Re: My Sympathies to the citizens of New London
Andrew C. Toppan
>This is a terrible tragedy to the community, and an historic loss to
>the submarine community. Please accept my deepest sympathies at your
>loss. It is my sincere hope that you somehow be rewarded for your 90
Ummm...they're closing a base, not executing the citizens of the town.
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
max
Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote:
> On 13 May 2005 12:38:33 -0700, "manhair" <beta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This is a terrible tragedy to the community, and an historic loss to
> >the submarine community. Please accept my deepest sympathies at your
> >loss. It is my sincere hope that you somehow be rewarded for your 90
>
> Ummm...they're closing a base, not executing the citizens of the town.
7,700 jobs in a town of 26.5k -- even acknowledging that not every
employee lives there -- it's got to be a grave, terrible economic blow.
.max
ray o'hara
"max" <beta...@earthink.net> wrote in message
news:t9ahe.260$w21...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
screw the jobs, just having a base next to where they makes them makes so
much sense.
there is a highly exeprienced work force there too.
Mark Andrew Spence
"max" <beta...@earthink.net> wrote
>
> 7,700 jobs in a town of 26.5k -- even acknowledging that not every
> employee lives there -- it's got to be a grave, terrible economic blow.
>
Perhaps . . . but the DoD is not meant as a jobs program, either.
M.S.
Jack Linthicum
Wanna bet? Connecticut is a blue state, Georgia (where the boats will
probably go) is a red state. Many red states pick up jobs from the
BRAC, many blues lose.
What is lost in the process is that the closed bases will need to be
brought up to environmental standards before they can be released to
'civilian' use. It should be noted that many of the bases 'closed' in
the 1990s still continue to exist, whether the original contingents and
capacities are still there is open to question.
Andrew C. Toppan
wrote:
>screw the jobs, just having a base next to where they makes them makes so
>much sense.
That doesn't matter a great deal. Nowhere else in the country are
ships based anywhere near the shipyard that builds them.
what does THIS button do?!
That's why i included the phrase "an historic loss to the submarine
community".
.max
what does THIS button do?!
you a dollar for each person there to whom you repeat the above
statement. (your next of kin being responsible for return transport.)
I have a large roll of singles...
Ask the people of Vallejo how much fun they had after Mare Island was
pulled out from under them.
.max
Recalling the President's remarks on energy policy a few weeks ago,
perhaps SUBBASE NLON might be reborn as NuPowGenFac NLON. Seriously.
Jack Linthicum
Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 01:51:54 -0400, "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >screw the jobs, just having a base next to where they makes them
makes so
> >much sense.
>
> That doesn't matter a great deal. Nowhere else in the country are
> ships based anywhere near the shipyard that builds them.
>
>
Norfolk
Andrew C. Toppan
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> That doesn't matter a great deal. Nowhere else in the country are
>> ships based anywhere near the shipyard that builds them.
>Norfolk
What ships are built in Norfolk? None I can think of offhand.
Maybe you mean carriers built a Newport News and based at Norfolk? I
think that's the only example of homeporting-near-the-building-yard
aside from New London/Groton. Pascagoula no longer is.
Andrew C. Toppan
<beta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>sigh... i'll buy you a 1-way first class ticket to New London and pay
It would be helpful if you could quote some of the previous post, so
we know who the "you" is you're replying to.
>Ask the people of Vallejo how much fun they had after Mare Island was
>pulled out from under them.
And every other place that's ever had a base closed. Yes, it sucks
(I've been through one and about to have another here), but the world
goes on. If we never closed a base, the DOD would own about 50% of the
nation's real estate.
Fred J. McCall
:On 13 May 2005 12:38:33 -0700, "manhair" <beta...@gmail.com> wrote:
:
:>This is a terrible tragedy to the community, and an historic loss to
:>the submarine community. Please accept my deepest sympathies at your
:>loss. It is my sincere hope that you somehow be rewarded for your 90
:
:Ummm...they're closing a base, not executing the citizens of the town.
Look at the economic impacts. The town might prefer decimation (in
the original sense) to closing the base....
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
TOliver
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rmcd81ts6gt4o0g3n...@4ax.com...
> Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote:
>
> :On 13 May 2005 12:38:33 -0700, "manhair" <beta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :
> :>This is a terrible tragedy to the community, and an historic loss to
> :>the submarine community. Please accept my deepest sympathies at your
> :>loss. It is my sincere hope that you somehow be rewarded for your 90
> :
> :Ummm...they're closing a base, not executing the citizens of the town.
>
> Look at the economic impacts. The town might prefer decimation (in
> the original sense) to closing the base....
>
Living where a base, actually two of them, closed back in the late 60s, and
the recovery from the closings was slow but sure, with current economic
contribution of the major site now far more than it had been as a military
base (and the other which was on leased land is now the site of a football
stadium and some doctors' offices).
Groton/New London has been up for the axe for at least one sound reason, its
time and distance for boats to reach workable op areas not crowded with
traffic. All the history in the world doesn't make a small out of the way
facility inconvenient for the boats based there and quite high on the "cost
of living" tables worth preserving.
Fort Davis is a scenic and comfortable old post, ideally sited to provide
access for operations along the border and against marauding tribesmen.
Keeping a squadron of the 10th Cavalry there isolated the troopers from
racial incidents and the bright lights and honytonks was well-justified.
Unfortunately, the 10th is no more, the Buffalo Soldiers are merged into
traditionless formations like the 7th (with its one droopy battle honor
amonga few good'uns), and the marauding tribesmen are high above the Khyber,
not in the warm, low Chios. Fort Laramie was shitty Winter duty and we
closed it. Bent's Fort was not a regular establishment and ceased
operations when the post store closed. With Mrs. Dick Dowling's death, the
coastal batteries at Sabine Pass were allowed to sink back into the muck,
while over at Fort Crockett, they built a high rise hotel atop the 12"
emplacement. The Rangers abandoned Fort Fisher in 1837.
Posts close.....
TMO
Jim Herring
> Look at the economic impacts. The town might prefer decimation (in
> the original sense) to closing the base....
Okay, I don't know anything about the port. But, it would seem it could be
converted to a shipping port for goods going into and out of the USA
missing the traffic in Boston and New York. If it has the infrastructure.
The same for Port Ingleside. Although that it seems to be a rather new
naval base to be closing.
But, then look at Port Hueneme. The city of Oxnard was salivating that the
base would be closed and they could expand their commercial harbor. Didn't
happen.
--
Jim
carry on
Jack Linthicum
Your pedantic attempts to always find a hole in a simple one word
statement is a sign of a cramped intellect.
