B.I.C.C

BONN INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR CONVERSION . INTERNATIONALES KONVERSIONSZENTRUM

report4 Restructuring the US Bases in Scope, Impacts, and Opportunities

june 95 Introduction 4 In 1996 the will complete its dramatic post-Cold US Forces in Germany 8 War military restructuring in

● Military Infrastructure in Germany: From Occupation to Cooperation 10 Germany. The results are stag- ● Sharing the Burden of Defense: gering. In a six-year period the A Survey of the US Bases in United States will have closed or Germany During the 12 reduced almost 90 percent of its ● After the Cold War: bases, withdrawn more than contents Restructuring the US Presence 150,000 US military personnel, in Germany 17 and returned enough combined ● Map: US Base-Closures land to create a new federal state. 1990-1996 19 ● Endstate: The Emerging US The withdrawal will have a serious Base Structure in Germany 23 affect on many of the communi- ties that hosted US bases. The US Impact on the German Economy 26 military’syearly demand for goods and services in Germany has fal- ● The Economic Impact 28 len by more than US $3 billion, ● Impact on the Real Estate and more than 70,000 Germans Market 36 have lost their jobs through direct and indirect effects. Closing, Returning, and Converting US Bases 42 Local officials’ ability to replace those jobs by converting closed ● The Decision Process 44 bases will depend on several key ● Post-Closure US-German factors. The condition, location, Negotiations 45 and type of facility will frequently ● The German Base Disposal dictate the possible conversion Process 47 options. Nevertheless, human variables—such as the conversion Case Studies 48 approach, negotiating abilities, market knowledge and even the ● Military Community 50 creativity of local and state offi- ● Military Community 58 cials—is just as important. ● Hahn 66 This report attempts to fill the Conclusions and existing information deficit regard- Recommentations 76 ing the scope, nature, and status of the US drawdown as well as References 80 the post-closure impacts and redevelopment opportunities for Statistical Annex 83 Germany. Finally, the report takes a close look at the specific ● Part I: Status of US Sites in conversion efforts of the Fulda Germany by Military Community and Mainz Army Military Status of US Air Force Bases in Communities and . Germany ● Part II: Officially Reduced Sites: A condensed German version is Status and Sources available upon request. ● Part III: Pre-1991 USAREUR Base Editor: Closures Alisa M. Federico

Cover photo: Returning home. Private Arnaldo Soto- Cuevas of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment at the Fulda Military Community closing ceremony on October 8, 1993.

2 B.I.C.C B.I.C.C

BONN INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR CONVERSION . INTERNATIONALES KONVERSIONSZENTRUM BONN

report4 Restructuring the US Military Bases in Germany: Scope, Impacts, and Opportunities

by Keith B. Cunningham and Andreas Klemmer

june 95 report 4 june 95

Introduction of the and their satellites, support crisis response he end of the Cold War has Germany, which was organized into and be a key component of the Tbrought tremendous changes to Military Communities at the local US contribution to the North US overseas deployments. Those level. The US Air Force is organized Atlantic Treaty Organization changes are most severe in into more centralized Air Bases. (NATO) under the new NATO Germany, where more than 80 per- Strategy and US National cent of the United States’ troops in The New US Doctrine Military Strategy (Vest,1994, p.1). were stationed during the Cold War. in Germany It is clear that this new strategy will not require Cold War force levels. Since the end of that confrontation, The United States no longer needs Although predictions were made the United States has withdrawn to protect from the prior to the US withdrawal from nearly 200,000 troops from immediate threat of an invasion Germany, its ultimate scope and Germany—a reduction of more than from the east. Nevertheless, it still impact have not been determined to 75 percent. This drawdown has envisions Europe, and more specifi- date. allowed the United States to close cally Germany, as an important part many of its military bases in of the new political and security Germany and return them to local landscape. According to the US civilian authorities. Gauging the Department of Defense’s 1994 Report on Overseas Basing, current degree of local impact is more diffi- About the Authors cult for US bases overseas than it is doctrine is as follows: for US domestic bases. In the United Keith Cunningham, an American, is States, bases tend to be highly con- The European forward presence the project manager for base closure centrated, centralized facilities, force will be sufficient to pro- and conversion projects at BICC. while in Europe, bases tend to be mote US interests of access and collections of isolated sites. This is influence, contribute to stability Andreas Klemmer, a German, is a particularly true of the US Army in and transition of former states free-lance researcher for BICC.

