Are they closing the bases so they can sell them for oil refineries?

Is this another handover of public assets to private industry? I don't know the answer - I'm asking. Could that be the motive?



===========

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0501refinery01.html

Group not interested in Bush refinery plan
David Ivanovich
Houston Chronicle
May. 1, 2005 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON - President Bush hopes to encourage construction of new oil refineries by offering up closed military bases as possible sites.

But refining experts are skeptical the president's plan could overcome the huge costs and vociferous local opposition that have stymied construction of new refineries for nearly three decades.

Bush said last week he would order federal agencies, working with the states, to try to prod construction of new refineries on old military facilities and "simplify the permitting process for such construction."

***

The president's proposal comes as the Pentagon is preparing its "hit list" of possible military base closings. The United States is home to 149 oil refineries, fewer than half the 325 refineries operating in 1981, while gasoline demand today is 20 percent higher than it was three decades ago. Refiners have tried to keep up by expanding production capacity at the remaining facilities.

===========

...no thought given to existing zoning, feedstock and distribution infrastructure (pipelines? rail? truck?), location, community wants or needs...

I KNOW environment was not considered - it's Bush.

Another throwaway giveaway by Bush for those who don't or won't give it a litlle critical thought.

It is the perfect way to use land that has been despoiled due to former use as an airfield (ground fuel contamination) or a training range (DU, lead, all sorts of shit). Industrial use is way different from siting a playground atop an old airfield and planewashing station...

I don't see such an agenda behind specific base closures. Quite frankly, the list looks fairly sound, even a little less cutting than many expected.

an ulterior motive. I watched on CSPAN the press conference and did not understand a word. Rummy talks about saving 48 billion dollars, but they don't talk about transition costs. Are they doing this in order for the country to believe they are "conservative?" Will the DOD take that 48 bil and send it to Iraq? The cities will lose many jobs over this and decimate many. It will be interesting to see how many red states get to keep their bases. If Lieberman has been acting cozy with the Repubs. it did not do him any good. His naval base seems to be going out of service. I could go on but I won't because it would take all day.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/brac.htm

Good info there. One thing to keep in mind is that back in 1988 when they once again started the base closings/realignment is that our very own Dick Cheney was SecDef.

-snip-
During the decade of the 1980’s, no major military bases were closed, largely because of procedural requirements established by Congress. After several legislative efforts to break the deadlock failed, Congress introduced a new base closure procedure in P.L. 100-526, enacted October 24, 1988. The original base-closing law was designed to minimize political interference. The statute established a bipartisan commission to make recommendations to Congress and the Secretary of Defense on closures and realignments. Lawmakers had to accept or reject the commission´s report in its entirety. On December 28, 1988, the commission issued its report, recommending closure of 86 installations, partial closure of 5, and realignment of 54 others. The Secretary of Defense approved its recommendation on January 5, 1989. <Cheney>

Since the commission approach adopted by Congress was successful, new base closure legislation was introduced which also relied on the services of an independent commission. Congress refined the process in 1990 with another law (PL 101-510) that charged the Defense Department with drawing up an initial list of bases for consideration by the commission. This commission, in accordance with a statutory provision, met in 1991, 1993, and 1995. The Defense Base Closure and Realignment of 1990 (1990 Base Closure Act), Public Law 101-510 established the process by which Department of Defense (DOD) installations would be closed and/or realigned. <Bush I, Cheney SecDef>

-snip-

... is that base closings have been going on for decades. There was a round of them in the middle-`60s, for example. It isn't an initiative that's new to the Bushies. It's just something that hasn't happened in about ten years, because the last round of closures didn't occur because of a lot of bickering in Congress, something BRAC was supposed to eliminate.

In virtually all cases, closings usually result in the property being returned to the nearest city or the county in which the base is located--that's what makes the refinery suggestion new, and I think it's a way of enabling the government to avoid the costs of environmental clean-up--virtually every base has some serious long-term environmental problems--and ever since the Superfund legislation, it's the polluter who's supposed to pay for clean-up before the transfer of the property--and that's the government. The Bushies don't want to pay for that.

To me, the equally large argument is that, while these closings are a very public process and are described as a cost-saving measure, new base construction overseas is mostly hidden from public view--many of the details of which are classified--so we are, in effect, moving more and more troops away from our own territory and to foreign outposts. That's not defensive, and is fundamentally imperial in nature.

Domestic base closings these days aren't, by any stretch of the imagination, an indication of a desire on the military's part to save money--they're a reflection of where troops are actually being used.

Cheers.