Where do you see the Springs in 20 years? (Colorado Springs, Pueblo: taxes, living in)

[Bideshi]

I expect at least two military installations will close. The economy will never recover to the point that tourism will bring in the money of the past. It will be smaller, quieter, less transient. The hispanic population will increase a lot.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by captain_hug99

More flight to the more rural edges on all sides and less urban fill.

I can see that.

[blendin]

-The Air Force money will return some day-

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by blendin

-The Air Force money will return some day-

How would that happen? I think Schriever is a candidate for closure in the next BRAC go round.

[Maynerd]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

How would that happen? I think Schriever is a candidate for closure in the next BRAC go round.

I doubt it.

The BRAC process compares bases with similar missions. In the 90s, for example, they compared multiple bases with flying missions in the Northeast, and closed Griffiss and Plattsburg in upstate NY, consolidating flight ops into McGuire in NJ. There really aren't any comparable bases to Schriever's mission. If you closed Schriever, you'd have to move the satellite control mission elsewhere. It's actually cheaper to leave it in place.

Plus, they've very recently pumped a lot of infrastructure into Schriever. While economically that's all sunk costs, the government doesn't look at things that way. They see stuff that's shiny and new, and hold onto it.

Before Schriever would close, I could see them relocating assets from Peterson out to Schriever, because it's easier to move a headquarters function than a mission activity, but honestly, I don't see that occurring either.

I suspect Schriever, Peterson, and the AF Academy are all very safe. If I was to worry about the economic impact of a base closure action, it'd be Fort Carson.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Maynerd

I doubt it.

The BRAC process compares bases with similar missions. In the 90s, for example, they compared multiple bases with flying missions in the Northeast, and closed Griffiss and Plattsburg in upstate NY, consolidating flight ops into McGuire in NJ. There really aren't any comparable bases to Schriever's mission. If you closed Schriever, you'd have to move the satellite control mission elsewhere. It's actually cheaper to leave it in place.

Plus, they've very recently pumped a lot of infrastructure into Schriever. While economically that's all sunk costs, the government doesn't look at things that way. They see stuff that's shiny and new, and hold onto it.

Before Schriever would close, I could see them relocating assets from Peterson out to Schriever, because it's easier to move a headquarters function than a mission activity, but honestly, I don't see that occurring either.

I suspect Schriever, Peterson, and the AF Academy are all very safe. If I was to worry about the economic impact of a base closure action, it'd be Fort Carson.

Why is Schriever even a stand-alone AFB? It's so damn close to Peterson that it should be an auxiliary facility of that base and reduce the duplication in garrison and HQ facilities. I could see Schriever or Buckley close and the operations be consolidated at the other facility. It would seem to make sense to close Schriever, move the operations to Buckely, and then move Buckley's aviation operations to Peterson (it's not as if COS Airport will ever expand).

[Mike from back east]

I don't see Carson closing, no way. In the past ten years they've pumped over $2B (yes, Billion) into facility upgrades and have moved troops and flying units into Carson from other bases. I do expect Carson to shrink some, but it's here to stay.

[CharlotteRJ]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Why is Schriever even a stand-alone AFB? It's so damn close to Peterson that it should be an auxiliary facility of that base and reduce the duplication in garrison and HQ facilities. I could see Schriever or Buckley close and the operations be consolidated at the other facility. It would seem to make sense to close Schriever, move the operations to Buckely, and then move Buckley's aviation operations to Peterson (it's not as if COS Airport will ever expand).

Schriever doesn't want company, it doesn't want more people coming through, it doesn't want to share.

In this town, the question, "where do you work?" isn't followed up with "what do you do?" if you work at Schriever. It's, "Oh, ok."

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

I don't see Carson closing, no way. In the past ten years they've pumped over $2B (yes, Billion) into facility upgrades and have moved troops and flying units into Carson from other bases. I do expect Carson to shrink some, but it's here to stay.

Even if they keep all the bases open and reduce the footprint it could have a huge impact on the Springs economy. Again just look at Pueblo. Sure technically the steel mill is open but it employs a fraction of what it use to in the 1950's when it was the largest private employer in the state and everyone said its here to stay and grow.

[phetaroi]

Before we could accurately predict the future of COS, we'd have to ask COS, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" It seems to me that COS has no idea about the answer to that question...and I think that's because COS lacks a self-identity.