Figure 1: US European Deployments 1989 In thousands Source: DoD, 1989 Notes: Personnel figures include active duty and civilian personnel.

300 300

250

200

150

100

50

0 Germany Nether- United lands Kingdom 4 B.I.C.C introduction

Assessing the Press, 1989), conducted a com- ■ Several case-specific economic munity-level inventory of the US impact studies were conducted US Drawdown military presence throughout early in the drawdown (1990- Europe in 1989, while Europe 1992). Most of these were As this unprecedented military with- After an American Withdrawal, accomplished by exclusively drawal from Germany enters its edited by Jane M. O. Sharp (NY: German research organizations final stages in early 1995, very little Oxford Press, 1990), such as the Forschungsinstitut substantive analysis of it exists. To hypothesized about the security für Friedenspolitik, local orga- date, research has addressed the and economic impact of a com- nizations such as the Angestellten- issue in one of three ways. ■ plete US withdrawal before the kammer , and state or Several government and private withdrawal began. national government agencies. research organizations conduct- ■ Region-specific analyses of the They usually focused on the ed studies in 1989 and 1990 of economic importance of the US earliest closures, such as in the US presence in Germany and forces were conducted by most and Zweibrücken. hypothesized about the possible of the German states. These Additional case studies are being ramifications of an American studies, however, did not focus conducted as the withdrawal withdrawal. Of this group, a two- on the United States, but rather continues. volume project conducted by the combined the impact of all mili- base closures International Peace tary forces within their state. As the end of the drawdown moves Research Institute (SIPRI) was Some of them speculated about into sight, this study relieves the the most significant. Simon the effects potential reductions deficit of information regarding the Duke, in United States Military might have on the regional econ- scope and impact of the dramatic Forces and Installations in omy. changes in the US military presence Europe (NY: Oxford University

Table 1: Major US Base Notes: * Authorized positions = the number of ** These bases were closed, or began Closures in Germany positions for which a site is appropriated closing, before 1991. Accurate area 1990-1995 funds each year. The US Army’s term of information was not available (Duke, Source: Statistical Annex art is ‘places, not faces,’ in which ‘faces’ 1989). is the actual number of positions filled.

Closed Bases Authorized Positions* Acres Returned Lost Aschaffenberg Military Community 915 3,635 Bad Tölz Military Community** 446 Brigade Army Base 6,554 2,078 Air Force Base 6,443 1,704 Military Community 10,505 714 Fulda Military Community 5,097 6,361 Göppingen Military Community** 4,350 Hahn Air Force Base 6,857 1,934 Military Community 1,456 1,165 Hessisch-Oldendorf Air Force Station 648 27 Lindsey Air Force Base 2,932 105 Mainz Military Community 5,662 1,192 Military Community 3,082 378 Norddeutschland Military Community 7,440 906 Neu- Military Community** 4,100 Nürnberg Military Community 11,259 9,871 Military Community 8,881 4,629 Tempelhof Air Force Station 1,868 908 Military Community 3,436 18,023 Zweibrücken Air Force Base 3,142 654 Zweibrücken Military Community 3,326 101 Total for Base Closures 98,399 54,385

