Wichita right to get ready for future base cuts

It’s smart that area officials aren’t resting after their success in avoiding the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission ax, but instead are planning now for how to help keep McConnell Air Force Base open for the future. There may be fights ahead over proposals to limit the area around the base to one- and two-story buildings and to new industrial development, or to require special standards for nearby home construction. But by giving the process a preliminary blessing last week, the Wichita City Council surely has signaled the Pentagon that the community highly values McConnell and its 3,900 jobs, and wants to accommodate the base long term.
Posted by Rhonda Holman

8 Comments

  1. Vaughn Tolle
    Posted November 22, 2006 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    I would hope future base closing/cut decisions would be based upon the overall impact the base(s) selected for closing/cuts on the mission of the military overall, and not on factors such as zoning restrictions, etc. Otherwise, a military base becomes just another piece of “pork” for the politicians.

  2. Don Ramsey
    Posted November 22, 2006 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    You are right Vaughn to a certain extent. If it was just close a base or leave it open; However when it is close Base A or Base B then Wichita should be proactive.

  3. Joe Williams
    Posted November 22, 2006 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    It’s all about politics. The last BRAC should have closed way more bases than did, because politicans screamed bloody murder.

    Only the well contected got to save their bases. Tiahrt better position himself very well with the base and Congress or it can be lost soley based on Democrats having control of Congress and teaching Republicans a lesson by closing every base in each Republican district.

  4. Vaughn Tolle
    Posted November 22, 2006 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    My personal experience in the USAF was served totally, post basic training, on an air force base kept open because of it being in Indiana, and the “connectedness” of the Senators and Congressmen. The base itself was clearly “surplus”; there was nothing apparent from its mission (refueling) or location (being literally in the middle of a corn field) which indicated a need for it to exist.

    Even the Air Force implicitly acknowledged the lack of utility of the base. For the four years I was stationed there, its mission was reduced by transferring the squadron of EC-135s to another base; and the lack of funding to properly maintain the basic infrastructure (not the flight lines, but dang near everything else) became more and more obvious annually. Even the officers assigned there grumbled (well, there’s not much unique about that) about it being a “dead end” assignment for their careers.

    Mercifully, that drain on taxpayers was removed as an active duty base in the late 80s or early 90s. It lives on as a vigorous air reserve installation, the reserve unit flying fighter aircraft last I knew. This, too, was a reflection of the change in state political representation in DC, from Birch Bayh to Richard Lugar in the Senate, coupled with the 12 year Republican hold on the office of President.

    My point? The base could have been decommissioned in the 70s, and transferred to the reserves then, without any appreciable impact on military readiness. It served, for many years, as a “pork” project only, best as I could tell. Given the high number of courts martial and administrative discharge actions (on a per capita basis) I believe it actually represented a losing proposition for the Air Force, and thus the taxpayers.

  5. J R
    Posted November 22, 2006 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    I realize they are an economomic boon to a community. But the fact is we have WAY too many military bases for the modern era.

    The central geographic location of McConnel would seem to make it a base that makes sense to maintain. Still, other communities have found creative and profitable uses for defunct military bases. Wichita should hedge its bets and at least research alternative uses for McConnel

  6. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted November 22, 2006 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    Dont count out sebelius in keeping your base open. Now that tanker todd is without power in Congress, it could look bad for your base.

    Not to worry though. The dems are looking for people like governor leadership. They will make her look good by keeping the base open.

    Someone might need her in 08 ya know….

  7. Ben Huie
    Posted November 22, 2006 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    It s going to be interesting to watch Tankerless Todd try to save McConnell. He has been the ultimate partisan; this was well illustrated when he sent his staff to Florida in 2000 to help disrupt the recounts. Now that he is in the minority AND has burned bridges to the Democrats he is irrelevant.

    Brownback, on the other hand, might be much more successful in working for Kansas. He has chosen to build bridges across the aisle.

    Looking at the base issue itself I think they should look at the possibilities of turning the real estate to other uses. For example, Dobbins in Atlanta would be tremendously valuable for development; McConnell would not be. Therefore, if all else is equal, Dobbins should be closed instead of McConnell. Redevelopment of that property will generate at least as many jobs as would be lost.

  8. mike
    Posted February 23, 2007 at 1:50 am | Permalink

    Ladies and Gentleman, let me tell you how bad McConnell AFB is for some. Currently those big gray planes you see flying around, are being supported by the men and woman of the 22AMXS, and guess what? You won’t see any of the men and woman because they are on 12+4 hr shifts! Yes, we are working approximately 16hrs a day, so they can fly training mission all day. Anyone out there wanna help us out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!