Jack Linthicum
Just how grave it is:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-base15may15,0,7340341.story?coll=la-home-nation
THE NATION
Navy Town's Feeling Keelhauled
Fearing its effects on the area economy -- and the community --
officials vow to fight a Pentagon plan to close the nation's oldest
submarine base.
By Josh Getlin and Elizabeth Mehren
Times Staff Writers
May 15, 2005
GROTON, Conn. - Two hundred yards from the nation's oldest submarine
base, the day manager of Golden Gate Pizza could barely focus on who
had ordered pasta and who wanted the pastrami grinders.
As with just about everyone else in Groton, Tina Way was reeling from
the news that the base might be shut down. All she could think about
was what a huge blow that would be for every layer of this community.
"It will be devastating," Way said. "These people [at the base] are
like family to us."
Much of the "Submarine Capital of the World," as this community of
40,000 has long billed itself, was struggling to process the fact that
Naval Submarine Base New London was included in the Defense
Department's latest round of recommended closings and consolidations.
Groton Utilities Director Glenn Wilson compared his reaction to
learning that someone he loved had a fatal disease. State Sen.
Catherine Cook said she felt as if she had been kicked in the stomach.
Carol Kimball, the 88-year-old town historian, said she was
heartbroken.
Starting with Groton's emblem, which features a submarine, everything
about this 300-year-old town on the banks of the Thames River is
connected to the base, said Mayor Harry Watson. Though neighboring New
London raised most of the money to land the base in 1868, the best
location turned out to be in Groton, but the name New London stayed
attached. Its proposed shutdown represents the single largest loss of
jobs of any of the base closings recommended Friday by the Department
of Defense.
An economic impact report prepared by the state showed the base closing
would cause 31,500 people in the area to lose their jobs, said John
Markowicz. The 61-year-old Naval Academy graduate is head of the Subase
Realignment Coalition, a group that has fought to keep the 687-acre
base open since it was nearly closed in 1993.
For perspective, he said, the total employment figure for southeastern
Connecticut is about 100,000. "We stand to lose about one-third of our
jobs," Markowicz said. "We are wiped."
More than 7,500 military personnel work at the submarine base - along
with 650 reservists and several thousand civilian workers and
contractors.
A state analysis showed that if the base closed and if the largest
adjacent business, General Dynamic Electric Boat, also left town, the
cost to Connecticut would be about $3.3 billion per year, said Cook,
the state senator. But she emphasized that those numbers failed to
describe the full toll.
Cook said 750 contractors around the state derived their livelihoods
from the submarine base, including software developers, simulator
manufacturers and makers of precision instruments. And in Groton, car
dealers, retailers, barbers and beauticians, restaurateurs, real estate
agents, grocers and moving company owners rely on the submarine base
for large portions of their business.
Forty percent of Groton schoolchildren come from Navy families, Cook
said. Navy retirees who remain in the area receive their healthcare at
the base, she said.
"We are patriotic people, and this base is part of our culture," she
said. "I just can't think of what my community would be like without
the base."
Just outside the base, Corey LaPlace was delivering Coca Cola to a
convenience store.
"The base is big business, about 70% of our gross business," he said.
There are more than 1,000 vending machines on the base alone, LaPlace
said, adding that he also delivers to the base hospital and mess halls.
And it is business from the base that means the local Domino's Pizza
needs 80 to 100 cases of Coke delivered each week, LaPlace said. "What
happens to that when the base closes?"
Although closing the base had long been threatened, many in the area
questioned why the federal government would eliminate an important
military installation midway between New York and Boston.
The base at Groton, where the first nuclear submarine was christened by
First Lady Mamie Eisenhower in 1954, hugs the river banks, its 134-foot
submarine escape training tank towering over the landscape. As with a
number of other facilities faced with being phased out, it is seen as a
relic of the Cold War, some analysts said.
Under the Pentagon closure and consolidation plan, the Groton base
would be phased out over five years. The submarine force would be
relocated to bases in Norfolk, Va., and King's Bay, Ga. It is one of 33
major bases that the Pentagon has marked for closure and must be
approved by the base realignment commission, Congress and President
Bush.
Elsewhere on the Northeast coast, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in
Kittery, Maine, and Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, Mass.,
also would be shut down. Those two and Groton combined account for
14,500 workers - about half of the total number of military jobs that
would be lost nationwide as a result of the proposed closings.
On Saturday in Groton, Chuck Bowe was juggling four paper plates heaped
with hot dogs he bought for his family at a charity barbecue. Bowe said
he plugged every penny he had into the purchase of two Groton liquor
stores in November.
While a gradual phase-out of the base might help him keep Grand Wines
and Spirits alive temporarily, it wouldn't be for long, he said.
"If they pull the plug, 40% of my business would be affected
immediately," Bowe said. "The contractors would go immediately, and I
would feel an immediate impact. Everything I have is tied up in these
businesses. It is all on the block."
At Fisher Florist, the family-owned flower store where he has worked
for more than 30 years, George Fisher said that departing submarine
sailors routinely placed flower orders for upcoming weddings,
anniversaries, christenings and birthdays before they left on
maneuvers.
"Right now, I have two subs on patrol," Fisher said. "I provide all the
flowers for the families of these guys when they are gone. When that
business goes, it's 30% of my business."
Fisher said he also was worried about how the community overall would
fare. Base personnel volunteer in the community - recently helping to
rebuild a camp for disabled children, for example, Fisher said. Their
spouses hold jobs, and some from the base are elected to local and
state office.
"The Navy families that come and go are always so civic-minded," said
town historian Kimball. "They take great pride, and participate in
every phase of the community.
"I just can't picture Groton without the sub base. It is just terrible.
I am just heartbroken by the whole thing."
As a bitter wind whipped across the Thames River late Saturday, Art
Brice said he traveled to Groton from his home in Oakhurst, Calif., so
he could relive fond memories of his Navy days at the submarine base in
the 1970s.
Brice stood outside the namesake museum of the Nautilus, the first ship
powered by nuclear energy. The large black submarine loomed behind
Brice as he expressed shock at the possible closure of the base.
"I have a lot of good memories here," he said, recalling how he and his
buddies liked to go out eating and drinking in the area. Brice also
recalled how important the base was in the development of the country's
"silent service," the submarine corps.
"And then they say they are closing it down," he said. "How do they
close down history?"
But Watson, the mayor, said he had no intention of allowing the base to
disappear without a fight. "I don't have that attitude. That is like
laying down and playing dead.
"We've beat this before, when they said they would close it the last
time. It's just going to be a little harder this time."