B.I.C.C 5 report 4 june 95

in Germany. In addition to organiz- Additionally, the US military forces state of Bremen and is twice as large ing, quantifying and analyzing these do not fill all of their authorized as the US District of Columbia. impacts, the report provides pre- positions—on average, 10 percent Third, the loss of more than US $3 viously unavailable macro- and of all authorized positions go billion in annual spending by the US micro-level base closure data for all unfilled (Deputy of Staff for military in the German economy US sites throughout Germany. Conventional Forces in Europe, will adversely affect local retailers Finally, the paper offers case studies interview, 24 March 1995). and contractors. Figure 2 shows the to demonstrate opportunities and extent to which US military spend- obstacles in economic adjustment. ing in Germany has decreased since In this way, it may draw more accu- Impacts of the the end of the Cold War. rate conclusions about the nature of US Withdrawal the United States’ future German Converting US Military base structure, conversion plans at Although the loss of tens of thou- Bases returned sites, and achievable policy sands of jobs throughout Germany goals for both the German and US will have an adverse effect on the governments. Although the US restructuring is vir- country’s economy, it is not shared tually complete, the process of con- equally across the entire nation. The verting returned bases has only just US Withdrawal: first factor affecting local impact is begun. Foreign base closures are A Brief Outline the nature of the United States’ often viewed favorably in Germany German base structure. Except for for two primary reasons. First, for- some minor instances, US Forces are eign bases tend to employ foreign- At the end of the Cold War the concentrated in the German states United States maintained 47 major ers, not Germans. Significant of Rhineland-, Baden- amounts of money still flow into the military bases (37 Military Württemberg, , and . Communities 1 and 10 Air Bases) in German economy, but far less than Similarly, these four states have if the same facility employed all Germany. Since then 21 of them experienced the bulk of the closures. have been reduced in size and per- Germans. Second, there is a high sonnel by more than 80 percent, demand for development-ready As many of these reductions have land in German urban centers, while only 9 were completely unaf- occurred only recently, the long- fected by reductions. and most of the US Army’s Military term consequences for the German Communities are located near economy are impossible to gauge; German centers. The actual The statistics in Table 1 represent nevertheless, the short-term conse- only the closed bases—more than conversion of individual sites, how- quences may be measured in three ever, depends largely on four factors. 50,000 additional authorized posi- ways. First, more than 32,446 tions have been lost due to reduc- Germans have lost their jobs on US 1 In 1991 the US Army reorganized the command tions at bases that were not com- bases since 1991. Second, the structure for its overseas bases. This number of pletely closed. Six major facilities facilities reflects the pre-reorganization struc- United States has returned more ture with the addition of the previously closed (see Table 2) illustrate how severe than 92,000 acres (37,260 hectares) Neu-Ulm and Bad Tölz Military Communities. reductions can impact military bases of property. To put it into perspec- that remain operational. tive, this amount of land is almost the same size as the German federal

Table 2: Selected Source: Statistical Annex Reduced US Bases in Notes: * Endstrength = total number of Germany authorized positions.

Significantly Reduced Bases 1991 Endstrength* Change since 1991 Percentage Reduction Gießen Military Community 13,191 -7,313 55 Military Community 8,647 -5,911 68 Rhein- Air Force Base 5,381 -5,119 95 Air Force Base 2,274 -2,018 89 Military Community 12,960 -9,494 73 Worms Military Community 3,985 -2,691 68

