructure. I don't believe that bases should be kept simply because the local economy would be "devastated" if the base closed. Local governments should realize that they should plan their finances as if there was no local base; the base simply being "icing on the cake" to the local economy. Too many bases remain open that probably would've been better off being closed, simply due to this reason. A prime example was the closure of Reese AFB in Lubbock, TX in 1994. Reese was a pilot training base that had excellent MOA airspace for 360 degrees, and good weather. A pilot training base had to be closed by the Air Force, and, IMO, Laughlin AFB located in the border town of Del Rio, TX would've been far better; since they effectively had only 180 degrees of airspace from the northwest to the southeast due to the Mexico border. But the little town of Del Rio would've "washed away" without Laughlin, with the ciy of Lubbock being relatively unscathed by the closure of Reese; and so it ended up getting the axe.
The reduced size of the military, with more reductions to come, and the concept of "jointness" among the services will demand a reduction in excess and redundant infrastructure. Agree or disagree with these facts, it is what is happening with the military these days.