Watson has convened a special meeting of the Groton Council for
Tuesday. He said it would work with Markowicz's coalition to mount an
appeal to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
"I think we need to unite together as a community and fight this,
because it is wrong," Watson said. "I think we need to put our dukes
up."
Andrew C. Toppan
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Your pedantic attempts to always find a hole in a simple one word
>statement is a sign of a cramped intellect.
My intellect is just fine.
And no ships are built in Norfolk.
Andrew C. Toppan
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Realignment Coalition, a group that has fought to keep the 687-acre
>base open since it was nearly closed in 1993.
...which is why nobody should be surprised this time, and everybody
should have spent the last 12 years working to diversify the economy
and become less depenendent on the base. This closure is entirely
predictable; we all know the submarine force is shrinking.
Neither Groton/New London nor Portsmouth/Kittery can honestly claim to
be surprised or say they didn't have time to prepare for this.
Andrew C. Toppan
wrote:
>converted to a shipping port for goods going into and out of the USA
>missing the traffic in Boston and New York. If it has the infrastructure.
Since Boston doesn't WANT shipping traffic, they would be happy to see
it go away.
>The same for Port Ingleside. Although that it seems to be a rather new
>naval base to be closing.
Ingleside is a leftover of the "strategic homeporting" initiative of
the Cold War. Other bases of the same ilk (Staten Island) didn't
survive this long. Ingleside only survived because of the singularly
ill-advised decision to move all the minesweepers there.
Jack Linthicum
What a good idea, why didn't everybody think of that? Like for
instance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/15calif.html?hp&ex=1116216000&en=4861dcf657c23538&ei=5094&partner=homepage
May 15, 2005
More Closings Ahead, Old Bases Still Wait for Hopes to Be Filled
By DEAN E. MURPHY
SAN FRANCISCO, May 14 - From the wood-paneled office that once belonged
to Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, Tony Hall enjoys a million-dollar view at
the shuttered naval station on Treasure Island. He can see the Golden
Gate Bridge, Coit Tower and the newly restored Ferry Building in San
Francisco.
The problem is that 12 years after the base was selected for closing,
the Navy has moved out but has not handed over ownership. That has left
Mr. Hall, the executive director of the city's Treasure Island
Development Authority, with a prime piece of real estate in San
Francisco Bay but no way to build the housing, hotels, marinas and
nature trails planned for it.
"It's the military holding us hostage on our own lands," said Mr. Hall,
who works in a building leased from the Navy. "There's no reason why
they should be delaying turning this island over."
Even as the recommended base cuts announced by the Pentagon on Friday
create new waves of anxiety and lobbying, many city officials across
the United States continue to wait on the promises of smooth
redevelopment and new civilian uses that came with the previous rounds.
Although those base closings were designated a decade or more ago,
about 219 square miles of former military property have still not been
transferred to local authorities, about 28 percent of the total, the
Government Accountability Office reported in January.
Certainly there are many success stories, as bases have become college
campuses, nature preserves and business parks. Just across the bay from
Treasure Island, the former Presidio Army installation is a national
park as well as headquarters to George Lucas's film company. In one of
the most heralded transformations, the Lowry Air Force Base in Denver,
which closed in 1994, has generated an estimated $4 billion in economic
activity, including $1.1 billion from the construction of homes and
commercial properties.
But there are also places where the delays have rendered former bases
into near ghost towns, as the facilities have been closed and the
military personnel relocated while the property remains underused. Much
of the land is available for lease from the military, but uncertainty
about the future of the leases often makes it difficult to attract
long-term tenants and jobs on par with those that disappeared.
The G.A.O. report said 72 percent of the civilian jobs lost at closed
or realigned bases had been recouped, but Leslie Little, development
services director for the City of Alameda, on the east side of San
Francisco Bay, said many of the new jobs were a far cry from the ones
local officials had dreamed about. More than 14,000 civilian and
military jobs were lost when the Alameda Naval Air Station closed in
1997.
"It's very quiet, extremely quiet, out here," said Ms. Little, whose
office is on the four-square-mile base, only one-tenth of which has
been turned over to the city. "You can bring your kids out here and
teach them to drive."
In Weymouth, Mass., about 400 acres of a former naval air station
remain in the Navy's hands as local officials try for the third time in
eight years to agree on a development plan. In Savanna, Ill., most of a
closed Army depot has been set aside for a nature preserve along the
Mississippi River, but of the remaining 3,000 acres marked for
development, only 390 have been transferred because of cleanup
problems.
"It's been painful," said David M. Ylinen, executive director of the
Jo-Carroll Depot Local Redevelopment Agency in Savanna. "People don't
get serious until you can give them ownership."
A great deal of the hardship has been in California, which in past
years has taken the biggest hit in base closings, losing 26 military
installations since 1988 and accounting for about half of the military
personnel cuts nationwide.
Of the 23 major bases closed in the state, nearly half of the land,
about 53 of the 113 square miles, has yet to be conveyed to the new
owners, according to an analysis commissioned by several California
agencies charged with developing the bases.
The analysis, completed in December by Economic and Planning Systems
Inc., a consulting company, tried to quantify the losses to the state
from the land not being transferred. If developed, the unconveyed
property would generate $17 billion in real estate value, $190 million
a year in taxes to the state and $142 million a year to local
governments, the firm estimated. In addition, more than 20,000 units of
housing would become available in a state already starved for housing.
Though reports like the one in January by the Government Accountability
Office offer upbeat assessments of many base transfers, the dashed
expectations associated with such lost opportunities have soured many
officials to the entire process.
"There are two problems that feed into it," said Leon E. Panetta, a
former California congressman and past White House chief of staff who
is co-chairman of a base retention commission created by Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger. "One is the military is extremely efficient at shutting
a base down and locking the gate. The other is it is extremely
inefficient at assisting the community in getting the property for
redevelopment. Their mission is to go to war and take the hill, and
that's what they focus on."
That said, there is plenty of blame to be shared for the delays, Mr.
Panetta and others said.
Ron Plaseied, a base closing manager for the Navy in California, said
the military "has always been an easy target to point the finger at."
Mr. Plaseied said that each base closing has posed different problems
and followed different timetables but that the goal for the Department
of Defense has been constant.
"Our objective is to make sure the taxpayers are properly compensated
for the divestiture of our real estate," Mr. Plaseied said. He added,
"We are as motivated as everyone else."
At Treasure Island, Mr. Hall complains about the Navy but acknowledges
that the City of San Francisco contributed to the problems by growing
too comfortable with the status quo, which has included millions in
revenue from subleasing much of the Navy's property. In Weymouth, it is
the Navy that has grown impatient, suggesting it might place the former
air station on the auction block because of local officials' indecision
about the development plan.
