Possible BRAC leaves fort in flux

Area’s future could hinge on Department of Defense proposal





One of the proposals for the Department of Defense to cut costs is having a Base Realignment and Closure round in fiscal year 2013, which begins on Oct. 1.

While there is a possible impact on Fort Huachuca, exactly what it could be — closure, reduction of missions or new units being assigned — is unknown.

The BRAC possibility is leading the co-chair of the Arizona Military Affairs Commission and former president of the Fort Huachuca 50 Tom Finnegan of Sierra Vista to issue a call to arms to not only defend the post but other military installations in the state.




Full text available to premium subscribers and archive access members only.

Click here to become a Premium Member today for only $4.50 per month and get access to all of our content every day.

Or pay just $3.99 one time and receive 30 day access to our older archives. Current premium stories are not included in this offer.




arizonabigsky on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 6:08am

 Clearly the majority of people here have been lulled into submission. BRAC is not a threat, it is a REAL challenge that must be faced. Point the finger of blame all you want, but solutions come from hard work,oops those pesky four letter words - hard work. Oh well let’s bury our heads in the sand a little longer…

bubba on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 6:56am
Title: No Worries

With the emphasis on intel and hi-tech weapons like UAV’s to support the "new military" of special operations like the recent SEAL ops I would think the Fort would be faily safe from any reductions.

And speaking of which: why is it when the U.S. or it’s allies assisinate leaders, scientists, and others or send "hit squads" like SF or SEALs that’s called a "surgical strike" and is morally OK - but when others do the same it’s called "terrorism" and activities by "terrorist cells" and apparently not morally OK?

BTW - my brother is NSW and I’m a Vet… I’m just confused on the morality issues and the political rhetoric. 

realitynow on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 8:20am
Title: BRAC

Sierra Vistans, let’s not waste local taxpayer money trying to convince the Pentagon that we know better, because we don’t.  Every local community whines about cuts, and no one is going to listen. The military is not a welfare agency created for the benefit of local communities. And don’t play the blame game; if we get cuts, it’s will not be because of water, it’s going to be for valid military reasons. Look at the bright side - the government is finally trying to spend less money.

Sumtingwong on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 10:44am

Exactly the pentagon doesn’t care what the local yokels think, but it makes the politicans look like they are doing something, gives Hess something to write about, and sells a few more papers. There will be numerous pointless articles about this, in the next couple of years.

arizonabigsky on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 1:15pm

 With all due respect, the long term survival of Ft H is not just a matter of "convincing the Pentagon", there is a larger vision that must be considered - there are hundreds of non-military jobs at stake as well. The private sector must be more pro-active.

arizonabigsky on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 1:21pm
Title: to bubba

 First of all your premise that Ft H "is safe" because they "have hi-tech weapons like UAV’s" is not valid. At the Pentagon there are NO sacred cows.

Also, UAV’s are NOT per se ‘weapons’ as your comment seems toindicate. It would be wise for everyone - civilian, former military and even military personnel to become more conversant regarding UAS/UAV technology. 

 

Rancher on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 1:57pm

The Army has invested a HUGE amount of money re-building all of Fort Huachuca, almost 100% new housing, Intel classrooms, barracks, sports fields, gyms etc.

The fort is under no obligation to conserve water (I know it keeps gets stated that it does).

If the fort was to be closed, it would be SOLD except for the forest land that would be turned over to the USFS.

Surely the Center for Biological Harassment and The Sierra Gang knows this.

I would love to have the money to invest into the infrastructure and turn the fort into a science and technology center.

Bottom line if the Fort closes, the tree huggers loose.

 

Rancher

 

LocalCynic on Fri, 01/27/2012 - 5:50pm

Mr. Finnegan is quite right that the local community needs to do more on water conservation to protect and support the fort. The fort has done wonderful work. But why hasn’t Mr. Finnegan and other fort supporters been involved in this issue the past 5 years? Why haven’t they been pressuring the city and county to take more action instead of talking and talking?

Dynex on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 2:12pm

This discussion never seems to die, does it?

We’ll find another war to fight before every having to worry about BRAC.

FreeThinker on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 5:54pm
Title: Sad but true

“We’ll find another war to fight before every having to worry about BRAC.”

Haven’t we?
Libya…. Ugandan… Iran?

Dynex on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 11:26pm

Well, a full scale war hasn’t been started quite yet.

Cassandra on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 12:00am
Title: Word

 Yes. I’m sure we’ve got our next bloodthirsty and virtually unstoppable enemy just about ready to go, just a few finishing touches.

Federal, State and local governments are not likely to pull the brake on that gravy train. We’ve got Speaker Boehner still angling for chunk of the pointless F-35 in his district; Giffords acted like she was channelling The Duke as she advocated for more Vet-related pork here (local liberal Leach beats the same drum) and, if Newt gets his way, we’ll be fighting from our new moonbase in a few years.

Its all shovel ready because you need a shovel to deal with this much b*******!

Incadove93 on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 9:03am

The Pentagon will not be listening to the community with regard to base closure.  For many years, Fitzsimons Army Medical Center in Denver, thought they were reasonably safe from BRAC.  They, too, invested much money in post and hospital remodeling.  It closed in 1999.  For those who could not retire or transfer, there were some rough times until they found the right job fit.  The difference between that post and Ft Huachuca is that Aurora, CO is adjacent to Denver, where there were many more jobs to absorb the large, displaced civilian workforce.  The University of Colorado Health Science Center bought the property and created more jobs.  Sierra Vista is not close to a major city so the hit would be particularly devastating here.  I know that I will be keeping an eye on this, and if it looks like the Fort will close, I’ll be looking to sell out (even at a bit of a loss) and move.     

Text Resize

-A A +A