6 B.I.C.C introduction

■ The condition of the facility is these strategies is land owner- States’ Cold War structure. The crucial to successful conversion. ship. Too often, disagreements American withdrawal has brought Although the United States’ sites over purchase price and type of both the challenge of replacing the tend to be in excellent condition, development delay redevelop- US economic presence and the environmental contamination, ment, while over time the site opportunity to more productively different building standards, and deteriorates. use community resources. Ultimately, length of time abandoned can the capacity of the affected commu- erode a site’s condition. Conclusions nities to adjust successfully depends ■ Certain types of sites are more on a number of factors, including easily converted than others. The In five years, the US military pres- their initiative in planning for clo- return of housing units and rec- ence in Germany has undergone a sure and their ability to set realistic reational sites is almost always comprehensive transformation, goals. viewed positively by German evolving from a huge, decentralized, officials, and Army and defensive force to a modestly sized, This report would have been impos- depots can provide positive con- more concentrated, forward-based sible to complete without the assis- version opportunities. However, quick-response force. As the US tance and cooperation of the US other types of sites, such as Army Europe’s yearly publication Department of Defense. Particularly Army helicopter airfields and for 1995 states, „USAREUR’s unique helpful were the US Army Europe ammunition dumps, lack realistic forward-deployed presence an Office of the Chief of Public Affairs, conversion options. the US European Command Public ■ ocean closer to Europe, Africa or the Location plays a vital role in con- Middle East makes it the first choice Affairs Directorate, and the US Air version opportunities. Otherwise for defending American interests in Force Europe Office of Public promising sites are difficult to those regions“ (USAREUR, 1995, Affairs. In addition, all of the indiv- convert if they are located in p.4). During this restructuring, idual base-level public information rural or undeveloped regions. approximately 88 percent of all US offices deserve special acknowledg- Conversely, sites with absolutely bases in Germany were either ment, especially the 222nd, 414th no reuse potential may attract closed or reduced. and 415th Base Support Battalions. investment interest if they are located in a thriving urban center. The authors would also like to ■ Although this evolution has not had The conversion strategy a significant effect on Germany’s thank the following organizations employed by the different economy as a whole, it has seriously for their assistance and suggestions German authorities may make impacted the regions and commu- for this project: the Bundesvermö- the difference between success nities that supported the United gensamt for Berlin, , and and failure. Foremost among ; Business Executives for National Security; the Mainz-Finthen Air Club; the Hessen Gesellschaft für Forschung Planung Entwicklung Figure 2: Disappearing Dollars–– mbH; Hahn; the Hahn Holding Company; Network DEMIL- US Military Budget for Germany 1989 to 1996 ITARIZED; the Rheinland-Pfalz In billions of US $ Source: DoD, 1989; auth- Ministerium für Wirtschaft und or’s projections (see Verkehr; Städte Bitburg, Fulda, 1989 1993 1996 Economic Impact section, Mainz and ; and the 10.00 below). One should note Office of Economic Conversion in that not all of this money the US Department of Commerce 9.00 enters the German econ- Economic Development 8.00 omy; much of the expendi- Administration. ture on payroll, as well as 7.00 some on contracts, goes to American companies. 6.00 ▼ ▼ 5.00 Next page: Mission Completed. 4.00 President attaches the Superior Unit Award to 3.00 the colors at the unit’s inactivation 2.00 ceremony on 12 July 1994 1.00 as German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and several 0.00 USAREUR officers look on. B.I.C.C 7 US Forces in Germany