"We don't think we will get another chance, in all honesty, if this
plan doesn't pass," said Terry N. Fancher, executive director of the
South Shore Tri-Town Development Corporation, the agency created to
develop the property.
The biggest obstacle to handing over military bases from Maine to
California has been cleaning up the environmental problems, which
include unexploded ordnance and industrial pollution from shipbuilding.
Through 2003, the Department of Defense had spent about $8.3 billion on
cleanup operations and estimated it would require an additional $3.9
billion. In some cases, military officials are trying to work out deals
that would allow the new owners to take on the cleanup duties to help
speed them up.
"One of the things that tends to frustrate folks is the time it takes
to reach agreement," Mr. Plaseied said. "We have a number of different
entities involved. Trying to bring all of those different entities
together at once and have some sort of collaborative process takes
time."
But critics of the military suggest there might be more to the delays.
Mr. Hall says he suspects money has come into play in the case of
Treasure Island, where the Navy and city officials are still at odds
over the value of the land, the cost of the environmental cleanup,
possible revenue sharing from the future development and whether some
state tidelands regulations apply to the property.
Mr. Hall points to the sale in February of the former El Toro Marine
Corps Air Station in Southern California. In an online auction, the
Lennar Corporation, a developer based in Miami, paid $649.5 million for
the base, above the minimum bid but below what some people had hoped.
In authorizing the latest round of closings, Congress put new emphasis
on seeking market value for the land, and Mr. Hall fears that standard
might be applied retroactively.
"Back in the early 90's, the thought was to return the land to these
local communities at no cost or low cost," Mr. Hall said. "Since that
time, you know what has happened to land prices all across the United
States. The waiting game serves the military better than it does the
local communities."
Constructed with dredged sand and gravel on the shoals north of Yerba
Buena Island for the Golden Gate International Exposition in 1939,
Treasure Island was intended to become San Francisco's airport when the
exposition closed.
But with the outbreak of World War II, the 403-acre island was turned
over to the Navy in early 1941. Its Art Deco administration building,
designed to double as an airport terminal, instead became an
administration center for the war in the Pacific. It is slated to
become a hotel or conference center, but even now Mr. Hall's office
holds a desk and leather chairs used by Admiral Nimitz.
Mr. Plaseied said the Navy had no interest in holding on to Treasure
Island or the other bases, and he rejected as "entirely incorrect" the
suggestion that it was dragging its feet. But while saying the El Toro
model "is currently not being contemplated" for Treasure Island, he
said "that would be an option" if the Navy and the city were unable to
reach a deal.
"It doesn't take an experienced real estate person to go out and tell
us the property is valuable," he said. "All you have to do is look at
the view of San Francisco."
and
summary:
http://www.nga.org/center/frontAndCenter/1,1188,T_ENVIRONMENT_EMERGENCY%5ED_8267,00.html?hotOffThePress=1
report:
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:15XB7Uv8x_gJ:www.nga.org/cda/files/0504MilitaryBaseCA.pdf+economic+impact+analysis+delayed+military+base+reuse&hl=en
also available as: http://www.nga.org/cda/files/0504MilitaryBaseCA.pdf.
Andrew C. Toppan
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>What a good idea, why didn't everybody think of that? Like for
>instance:
What's your point? That article is about re-using closed bases. I
said nothing about that. (so what if 28% of closed bases haven't been
turned over to civlian ownership yet? In many cases that's because
the civilian authorities can't figure out what they intend to do with
the faciltiies!)
I said these areas should have been working to diversify their
economies OUTSIDE the bases, so they are not as dependent on the bases
in the first place.
Jack Linthicum
There are 6.5 billion people on this planet. All but one of them knows
that those closed bases are 1) not going to made available in any time
soon, and 2) the cleanup of, say, New London Submarine Base in Groton
Connecticut will cost far more than keeping it open, needless to say it
won't be available for any use until that is accomplished. The example
of Treasure Island is very moot in the sense that it needed very
little cleanup and is a fantastic real estate property for location,
location, location. Read the report from Economic Planning and Study,
really read it, and you will see all the planning and preparation in
the world means nothing if Colonel Dirigible doesn't have orders to
clean the joint up and make it available for civilian use.
what does THIS button do?!
> On 14 May 2005 10:16:16 -0700, "what does THIS button do?!"
> <beta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >sigh... i'll buy you a 1-way first class ticket to New London and
pay
>
> It would be helpful if you could quote some of the previous post, so
> we know who the "you" is you're replying to.
>
Such are the vicissitudes of using an interface (google) in lieu of my
beloved VMS or Mac readers. I was replying to Mr. Spence's post fourth
in the chronological sort, article ref:
<k86dncPU9-p...@comcast.com>.
> >Ask the people of Vallejo how much fun they had after Mare Island
was
> >pulled out from under them.
>
> And every other place that's ever had a base closed. Yes, it sucks
> (I've been through one and about to have another here), but the world
> goes on. If we never closed a base, the DOD would own about 50% of
the
> nation's real estate.
Actaully, i haven't actually suggested any of these facilities not be
closed. As third-generation vet who was raised in the Cold War Army
here and abroad, i've seen almost every installation i lived in as a
child, or was stationed at as an ssn sailor, (or in the case of my ship
teh SSN-575, carved up and melted down) shuttered and sold or turned
over to civialian or foreign aughority.
The economics are clear, and it should be clear to anyone who thinks
with more than a passing thought that the needs of the DoD and the
Federal government cannot be fully congruent with that of local
economies.
HOWever, i think you're glossing over with glib advice by simply
suggesting, elsewhere in the thread, that Groton et alia, "should have
spent the last 12 years working to diversify the economy
and become less depenendent on the base."
It isn't that easy. It's not remotely that easy, and, if i understand
the last twenty years of employment and job creation statistics, not
even all that possible. With the rare, spectacular exception, the best
most of these facilities can hope for is variously: an outlet mall,
Walmarts, condos, exclusive exectutive housing and golf course. Perhaps
an automobile dealership megaplex. I know you know how difficult it is
to replace a heavy-iron industrial base with "Hi, may i help you?" and
not lose 70%+ of your income stream in the process.
This thread wasn't started to build a platform against the closing of
NLON.
It is a condolence, like the sympathy given a dear friend just
diagnosed with metastasized lung cancer. Your and other's contributions
to this thread are akin to telling him he should have quit smoking
years ago
Noon...@gmail.com
They hate sailors there. Pure and simple, now the sailors are finally
getting to leave. Question: Why would you want to fight to keep open a
base where the locals openly discriminate against sailors, etc?
