As the Star’s special report “Mission Critical: The future of Davis-Monthan” has shown, our region supports Tucson’s Air Force base in many ways. But as the series also revealed, the base is at risk in this era of military downsizing and the eventual retirement of D-M’s main plane, the A-10.
We believe our region needs a stronger strategy to defend D-M, and that we must:
- Make D-M advocacy a clear public priority by hiring someone whose full-time job is to identify potential missions for D-M; increase public awareness of the base’s importance to our economy and community, and be a steady and effective presence on Capitol Hill and in the Pentagon. This point person would ensure that the Air Force, Pentagon, Capitol Hill and D-M know who to contact locally for help.
- Be open-minded to explore all missions including non-flying ones.
- Speak with a unified voice about how the assets of D-M and Tucson contribute to national and global security.
- Relentlessly protect D-M from encroachment by land or air.
The Air Force doesn’t make decisions based on community support alone. But, according to military and civilian sources who’ve been through base closure or reduction decisions, it absolutely matters.
The Tucson community strongly supports D-M. Even leaders of Tucson Forward, the group concerned about noise and safety from military overflights, told us the base shouldn’t close; instead, they want to identify new missions compatible with an Air Force base in an urban area.
The base’s strongest advocates also realize the timing is urgent to plan for D-M’s future. While a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process hasn’t begun, and won’t be allowed to until at least 2017, D-M could be vulnerable. The Air Force has already mothballed hundreds of A-10s since the 1990s and would like to retire the rest. So far, Congress has refused to go along, but as Arizona Sen. John McCain put it, the A-10 has years, not decades, left. Add to that significant budget cuts and the Air Force’s announcement that it has 30 percent more base capacity than it needs, and the picture is clear: Our community cannot take D-M for granted.
Other states and cities are also mobilizing to protect their bases. We will be compared with communities like Valdosta, Georgia, which has made safeguarding its Air Force base its No. 1 priority for decades. We’ll be up against towns like Clovis and Portales, New Mexico, which have set aside municipal rivalries for a larger regional goal. And we’ll face competition for missions from powerhouses like Nevada’s Nellis Air Force Base, which has the unwavering support of local elected officials.
Tucson is upping its game, but we believe that we must do even better.
The DM Joint Steering Committee, made up of the DM50, the Southern Arizona Defense Alliance, city of Tucson, Pima County and others, recently solicited proposals for consultation and lobbying services. Base booster group the DM50, Tucson and Pima County have each pledged $180,000 to cover the costs for a three-year plan. The committee says it wants to select a firm this summer. Applicants were directed to send their proposals to two SADA members; seven plans were received. City and county officials confirmed that the private organization is taking the lead.
The core of this idea is on target, but the task is too important to outsource completely. We have two main concerns about this approach:
1). A private entity should not be directing the expenditure of taxpayer money. Public money requires public disclosure and oversight.
Given the reputation of the city and county for being unwilling to work together, we understand why this arrangement seemed necessary. That doesn’t make it appropriate.
2). Spending nearly a half million dollars gives us the near-term, divided attention of consultants and lobbyists, but not a singularly focused representative with roots in our community and the commitment to build local and national relationships.
In our view, we would be better served by a full-time public employee whose task is to do everything possible to protect D-M over the long haul, not just against today’s threats.
We recommend that this position, call it a navigator, should be paid with public money from Pima County and the city of Tucson, and perhaps by Sahuarita, Oro Valley, Marana and others.
The navigator would report to the county and other municipalities that fund the position, and work closely with an appointed citizens’ advisory panel that would offer feedback and recommendations about strategy. We propose the Tucson city manager and Pima County administrator each appoint two members to the panel, the DM50 and/or SADA select two members and that the group name a retired member of the military community with command-level experience as the seventh member.
Residents who are concerned about the noise and safety of particular missions, such as the F-35, which has been discussed as a replacement for the A-10, should be considered for city and county appointments. Casting a wide net for viewpoints will strengthen the panel’s recommendations.
Pima County is the logical home for the navigator. While D-M is in the city of Tucson, its impact is regional. Also, much of the vacant land south and east of the base is outside the city limits. From a land-use perspective, how the county plans for future development is likely to have a greater impact in protecting D-M from urban encroachment.
Pima County shouldn’t wait long for the municipalities to join, and should move ahead solo if necessary.