8 B.I.C.C report 4 june 95

B.I.C.C 9 report 4 june 95

Military Infrastructure in Pre-1955 Construction Growing tension between the USSR Germany: and the other Allied Forces quickly came to dominate post-war policies in Germany. Fears of aggression on From Occupation both sides of the East-West border facilitated the transformation of the to Cooperation role of foreign forces in Germany from one of occupation to one of protection (USAREUR, 1993). To he scale of the US presence in guard against the perceived threat, The End of World War the United States, , and TGermany during the Cold War II: Former German and the subsequent restructuring continued to maintain large has traditionally been difficult to bases (1945-1949) military deployments in their measure, due first to the sensitivity respective zones long after the situa- of the data and second to the speed After the final defeat of Nazi tion within Germany was secured of the drawdown. This chapter pro- Germany in May 1945, the victori- (Harkavy, 1989). ous Allied Forces divided Germany vides details on the build-up of the In 1949, a new West German gov- into four military sectors, each of US military presence, the US base ernment was created with the sup- them administered by one of the structure in Germany during the port of the Western Allied Forces. primary allied partners—the United Cold War, and the evolution of that However, it lacked the necessary States, England, France, and the structure since 1990. It concludes independence to negotiate with the Soviet Union. The US forces took with a description of the result of Allied commanders, and was in control of the southern and central- that transformation—the emerging effect told to lease the ground and western provinces of Germany, US base structure in Germany at installations ‘required for defense today’s federal states of Bavaria, endstate in 1996. purposes’ to the Allied Forces with- Baden-Württemberg and Hesse. out financial compensation (Sharp, France took control of the central A half century of global conflict 1990). Additionally, all costs asso- and western regions, England came to a peaceful close as the Cold ciated with re-building, maintaining, received the northern partition, and War entered the history books. and establishing bases for the Allied the Soviet Union became respon- When the fell in Forces during this time were paid by sible for the eastern section. November 1989, seven different the German government as part of Likewise, the German capital of countries maintained permanent reparation transfers, or ‘Besatzungs- Berlin was divided into four military bases in East and . kostenmittel’ (Official of Bundes- sectors, each one administered by Incredibly, more than 1.3 million vermögensamt Kassel, interview, one of the Allied Forces (Duke, soldiers guarded the front line of 4 November 1994). Germany’s inner border (Grundman 1993). Although the strictly enforced and Matthies, 1993), a border that Western occupation zones would In addition to facilities in their own seemed to vanish overnight. not last long, they continued to dom- sector, the US Forces took over a inate the base structure and posi- number of strategic positions in the The full demobilization that never tioning of the Allied Forces through- federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate occurred after World War II finally out the Cold War and to this day. from the French forces. Also during began, bringing sweeping changes this time, the United States estab- to Germany. In West Germany, the The mission of the US Forces was to lished Military Communities in the United States was the chief actor, secure and control their section of former British areas of Bremer- with a 70 percent share of the for- the country. Therefore, they main- haven—in support of the northern eign military presence. At the end of tained a widespread network of city’s important port facilities—and the Cold War, the United States installations in the sector. In many in North -—in sup- maintained 285,000 troops in cases, the United States comman- port of the nearby Germany (DoD, 1989) at almost 800 deered former German bases for its Military Community (Vest, 1994). discrete sites (DoD/OASD, 1993). own use. The bases were well suited By 1995, those numbers had fallen for military use, available, and gen- Post-1955 Construction to approximately 94,000 troops at erally located near city centers and about 260 sites. Understanding this industrial facilities. With no formal West Germany completed its evolu- unique political and strategic build- government to request, the United tion to Western ally in 1955 by estab- up and its eventual demobilization States simply assumed ownership of lishing itself as a sovereign nation requires a brief return to 1945 and the installations and other facilities and joining the North Atlantic Treaty the end of World War II. deemed necessary (USAREUR/ Organization (NATO). Membership OSGS, 1994). in NATO nullified the previous