So, at least in the case of the New London base, this is excellent
news. They deserve no pity, or condolence, this is what they wanted.
I've lived at several bases, that town was the worst.
For the past decade the locals have wanted us to go away. We get kicked
out/refused service in restaraunts simply for being sailors. You will
be hard-pressed to find a Sailor that doesn't "hate" Groton.
I found several of the quotes provided in the article posted a few
posts up highly amusing. "They are like family"? Ha ha ha ha! Oh, I
pity your family if that's really how you treat them.
Andrew C. Toppan
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>There are 6.5 billion people on this planet. All but one of them knows
>that those closed bases are 1) not going to made available in any time
>soon, and 2) the cleanup of, say, New London Submarine Base in Groton
Have I said ANYTHING about redeveloping that base?
No, nothing at all.
Andrew C. Toppan
<beta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Walmarts, condos, exclusive exectutive housing and golf course. Perhaps
>an automobile dealership megaplex. I know you know how difficult it is
>to replace a heavy-iron industrial base with "Hi, may i help you?" and
>not lose 70%+ of your income stream in the process.
That's why I didn't suggest this.
These places should have been looking for non-military *industry* (not
service) to support their economies, instead of hoping the military
would stay forever.
Kevin Brooks
"Andrew C. Toppan" <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message
news:4rpe81d7spj6ehkij...@4ax.com...
> On 15 May 2005 08:05:45 -0700, "Jack Linthicum"
> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>What a good idea, why didn't everybody think of that? Like for
>>instance:
>
> What's your point? That article is about re-using closed bases. I
> said nothing about that. (so what if 28% of closed bases haven't been
> turned over to civlian ownership yet? In many cases that's because
> the civilian authorities can't figure out what they intend to do with
> the faciltiies!)
>
> I said these areas should have been working to diversify their
> economies OUTSIDE the bases, so they are not as dependent on the bases
> in the first place.
LOL! It is rather entertaining to compare Andrew's stances vis a vis the
closing of the base at New London (laissez faire) with his defense of the
necessity of the USG continuing to reward the HIGH bidders when it comes to
shipbuilding contracts (by golly, our very national survival depends upon
our continuing to reward the losing bidders (like his own BIW, of course),
doncha know?). Theose poor critters in Groton should have figured out long
ago that they should wean themselves off the defense teat...but those folks
a bit further up the coast who build the DDG's by golly BETTER continue to
get (more than, actually--being as they should get them whether they are low
bidder or not) their "share" of shipbuilding contracts....I guess the pigs
at BIW must be a bit more equal than the pigs around New London, huh?
Brooks
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan
Andrew C. Toppan
<broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>closing of the base at New London (laissez faire) with his defense of the
>necessity of the USG continuing to reward the HIGH bidders when it comes to
>shipbuilding contracts
The competition policy is the government's policy, not mine....and the
fact that it's endorsed by everyone including DOD, Navy, and the
Congress does imply that it's a valid policy. W'eve been through this
before; the government awards contracts based on best value, not
lowest cost.
>doncha know?). Theose poor critters in Groton should have figured out long
>ago that they should wean themselves off the defense teat...but those folks
So you think a facility that's ALREADY been on the BRAC list once (or
twice) SHOULDN'T expect to be there again? By your logic, if the
facility was considered worthy of being closed the first time,
shouldn't it be the first thing closed the next go round? You're all
in favor of doing things the cheapest way possible, after all....
what does THIS button do?!
It's not remotely that easy, and, if i understand the last twenty
years of employment and job creation statistics, not even all that
possible. With the rare, spectacular exception, the best most of these
I had thought writing that, coupled referring to your advice to
diversify into nonmilitary endeavours as _glib_, would have made it
clear that i not only understood what you suggested, but didn't believe
your suggestion possessed of merit or relevance. Like the population
of Groton Ct. is even capable of competing with the Chinese.
Let me rephrase in the vernacular: easy for you to say. Not so easy
for real people to do in the real world.
.max
who should not be construed as
to be arguing via proxy w/ TMO,
who has the unfair advantage of
wisdom, age and divine inspration.
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:57:03 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
:<broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
:
:>closing of the base at New London (laissez faire) with his defense of the
:>necessity of the USG continuing to reward the HIGH bidders when it comes to
:>shipbuilding contracts
:
:The competition policy is the government's policy, not mine....and the
:fact that it's endorsed by everyone including DOD, Navy, and the
:Congress does imply that it's a valid policy. W'eve been through this
:before; the government awards contracts based on best value, not
:lowest cost.
And when the Navy wants to change that policy in order to save some
$300 million per ship, I can hear the squeals of outrage clear over
here almost on the other coast.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Kevin Brooks
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:57:03 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>closing of the base at New London (laissez faire) with his defense of the
>>necessity of the USG continuing to reward the HIGH bidders when it comes
>>to
>>shipbuilding contracts
>
> The competition policy is the government's policy, not mine....and the
> fact that it's endorsed by everyone including DOD, Navy, and the
> Congress does imply that it's a valid policy. W'eve been through this
> before; the government awards contracts based on best value, not
> lowest cost.
>
>>doncha know?). Theose poor critters in Groton should have figured out long
>>ago that they should wean themselves off the defense teat...but those
>>folks
>
> So you think a facility that's ALREADY been on the BRAC list once (or
> twice) SHOULDN'T expect to be there again? By your logic, if the
> facility was considered worthy of being closed the first time,
> shouldn't it be the first thing closed the next go round? You're all
> in favor of doing things the cheapest way possible, after all....
Nice job of unacknowledged snippage, Andrew--again, about par for you...
Brooks
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan
Andrew C. Toppan
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>And when the Navy wants to change that policy in order to save some
>$300 million per ship, I can hear the squeals of outrage clear over
>here almost on the other coast.
It's not unreasonable for *both* companies to be outraged (as they
both were) when somebody proposes to change a teaming agreement and
contracting strategy that's been worked out and agreed upon over the
course of 5-8 years.
Andrew C. Toppan
<broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>Nice job of unacknowledged snippage, Andrew--again, about par for you...
Unacknowledged? No, your name was right up at the top, and it's
certainly no secret that I snipped out the large paragraphs of text
between the points I was responding to.
I notice you can't come up with any response aside from criticizing my
method of posting. I guess that speaks for itself....
Noon
hosting communities to openly despise the sailors they are forced
to host. "
I've been to enough bases to know that they are more than simply
"worse". They are worse in the sense that the KKK is worse than some
southern old country guy.
Direct discrimination is not something you're likely to deal with at
most any base in the US.
