Jump to content

Hampton Roads Military Developments


vdogg

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 842
  • Created
  • Last Reply

While I agree it is mostly economics if the council ever decided to buy out these homes can you imagine the firestorm that would erupt? The city already had a taste of this earlier in the year and I doubt they would want to go through that again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some choice quotes from the news release:

There are a lot of neighborhoods fighting for a carrier. In addition to the carrier going to Japan, Florida wants one to replace the Kennedy. There's even talk of moving a carrier to Hawaii or Guam. Will they all come from Hampton Roads? Fallon says the Navy hasn't decided yet.

"We learned a lot in BRAC process," says Fraim. "The process was greatly influenced by another state - Florida - and by political maneuvering. And we want to ensure that doesn't happen in decisions that are being made about aircraft carriers."

The Navy is expected to release its decision in just two months.

One other consideration to keep in mind, it's not just the ship that matters but the name too. For example, it's unlikely the Navy would try to move the USS Harry S. Truman to Japan - since he ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs on the island nation to end World War II.

Good to know the Truman is safe from Japan. Did Truman dod anything against Florida or Guam? We need to research the histories of all aircraft carrier namesakes. Where's the Herbert Bush going to go? Why can't that ship go to Mayport? His son does govern there. And it would reduce the thievery of Norfolk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There goes the Washington

At least Norfolk doesn't lose the battlegroup since the Kitty Hawk will leave behind its group. Now to see if Mayport gets upgraded to nuke status. From a national security standpoint, it makes sense to have the Atlantic fleet split. Then again, it's very rare to have all five battlegroups at port at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There goes the Washington

At least Norfolk doesn't lose the battlegroup since the Kitty Hawk will leave behind its group. Now to see if Mayport gets upgraded to nuke status. From a national security standpoint, it makes sense to have the Atlantic fleet split. Then again, it's very rare to have all five battlegroups at port at the same time.

Well even if the ships are out to sea, the families are still here buying things from stores and living in houses. If Oceana closes and both carriers leave... I really hate to imgine what the real estate market will look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Developers are moving ahead to build houses in the APZ-1 crash zone area near Oceana as the city has declined to buy the property thus far. The city says it does not yet know how to respond to the BRAC demand to stop encroachement around the base and does not wish to spend money unwisely not yet knowing the outcome.

article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well even if the ships are out to sea, the families are still here buying things from stores and living in houses. If Oceana closes and both carriers leave... I really hate to imgine what the real estate market will look like.

Norfolk will still have 4 carriers not 3 if Mayport gets one, because the George H.W. Bush will come on line. Right now, Norfolk has 5 carriers stationed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the Bush was suppose to go to the West Coast?

Right now, there are 12 carriers, 6 on each coast. Norfolk has 5 and Mayport has the Kennedy. The Kennedy and the Kitty Hawk are in line to be decommissioned while the Bush will come on line. That drops the carrier fleet to 11. DoD wants to have 6 carriers in the Pacific since it is a more volitale area. That leaves 5 carriers for the Atlantic fleet. If Mayport gets one, then Norfolk is left with 4. If the Bush goes to the Pacific, then a Pac-fleet carrier will move to the Atlantic. From all that I've read, the carrier fleet will drop to 11 with a 6/5 split in Pac-fleet's favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must agree that we would be better off without the base. VA Beach is much more than a military town but I think the military persona has stunted economic growth and also perceptions from the outside. If we are going to lose either way I say let the 5% of our economic engine go and start rebuilding as long as we develop a good plan for redeveloping the Oceana area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must agree that we would be better off without the base. VA Beach is much more than a military town but I think the military persona has stunted economic growth and also perceptions from the outside. If we are going to lose either way I say let the 5% of our economic engine go and start rebuilding as long as we develop a good plan for redeveloping the Oceana area.

That assumes that the base is closed and not realigned. Still, realignment would probably entail non-jet use, so high-rises in Lynnhaven and taller hotels on the Strip are a go. The last one may not be a positive unless those hotels are built on the west side of Atlantic or on Pacific. Anyway, the study's economic figures aren't really a surprise. The City's economic development department in a 2003 study put Oceana's contribution at 5-10% of the economy.

If the city decides to let Oceana go (which is doubtful), it should make sure that the closure becomes a major national topic. The spin would be that economic development including offices (instead of showing Lynnhaven, show TC), housing developments (show the nicer homes and condos), and hotels (show the Hilton and other high-end hotels) is the cause of Oceana's closure. Basically, use the closure to get free national advertising. Sell the nation on VB as a business destination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this quote particularly interesting. "If the base loses its jets, Navy spending on goods and services for Oceana would plummet by about $404 million, but only about $600,000 of that is spent in Virginia Beach. The state’s loss would be $50 million."

and this one:

RKG also predicted that losing the jets would not have a "major impact" on the housing market or the region’s economy.

"The study does show that Oceana isn’t the economic engine that everybody said it was," Councilman Richard A. Maddox said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The city is much more diversified than even the city thought which is definitely a good thing. I really think though that the stigma if you will of being a military town has stunted our growth. Even some of the more major retailers have been very hesitant to come to our area. It has been a hard sale to get them here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a military kid. My father worked at Oceana and all over Hampton Roads, so naturally I want the base to stay. I know the military may have, and still may be stunting growth in our area, but that is who we are and who we have been for years and years. We don't need to become the next Charlotte, we just need to be who we are. The military is what makes our area unique and respectable. I would take the military over a high rise anyday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking over the article a little more and though the loss is in millions of dollars the actual percentages are small. Take a look here:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

- If the jets leave, the city would lose about $700 million, about 5 percent of today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since none of us have seen the report, then it's hard to comment on most of those numbers. However, the 5% of the City economy fits in with what the City's economic dept put out a couple years ago. That would put VB's GDP at approximately $14 billion. If I recall the ODU reports correctly, the gross regional product is around $50 billion with VB and Norfolk each contributing one third, or $15 billion, of that amount leaving the other municipalities to make up the remaining $20 billion.

Also, are the latter numbers ($49 million and $196 million) total losses or annual losses in that give year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.