Linton
Resident Offers Comments
To the Editor:
The following Comments are provided in follow-up to your coverage of
the subject (BRAC) information meeting that I attended.
Mr. Bill Cassidy, the state lobbyist, made it clear during the meeting
that the one most important thing to help assure Crane's survival is to
prevent encroachment/development in the vicinity of Crane. It was
emphasized that the mostly undeveloped area in the vicinity of Crane is
a strength that many other military bases do not have and that the
Department of Defense (DOD) is establishing guidelines in which they
want, through state government law/regulation, to restrict Crane
vicinity property owners in the development of use of their property to
help assure Crane's future viability.
I asked questions to follow up on these issues: (1) In light of the
effort that has been made to emphasize the importance of having I-69 in
the Greene County area and Crane area that proponents/state tout is the
opportunity to bring in development, and now learning that DOD finds
encroachment/development in the Crane vicinity is not desirable for
Crane BRAC survivability, do we not now have conflicting
interests? (2) What DOD compensation will be provided to property
owners in the Crane vicinity restricted areas, especially in light of
the state's present unwillingness to implement Federal regulations to
make "hardship buyout" offers to persons already impacted by being in
the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) I-69 corridor
alignment?
I regret your newspaper and the other area papers I reviewed that
reported on the meeting failed to cover the officials' statements or
the questions and responses to these issues, especially since your
paper and others are primarily local-oriented publications.
The responses to question (1) by Lt. Gov.. Davis was that I-69 was only
going to run near the north and west sides of Crane: and since it was
not going to run on the east and south side, thus not looping Crane,
this encroachment of the highway or associated development was not a
problem. I found the logic of this response weak. Both
myself and my wife are retirees from Crane and believe Crane is an
important asset to our area and have familiarity with Crane. The
principal areas in which much of Crane's engineering and research
infrastructure is developed, including some some newer additions of
more recent years, are generally closer to the north, northwest and
west base areas. These areas would be areas I believe one would
want to protect most for possible new high-tech projects, one of the
principal types of work Crane is seeking and state government is
promoting for the state and our area. Furthermore, the isolation
of these more developed Crane areas from boundary vicinity development,
and particularly from terrorist threats that might be posed by the
close I-69 approach (near Scotland-about 1.3miles) to the Crane north
via west boundary would have been greatly reduced had the proposed
routing on the east and south side of Crane (rejected I-69
proposed 5 alternative) been used; and the overall separation distance
from Crane boundary, particularly the separation distance to the more
developed north via west Crane area, would have increased to provide a
larger, more forbidding buffer barrier had this east via south routing
around Crane been used. Additionally, when I review INDOT's
25-Year Plan, the same INDOT 25-Year plan that shows I-69 Ready for
Construction (RFC) in 2017-2020), I find the plan calls for Highway 50
south of Crane (Washington to Bedford) to be upgraded to a four-lane
highway (RFC in 2014-2023). Since the rejected I-69 route 5
alternative (in Crane area) that was proposed east and south of Crane
is very similar to the route that is going to exist with the upgraded
four-lane Highway 50 on Crane's south side and exiting four-lane
Highway 37 to the east of the base, Crane will be substantially looped
with four-lane highways on all four sides, increasing the encroachment
pressures and negating the response that the east and south sides of
Crane will not be subjected to the easier accessibility/
encroachment/development that the state/proponents of improved highways
advocate in promoting these projects. Therefore, I did not find
the response given to be rational.
In Regard to question (2) about compensation for property owners
that would have use of their property restricted, the respondent
indicated the DOD felt they were structuring the requirement so
that a direct taking of property by condemnation would not be initiated
and that no monetary compensation was being included by which DOD would
provide for loss-of-use payments to the affected land owners. The
respondent, Mr. Cassidy, further indicated DOD wants state government
to be the imposer of the restrictions on the property owners. The
idea of limiting land owners' use of land in the Crane vicinity areas
based upon the need to undertake some yet undefined project at Crane or
to assure continuation of current projects that might otherwise be
undoable if development were not restricted is untenable, especially
when no DOD funding for the restrictions is proposed and state
government is going to be asked to restrict property owners land
use/development without individual property owners compensation.
After all, we already have experienced the issue of trying to get the
state of Indiana to treat property owners (persons who currently are
having their lives harmed or put on hold for the next 10 to 12 or more
years while the unresolved political decisions about the I-69 project
are being made and finalization and funding -tolling/public-private
bonding/taxes/fees- decisions are yet to be resolved for the highway
project) without compensation by providing Federally permitted
"hardship buy-outs" for persons in the INDOT I-69 corridor (I have had
direct contact with both the Lt. Governor and INDOT, including the I-69
public meetings in Greene County, on the I-69 hardship issue and have
INDOT correspondence that states they are not making these types of
buyouts available now or in the foreseeable future); and I now see no
reason a bankrupt state would see fit to compensate Crane vicinity
affected land owners for land restrictions when no DOD funding was
going to be in the pipeline with which to make payments.