There is no reason to look at this base closing as a bad thing. The
locals don't want us there, and we never want to have to live there
again. We all win... if there are side-effects, well, I'll give them
all the pity I'd give a racist jerk when he gets his arse kicked
because of his racism.
jgro...@hotmail.com
The west coast subs make it thru Puget Sound OK and there's traffic
there.
This is pure politics, nothing else. VA and GA have Hurricane hazards,
CT
doesn't.
JG
Jack Linthicum
Look up the hurricane of 1938, Bob and Gloria as examples of the
incorrectness of that last. The last I heard the problems was getting
from New London clear of the traffic around the Long Island Sound and
New York.
Kevin Brooks
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:01:32 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Nice job of unacknowledged snippage, Andrew--again, about par for you...
>
> Unacknowledged? No, your name was right up at the top, and it's
> certainly no secret that I snipped out the large paragraphs of text
> between the points I was responding to.
>
> I notice you can't come up with any response aside from criticizing my
> method of posting. I guess that speaks for itself....
Hey, I offered an observation that your attitude towards government payola
seems to change 180-degrees depending upon whether or not it is *your*
paycheck that is in question or whether it is the guy in Groton's. You can
argue that such is not the case, but it still looks like you favor the USG
paying a high bidder for work that you receive an advantage from, while you
think the folks in Groton/New London should have already been weaned from
the federal teat...
Brooks
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan
TOliver
"Geoff Cashman" <theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote....
> In article <cb6f81dffndqqta99...@4ax.com>,
> Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote:
>>On 15 May 2005 10:34:16 -0700, "what does THIS button do?!"
>><beta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Walmarts, condos, exclusive exectutive housing and golf course. Perhaps
>>>an automobile dealership megaplex. I know you know how difficult it is
>>>to replace a heavy-iron industrial base with "Hi, may i help you?" and
>>>not lose 70%+ of your income stream in the process.
>>
>>That's why I didn't suggest this.
>>
>>These places should have been looking for non-military *industry* (not
>>service) to support their economies, instead of hoping the military
>>would stay forever.
>>
>
> chime in on what special characteristics would make Groton/New London
> attractive to would-be industries to locate there instead of other
> places in the world where they can pay <$1 an hour for labor?
>
I suspect you're making a common mistake. While US industrial employment
is down (as the nature of industrial production changes), the part of the
country I live in has benefited as if we were a foreign country. Industrial
employment in my county is up 25% in the last two decades, while the big
winners have been logistics and distribution, where employment is up over
200%. Mobile home manufacturing (not industry) is down about 50%.
Obviously cheaper labor, warm climate, cheap land and construction, no state
income tax anda modest corporate tax burden, etc., helped the change, but
the amount of money that companies like Mars have invested in production
here is astounding.
My youngest daughter has spent the last couple of months in and out of
Danville, "retooling" her company's big distribution facility there (an
employer which draws some commuter labor from students at the University in
Champagne, paying a bit of a premium in what seems a cheap labor market).
These days "product" may come from almost anywhere, and it's the packaging
and packing (carrying) that counts. Much of what we consume costs far more
to move to market and to sell than the cost of production, and companies
like my daughter's employers spend enormous sums equipping warehouses to
receive, break down, repack and ship goods rapiudly, not as quickly as
WalMart's overnight handling and no storage in the stores, but quickly
enough to be substantially profitable.
TMO
DeepSea
news:d6dhms$2h1$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu:
> In article <Oagie.98633$h6....@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
> TOliver <tolive...@Hot.rr.com> wrote:
>>"Geoff Cashman" <theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote....
>>>
>>> Industry? Industry is dying a slow death in the U.S. Maybe others
>>> can chime in on what special characteristics would make Groton/New
>>> London attractive to would-be industries to locate there instead of
>>> other places in the world where they can pay <$1 an hour for labor?
>>>
>> I suspect you're making a common mistake. While US industrial
>> employment
>>is down (as the nature of industrial production changes), the part of
>>the country I live in has benefited as if we were a foreign country.
>>Industrial employment in my county is up 25% in the last two decades,
>>while the big winners have been logistics and distribution, where
>>employment is up over 200%. Mobile home manufacturing (not industry)
>>is down about 50%.
>
> I suspect we're tripping over interpretations of manufacturing vs.
> industry. To me, 'industry' normally has a connotation of an entity
> taking something in raw form, or semi-made form, and turning it into a
> more (or completely) finished product. But, the term can of course be
> interpreted more broadly, and cover such things as teaching, and
> firefighting as 'industries'.
>
> What I meant (I don't know what connotation Andrew was using) is as I
> described above, and what more people might feel comfortable calling
> 'manufacturing'. Since 1998, manufacturing jobs in the U.S. have been
> disappearing at a rate of roughly 2.5% per year. Your particular
> region might be seeing increases, but the nation as a whole is losing
> these manufacturing jobs. Here in the U.S. Midwest, there are plenty
> of shuttered factories. For example; General Electric, once the
> dominant employer in my town at over 5,000 jobs, is now down to about
> 1,000 jobs and more losses are coming. Driving aroung the region you
> can see factory after factory after factory standy empty.
>
> Of course, this is not at all uncommon for a western nation. Most
> western nations are seeing similar patterns, as their economies
> shift to more service based 'industries'.
>
> I am hard pressed to see how a town such as Groton, with a labor force
> exiting the now closing base equipped with rather specific trained
> labor skills, will be able to attract new industry to replace those
> lost jobs. As previously suggested, it's more likely the jobs will
> be 'replaced' by far lower paying jobs. That's exactly what has
> happened in our town. For example, what used to be the world's
> largest color television plant is now a mostly empty and levelled
> lot. The average salary of the more than 1,800 workers that worked
> there was in excess of $30,000. Five years later, the average of the
> same workers is more than 40% lower.
>
> I've been to Groton, though I admit it's been a while. Still, I'm
> disinclined to think Groton is any more able to attract high
> paying jobs to replace the ones being lost by the base closing.
>
> -Geoff
I don't think it will be the loss of jobs directly that will be the major
impact the town or the state, it will be the loss of the military people
and their effect on the outside economy. The submarines and many of the
associated military support jobs will go elsewhere. The Groton Submarine
Base only employed about 950 or so civilians, many of them not what you
would characterize as highly paid. The loss of over 7000 military people
renting houses, shopping in stores and purchasing services - electricity,
phone, dry cleaning, restaurants, etc. will be the major impact.