We do agree that hiring a military-specific Washington-based lobbyist makes sense. This position, too, is something that isn’t appropriately guided by a private organization like the joint steering committee. The lobbyist’s fee also should be shared among municipalities and coordinated through the navigator.
The model we propose is similar to the one in Valdosta, Georgia. One person, Parker Greene, has led that community’s advocacy efforts on behalf of Moody Air Force Base for nearly 40 years. He is paid by the city and county, and his relationships on Capitol Hill and in the Pentagon span decades. He sets the tone for how Valdosta supports Moody and its personnel. There’s no question at home or in Washington about who speaks for Valdosta.
“I can tell you right now that our local civic leaders know the issues that are going on at Moody,” said Col. Chad Franks, wing commander at Moody. “They know the issues because of the longevity that some of them have, and that personal interaction. And that’s the hard part — how do you get the personal interaction? Because a lot of people are busy. The civic leaders, they’ve got businesses to run, and so it’s finding the right people who can take the time to establish those personal relationships.”
Greene is at Moody daily. He knows what’s going on, he talks to the airmen and their families, the commanders. They, and the Air Force, know whom to call if they have a problem or a question. Everyone has his number.
In Tucson, we haven’t had such consistency. We need it.
Our envisioned navigator does not replace the role of elected officials. Their participation makes an impression with Washington decision makers. Support groups like the DM50 and SADA are key partners, too, but members are volunteers. The work is important enough — D-M contributes nearly $1 billion a year to the economy, or about 3 percent of gross domestic product — to merit a long-term commitment.
We are encouraged that Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild is increasingly vocal about the city’s support of D-M. He will meet individually with the secretary of the Air Force at the end of July.
Municipalities have joined the Southern Arizona Defense Alliance and many, including Tucson, have signed proclamations declaring their support for D-M. These are positive steps. But unless everyone is on the same page and hewing to guidance from the same source, our community message will be diluted and less effective.
Of equal importance is our second recommendation — collectively accepting the ultimate departure of the A-10s and thinking broadly about possible D-M missions and how to attract them.
Beginning last October, the city of Tucson commissioned a study starting the conversation. “A Long-Term Strategy for Davis-Monthan Air Force Base,” released in April, recommends that Tucson promote the concept of D-M becoming a “central operations base.”
Even before fully reading the city report, some base supporters dismissed the “central operations base” idea, sticking with the belief that D-M needs a primary significant flying mission to remain viable.
The “central operations base” was one of several recommendations, and it’s wise to fully consider all innovative ideas.
We agree with Pima County Supervisor Ramón Valadez, who sits on the Arizona Military Affairs Commission. “I want us to put our eggs in every basket possible,” he said.
Our third recommendation is that our community speak with a consistent and unified voice about how the assets of D-M and Tucson contribute to national and global security.
In the end, the military should make decisions about basing that are best for the country, not for the economy of Tucson or any other city. But it is obvious that our region has strong assets that can fit the military’s needs.
Understanding our assets — D-M’s long runway, our fantastic flying weather, proximity to the Goldwater Range, both desert and mountain terrain — also means understanding how they can be used in different ways. Clovis, New Mexico, is a prime example of how to identify and sell local assets.
Cannon Air Force Base, outside Clovis, was on the closure list in 2005 because it was a fighter base and no longer needed. But supporters fought to keep it open and asked for a new mission, convinced its assets — a remote location, a training range and good flying weather — could be used for another purpose. Within months it was named the western base for the Air Force Special Operations, or Air Commandos, and is in the midst of a building boom.
Our final recommendation is that our region must continue to protect D-M from encroachment.
In the past decade, both the city and the county revised their land-use codes to better buffer the base against any interference with flight operations. The city had grown up against the base years earlier to the north and west, but that’s true in many other places, as in Las Vegas, home to Nellis Air Force Base. When we visited, government leaders were quick to tell us how they’ve said “no” to some development to protect Nellis.
Our region must also keep our base as a priority as the metro area grows.
In 2004 the county asked — and voters agreed — to spend $10 million to buy and preserve vacant land near D-M. This November’s county bond ballot will ask voters to spend $5 million to purchase land so D-M can stop paying to lease it. We urge you to vote yes.
Our region is doing many things right to support and protect D-M. Still, we can do better. The Air Force will make its own decision about the fate of D-M, but we have an opportunity to make a difference in the equation. We should come together and take it.