I am also not comfortable with the fact that I, as a mere citizen (not
an elected official), find myself asking these questions, but do not
find local, county, and state-elected leaders and business leaders
asking these questions and seeking to understand the problems that are
now and may be in the future imposed on our citizens regarding I-69 and
BRAC related to government-mandated private property
owners'rights/personal hardships and community development
issues. Neither have I found elected leaders willing to speak out
when INDoT and state government are offering highway environmental
mitigation money to by land from utility companies for land not even in
the I-69 corridor, or to speak out seeking labor and contract set
asides that assure some of the workers hired by INDOT contractors
performing the current I-69 corridor evaluation in our area are Greene
County area residents, but are willing to accept money from the state
for use in local government I-69 impact planning, through no similar
offer is being made by the state to highway hardship-impacted citizens
suffering life-planning problems imposed by the project.
I feel landowners in the Crane vicinity that will now apparently be
offered no compensation for land use/development restrictions and
potential associated life-planning problems will find the same lack of
concern for their plight on the part of state and community
leaders. I do not believe state, community and other
business/governmental leaders are practicing the Lincolnian "of...,
by..., and for the people:" concept of government and are not being
responsible if they choose to neglect the hardships imposed currently
on our citizens by I-69 long lead-time decision making and ignore the
property rights imposed on Crane vicinity citizens because of DOD
decision s regarding non-DOD owned property, and become totally fixated
on only less-that certain benefits of possible future projects.
Charles K. Ramsden, Jr.
Cincinnati, IN
(incorrectly
identified as living in Linton in the publication)
|
Crane
Needs Support from Area
To the Editor:
Until recently, there were relatively few people and organizations who
"got it" regarding the importance of Crane and its vulnerability.
Those of us who banded together as the Southern Indiana Business
Alliance about six years ago faced asleep uphill battle to convince
others of the risk to, and potential of, Indiana's 12th largest single
site employer.
Too often complacency was the order of the day. Even those who
should have known better seemed to think that, since Crane had "always
been there, " it would always be.
So, it was gratifying to join more than 200 others at a recent meeting
to hear about Indiana's efforts to save and grow Crane. It was
clear that virtually everyone at the meeting "got it" regarding
Crane. Attendees, regardless of political, geographical or
occupational affiliations, were on the same page regarding the
importance of the base and its potential as an economic engine.
It was clear that there is a integrated state plan to maximize the
probability that Crane will survive and grow.
Unfortunately, the survival of Crane is not assured, but we do have a
great team working a carefully crafted plan. You can be part of
that team. As an individual, you personally can do something
really meaningful to help ensure that Crane will survive and grow.
Let me explain. When Nave Secretary Gordon England visited Crane
in March he made it very clear that, like all of us, the Navy wants to
feel wanted; the Navy would much prefer to maintain bases in
communities that warmly welcome and enthusiastically support them.
There are many communities where the Navy is definitely not
wanted. Most of these are on the coasts and in growing urban
areas where the turf Navy bases occupy is very desirable to developers
and to local governments who want to grow the tax base. Some of
these communities are openly hostile to the Navy presence.
Here's what you can do to help keep Crane. Communicate personally
with any or all of the persons listed below. Your message doesn't
have to be long or complicated. You can discuss your perspectives
about Crane's economic importance, its neighborliness, its educational
impact, or other factors that affect you personally.
Your letter doesn't have to be typed, on fancy paper or even
grammatical. Although a personal letter is best, you may even be
able to communicate by phone, e-mail or fax (not all elected officials
list e-mail addressees or fax numbers).
However you choose to send it, your message does need to convey the
simple truth: You are glad Crane is here and want it to stay.
Please write today!
Thanks.
The addresses:
Honorable Gordon England
Secretary of the Navy
1000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, DC 20350-1000
Honorable Wayne Arny
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations & Environment
1000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, DC 20350-1000
Honorable Michael Wynne
Acting Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, & Logistics
3010 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20350-3010
Honorable Philip W. Grone
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations & Environment
3010 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20350-3010
Senator Richard Lugar
306 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1401
(202) 224-4814
senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
Senator Evan Bayh
463 Russell Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Congressman John Hostettler
1214 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Tel: (202) 225-4636
Fax: (202) 225-3284
John.Hostettler@mail.house.gov
|
Steve Howard
Bloomington
|