As far as the base goes, I will agree with Andrew. It was on the last list,
and barely avoided being on the list the round before that. It is old and
small - parking is atrocious. Inability to expand requires a lot of
playing a submarine shell game - constantly moving submarines to get
various services. Some Connecticut laws detract from the base's
desireability - a notable one being a state EPA requirement that we were
not allowed to shovel snow off the deck of pierside submarines - it needed
to be brought to the pier and bucket loaded away. Connecticut did not tax
military pay, but if a spouse worked the earnings were fully taxed. I grew
up in Groton and was stationed there for a good part of my career. I liked
the town, but just about every base I've ever been stationed has been
'better' than Groton (informal survey of one - me!).
--
DS
Jack Linthicum
I watched the Navy's testimony to the BRAC today and the point made
immediately was that some 3000 jobs would be transfreered to Kings Bay.
At the same time the Commission members were antsy about the impact of
that many people and their families on the Kings Bay-St. Marys
community, especially schools and housing. The sub school is going to
Kings Bay and that means a lot of speciality buildings. I have seen the
EPA report on New London and it is pretty mild for a place that has
been handling petroleum products as waste and PCB laden quieting.
DeepSea
news:1116368834.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I was stationed in King's Bay from 2000-2002. I agree that Saint Mary's
can't absorb 3000 people and their families without flex, but the
surrounding communities certainly can help. I think it would be a net
gain for the communities in the end. The nice part about KBAY, is that
unlike Groton - the base is huge, and in the middle of nowheresville on
swamp and marshlands. The closest the public can get to the refit piers
is the far side of Crab Island. You could build all the specialty
buildings you want, and when the construction traffic stopped, the
surrounding community wouldn't even know they were there.
--
DS
Tim Jordan
> operations when the post store closed. With Mrs. Dick Dowling's death, the
> coastal batteries at Sabine Pass were allowed to sink back into the muck,
> while over at Fort Crockett, they built a high rise hotel atop the 12"
> emplacement. The Rangers abandoned Fort Fisher in 1837.
>
> Posts close.....
>
> TMO
>
>
Help me with Mrs Dowling & the Sabine Pass
batteries, would ya please.
Tim Jordan
Andrew C. Toppan
>VA and GA have Hurricane hazards, CT doesn't.
Obviously you've never lived in New England.
Andrew C. Toppan
<broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>paying a high bidder for work that you receive an advantage from, while you
>think the folks in Groton/New London should have already been weaned from
>the federal teat...
Again, this works SOOO much better when you don't invent statements
for me.
I never said closing New London was a good idea. I never expressed any
opinion about the closing.
(It happens that I'm pretty ambivalent about it. I don't think it's a
great idea, but I don't think it'll be the end of the universe. It's
quite true that I have less interest in this than in a facility where
I might work, or near where I live.)
I DID say they should have been expecting it, and I stand by that
statement. For both New London and Portsmouth, the notion of
"surprise" and "shock" is so phony as to be insulting. They've been on
the list before, they're both single-purpose, they're both in the
northeast, they're both in "blue" states, and they're both smaller
facilities. All of those factors are huge indicators that they would
be on the list - justified or not. They (the politicians) should have
been expecting this and preparing to deal with it, instead of flapping
about like a bunch of nitwits.
Andrew C. Toppan
>Direct discrimination is not something you're likely to deal with at
>most any base in the US.
Of course, I've head exactly the same thing about NAS Brunswick in the
past few days too, and NAS South Weymouth years ago when it closed,
and.....
Sailors like to bitch. Bitching about the community outside the fence
is standard.
Kevin Brooks
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:53:20 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>paying a high bidder for work that you receive an advantage from, while
>>you
>>think the folks in Groton/New London should have already been weaned from
>>the federal teat...
>
> Again, this works SOOO much better when you don't invent statements
> for me.
"...nobody should be surprised this time, and everybody should have spent
the last 12 years working to diversify the economy and become less
depenendent on the base. This closure is entirely predictable; we all know
the submarine force is shrinking. Neither Groton/New London nor
Portsmouth/Kittery can honestly claim to
be surprised or say they didn't have time to prepare for this."
Dang, now is that a sympathetic statement for the folks in Groton, or what?
Of course, if we jiggle it around a bit and readdress it towards your own
pet Federal teat wringer, it looks something like: "...nobody should be
surprised by this concept of actually solely contracting the low bidder who
demonstrates it has the ability to perform the work for the shipbuilding
requirement, instead of also rewarding the high bidder. Such a common sense
approach was entirely predicatable, and Andrew should have spent the last 12
years planning to change jobs or move to Mississippi, thus becoming less
dependent upon Federal largesse to a losing bidder. Andrew can't honestly
claim that the federal taxpayers should somehow feel obligated to continue
rewarding losing bidders forever just so as he can continue to collect his
paycheck and the good stockholders can continue to reap profits..." Which of
course you would sorely disagree with...
>
> I never said closing New London was a good idea. I never expressed any
> opinion about the closing.
You just can't understand why they did not throw the towel in long
ago...while you continue to whine that us taxpayers owe you a continued
livelihood regardless of how grotesquely your yard's bid dwarfs that of the
competition...all because in your twisted worldview the only way to ensure
competition is to not actually be competitive??! I see plenty of irony in
this...
Brooks
Noon
is discriminated against. "Black like to whine, whining about
discrimination in the local area is standard".
Mark Andrew Spence
> you a dollar for each person there to whom you repeat the above
> statement. (your next of kin being responsible for return transport.)
> I have a large roll of singles...
>
I guess that's your idea of a refutation; you've been a very articulate
spokesperson for your cause -- what that might be.
M.S.
Andrew C. Toppan
<broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Dang, now is that a sympathetic statement for the folks in Groton, or what?
The discussion is not about sympathy. To be honest, I don't think
anybody in Groton will find sympathy particularly useful.
[Irrelevant babble snipped. That argument is getting boring.]
>ago...while you continue to whine that us taxpayers owe you a continued
>livelihood regardless of how grotesquely your yard's bid dwarfs that of the
Grotesquely? Huh?
By the worst accounting I've seen, the price difference between the
two yards is about 1-2% of the cost of a destroyer. That does not seem
"grotesque" by most standards. When the TAXPAYER subsidy of one of
those shipyards is added to the cost, the price is dead equal or
tilted in favor of the other yard.
And by the way, you still haven't found a bit of solid argument to
refute the points I made about New London.
Andrew C. Toppan
>Yeah, I'm sure that's what you'd say about any minority group when it
>is discriminated against. "Black like to whine, whining about
>discrimination in the local area is standard".
Why do you have to get nasty and make it a race issue?
I'm not aware of sailors being considered a minority group.
Noon
Race issue? The problems there are directly equivilent to race issues.
Say for example you walk into town, hit up a bar, toward the end of the
evening things went decently with some girl, you trade numbers. A
little later, they find out you were a Sailor, you get a call threating
you and telling you "Never speak to her again". Quite literally.
