1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993 Page: 67 of 222
This legal document is part of the collection entitled: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
64
V0 1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
~68
69that the mapping service is in the Northern
Philadelphia facility and is utilizing a
substantial amount of the space. There are a
few projected moves from the shipyard or the
Naval station that are to go to Northern
Philadelphia.
COMMISSIONER BOMAN: The
defense mapping part of the Northeast
Philadelphia complex is strictly a warehousing
effort, and it could be easily relocated
rywhere else.
MR. EPSTEIN: Commissioner
GorIa, I think that there are some office
staff there, also. Some of the scenarios
showed some of the administrative people
staying in that warehouse function, just
moving.
COMMISSIONER BOWMAN : But I
think the basic issue is, is that or is it not
an obstacle to the South Philadelphia proposal
to move to Northeast?
MR. EPSTEIN: Clearly not.
COMM ISS IONER BYRON: Thank
you. And the facilities that are to move out
of the Naval station shipyard, there is ample
space to accomdate that projected move,
including the move that --
MR. YELLIM: SPCC? Yes. I
think one of the things that we're very aware
of is that this is an area that has been hit
very hard by other closures, and so we think
that a Look at these options as we're doing
with other communities are very, very
important.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: Any further
questions or discussions before I entertain a
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COURTER: I entertain
a motion with regard to Mechanicsburg Ship
Parts Control Center, the SPCC.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COURTER: I move that
the Cosmiss i on consider Ship Parts Control
Center, Mechanicsburg, Pernsylvania, as a
proposed addition to the Secretary's List of
military installations recoamnerded for closure
or real i grment. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER STUART: I'LL
second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I hear
there's a second to the motion. [s there any
discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CCURRTER:
Commissioner Stuart, we'll start with you.
COMMISSIONER STUART: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BYRON: Aye.
GEN JOHNSON: No.
CHIRM[PJAN CCIJRTER: Aye.
COMMIlSSIONlER MCPHERSON: Aye.
COMMIISSIONER CCX: No.
COMMSSIONER SG.MAN: No.
MS. CHESTON: On the motion
that the Commission consider Ship Parts
Control Center, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania,
as a proposed addi t ion to the Secretary' s i st
of military installations recommended for
closure or real ignment, the vote is four infavor, three against; the motion carries.
COMMISSIONER BGMAN: I have a
question related to what I call the
"Philadelphia proposal," which is the move
from South PhiLadeLphia to the Northeast. And
this is really for counsel. Because we might
entertain a relocation to a different place
than previous ,in the DOD plan, do we need to
make a motion 1:o cover that?
I personally think not, and
again, you have to be there to understand it
all, but one of the proposals that I think --
and I recommended in the site visit was that
we take a Look at that proposal, and instead
of evacuating in simple, plain term,
instead of evacuating the OLA and ASO
faciLities in Philadelphia to either
Mechanicsburg or the Army Cumberland depot,
the proposal from the community in
Philadelphia, in simplified form, is to move
from the South to the North in Philadelphia
and retain ASO, DISC, DPSC, and in their
proposal, the clothing factory there.
If we consider such a
proposal, do we need to make motions to do so?
And we may want to talk about that later.
MS. CHESTON: If I understand
your proposal correctly, it would not involve
either a closure or a reduction or an increase
in the reduction from a facility that is not
already on the list. If my assumption is
correct, then no, you don't need to vote.
COMMISSIONER BCIAN: I
believe that you understand what I'm saying,
and I'm not a Lawyer, but I personally agree
with your conclusion.
CHAIRMAN CCJRTER: Any other
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COJRTER: You my
proceed to the next.
MR. YELLIN: Move onto the
technical centers, 34 and 35. This is the
consolidation of the East Coast interservice
engineering centers. This is a scenario that
was presented to the Commission in 1991 and
was rejected by the Commission at that time.
That involves the closure of St. Inigoes,
Charleston, and Uashington and their
consolidation and expanded facilities in
Portsmouth, Virginia.
In '91, the Commission
rejected that. There are several reasons
stated. One was that the Commission stated
that they didn't believe the Navy had
adequately looked at alternative facility
sites, including one in Charleston, and that
there were issues that were not fully
explained related to manpower issues in the
relocation of personnel.
As we have mentioned before,
also, and, in fac=t, K did mention now, bat
NESEC Portsmouth is a Norfolk Naval Shipyard
tenant, and we have added Norfol k Naval
Shipyard for a po~tential closure candidate.
And so that might require a relocation of that
as a tenant i f that faci li ty was closed.
I would like David to go over,
briefly, the scene ario as shown on the amp on 35.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View 10 places within this document that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legal Document.
United States. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. 1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993, legal document, February 17, 2006; (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc25520/m1/67/?q=food+rule+for+unt+students: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.