Had you walked into the afore mentioned bar in uniform you would
immediately have been essentially thrown out. Simply because of a
uniform. They don't know you, they only know you by your uniform, and
as a result you get instant hate. Funny how that sounds just like
racism, except in this case it's not your race, it's what you are.
Seriously, this is not something I have seen in any other town. Yes,
sailors complain, as do pretty much every other sect of people, but
normally it's relative and has some balance, and normally the
complaints have more to do with the nearby city vise the people of the
town surrounding you.
Derek Lyons
>I was stationed in King's Bay from 2000-2002. I agree that Saint Mary's
>can't absorb 3000 people and their families without flex, but the
>surrounding communities certainly can help.
You should have seen the area circa 1976 - folks would have thought
the community couldn't absorb *any* families.
You should have seen the area circa 1986 - folks would have thought
the community couldn't absorb *any* families.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
TOliver
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:428dc44d...@supernews.seanet.com...
> DeepSea <deep_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I was stationed in King's Bay from 2000-2002. I agree that Saint Mary's
>>can't absorb 3000 people and their families without flex, but the
>>surrounding communities certainly can help.
>
> You should have seen the area circa 1976 - folks would have thought
> the community couldn't absorb *any* families.
>
> You should have seen the area circa 1986 - folks would have thought
> the community couldn't absorb *any* families.
>
Remembering St. Mary's and what was once only Fernandina Beach from the
early 60s, folks who lived or traveled there can be truly amazed at what
time and people and money hath wrought on what were once backwater corners
of the Southern US's Atlantic seacoast, once acorss the Mayport ferry, far
from the madding crowd.
TMO
Derek Lyons
Amen. I spent much of my youth in Jacksonville - and the difference
between the 70's and the 00's is astonishing to say the least.
jgro...@hotmail.com
> >
> > The west coast subs make it thru Puget Sound OK and there's traffic
> > there.
> > This is pure politics, nothing else. VA and GA have Hurricane
> hazards,
> > CT
> > doesn't.
> >
> > JG
>
>
> Look up the hurricane of 1938,
Major storms but not close to FL/GA/SC history, JG
Benchmark of New England storms, and starting point for this tropical
climatology. Highest sustained wind 121 MPH, Blue Hill Observatory, MA,
with a gust to 186 MPH. Great damage with total over 400 million and
over 600 people killed. Maine damage $135,000 and only state not to
record fatalities. Bellport, Long Island. NY records lowest barometric
pressure ever in Northeast, 946.2 MB...27.94 IN. Lowest New England
Pressure 949.5 MB...28.04 IN at Hartford, CT. Center landfalls at high
tide in late afternoon creating massive flooding and storm surge.
Downtown Providence, RI under almost 14 feet of water from record storm
surge. Storm track across Long Island then up Connecticut River to
Vermont early in evening. Extensive interior forest damage.
Burtlington,VT lowest pressure 971.2 MB...28.68 IN. Forward motion of
storm during passage over New England in excess of 50 MPH. Boston's
Logan Airport records five minute sustained wind of 73 MPH with gust to
87 MPH, well east of storm center. Winds gusts in excess of 100 MPH
lash central and southern New England coastline. Damage in Maine is
significant but light compared to the other New England States. Also,
Maine is the only State not to suffer fatalities.
Bob
Wind gusts to 125 MPH on Cape Cod. Heavy damage in all of coastal New
England. Total damage $1.5 billion, most of it in New England. Major
flooding in most of New England from this Catagory Two hurricane. Maine
damage $212 million. Three deaths in Maine. Most significant hurricane
since Gloria in 1985 and Donna in 1960. Many locations in Maine
experienced long-duration power-outages. Heavy damage also in Sebago
Lake area.
and Gloria
1985. Precip .41 in. at Portland. Very dry storm east of center as most
precip fell west of storm center. Wind gust 51 MPH at Portland. Gusts
to 80 MPH southern New England. Significant hurricane in New England
and first major storm to affect entire region since Donna 1960. Total
storm damage in Carolinas and New England near 1 billion dollars.
Significant damage from wind in Maine, but little water damage. Gloria
arrived at low tide with a storm surge of about one foot. Minor coastal
flooding.
Major storms but not close to FL/GA/SC history, JG
DeepSea
news:428d1e7e...@supernews.seanet.com:
I wasn't in Jacksonville in the 70s, but I went to high school there in the
mid 80s, and maintain a home north of JAX now. Even I can see a huge
difference.
--
DS
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 15 May 2005 23:49:31 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>And when the Navy wants to change that policy in order to save some
:>$300 million per ship, I can hear the squeals of outrage clear over
:>here almost on the other coast.
:
:It's not unreasonable for *both* companies to be outraged (as they
:both were) when somebody proposes to change a teaming agreement and
:contracting strategy that's been worked out and agreed upon over the
:course of 5-8 years.
In other words, what's sauce for the goose is strychnine to this
particular gander....
I don't believe I know of any government contracts that are let 'in
perpetuity', Mr Toppan. Why is it different when you fear that it
will be your oxen getting gored?
Either you believe the government should be buying 'best value' or
not. If you do, then your position above is hypocrisy. If you don't,
then your complaints [snipped by you] from earlier in this thread
would seem to qualify as the same.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Fred J. McCall
:In article <1116181511.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
: <Noon...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>I must comment on New London.
:>
:>They hate sailors there. Pure and simple, now the sailors are finally
:>getting to leave. Question: Why would you want to fight to keep open a
:>base where the locals openly discriminate against sailors, etc?
:
:Though Groton may be worse than others, it is hardly unusual for
:hosting communities to openly despise the sailors they are forced
:to host.
Though they always seem to love their money. They need to be
periodically forcefully reminded that you can't have one without the
other.
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Derek Lyons
>> Amen. I spent much of my youth in Jacksonville - and the difference
>> between the 70's and the 00's is astonishing to say the least.
>>
>> D.
>
>I wasn't in Jacksonville in the 70s, but I went to high school there in the
>mid 80s, and maintain a home north of JAX now. Even I can see a huge
>difference.
>
Just out or curiosity - which one?
DeepSea
> DeepSea <deep_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Amen. I spent much of my youth in Jacksonville - and the difference
>>> between the 70's and the 00's is astonishing to say the least.
>>>
>>> D.
>>
>>I wasn't in Jacksonville in the 70s, but I went to high school there
>>in the mid 80s, and maintain a home north of JAX now. Even I can see a
>>huge difference.
>>
>
> Just out or curiosity - which one?
>
> D.
Bolles
--
DS