10 B.I.C.C US forces in Germany

The Berlin Exception In compliance, the United States After the Cold War began paying all expenses to main- Although the United States paid tain, improve, or establish bases in On 3 October 1990 Germany was for construction and mainte- West Germany, as did the other reunified, eliminating the Cold War nance of its German bases after Allied Forces. In return, West front-line guarded by seven coun- 1955, Berlin was a different Germany agreed to lease the land tries and dramatically changing the story. Due to its precarious posi- for free. To further strengthen international security system in tion well within the borders of Germany’s inner-border, other Europe. Also on that date, the new , , until NATO partners—Canada, Belgium all-German national government 1990, was formally ruled by the and the Netherlands—also perma- became fully independent, allowing three Western Allied command- nently deployed smaller military Germany the power to unilaterally ers. Under this special status, contingents to West Germany. West review the statutes governing the the West German government Germany contributed to its own stationing of foreign troops on its paid all expenses of the Allied defense by building a standing army soil. To date, Germany remains troop deployments in West of approximately 490,000 troops. interested in hosting NATO troop Berlin. As a result, US employ- deployments indefinitely. ment figures were significantly Once moved into their strategic undervalued. Officially, the position after World War II, both Despite the continued strength of United States employed only 25 sides respected the status quo (with the NATO alliance, however, the German civilians in Berlin. the notable exception of the failed burden of sustaining more than 1.3 However, West Berlin employed ) for almost 50 million soldiers on German soil approximately 5,000 German years. Only in the late 1980s, begin- became unbearable—not only for civilians to maintain its foreign ning with perestroika in the Soviet the Western and the Eastern powers military presence. The cost of Union and ending with the break- but also for a reunified Germany. As housing more than 10,000 for- up of the East European power a result, all involved countries have eign troops was quite expen- bloc, would positions on the dramatically reduced their troop sive—more than DM 1.1 billion European strategic chessboard be deployments in Germany. Although for fiscal year 1992 (this expense subject to reconsideration. the restructuring process is ongoing, was referred to as the ‘Einzel- the new international base structure plan 35’ in the annual federal within Germany is beginning to budget). These resources were emerge.Figure 3 illustrates the dimen- not resented by West Germany, sions of the readjustment process. since it could not defend the strategically vulnerable city.

With the end of the Cold War Figure 3: and reunification, Berlin is now Military Personnel Reductions in Germany safely nestled inside Germany. Figures in thousands Mission completed, its special Source: Grundman and Matthies, 1993, p. 24. status was gladly canceled. Notes: Endstate is defined as the stable level following the completion of reductions (USAREUR/PA, 1993). Source: Deutscher , 1991. 1989 Endstate 500 ■ Bundeswehr 450 ■ Western Allies ■ 400 Soviet Union ■ Nationale Volksarmee 350 basing agreement between West Germany and the Allied Forces. 300 Instead, the bases had to comply with the NATO statutes govern- 250 ing troop deployments in a 200 Member State (in 1959, several amendments, referred to as the 150 ‘NATO-Zusatzabkommen,’ were added) (Duke, 1989). 100 50 0 B.I.C.C 11 report 4 june 95

Sharing the Burden strategic center at the . of Defense: Further Army units were stationed in the ‘hinterland’ of southwestern A Survey of US Bases Rhineland-Palatinate, westwards from the river Rhine, and in close proximity to the border with France in Germany During and . Primarily these bases made up the northern flank of the second line of defense (Duke, the Cold War 1989) and protected the six US Air Bases (Bitburg, Hahn, Ramstein, Sembach, , and Due to the troop-intensive nature of Unless otherwise noted, the figures in this Zweibrücken), which were concen- section are drawn from the Statistical Annex. army bases, their expansive training trated in the relatively small state of The principal sources are the US Department areas, and the sheer number of their of Defense Base Structure Reports as well as Rhineland-Palatinate. News Releases on the 18 rounds of overseas facilities, the US base structure in base realignments. Please refer to the Annex for Germany was dominated by the Army details on specific sources and methodology. (see Figure 4). There are no US US Army Bases bases in Germany (DoD, 1989). The US Base Structure Since the United States originally As a result of the original 1945 occu- moved into Germany as an occupa- tional force, US Army bases in Before 1990, the United States oper- pation zone, approximately 94 per- cent of US civilian and military per- Germany are significantly different ated 37 Army Military Communities from their domestic counterparts. and 10 Air Force Bases in Germany. sonnel and 97 percent of US military land holdings were still located in The state-side Army bases tend to By 1991, however, those numbers be large, single-site, self-sufficient had fallen to 34 and 8, respectively, the southern and southwestern German federal states of Bavaria, facilities located in rural or suburban with the closure of the Bad Tölz, areas (Cunningham, 1993). By com- Neu-Ulm, and Göppingen Military Baden-Württemberg, Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate in 1991. Within parison, the US Military Communities Communities and the Zweibrücken in Germany are collections of indep- and Hessisch-Oldendorf Air Bases. that region, the United States divid- ed its Army bases and personnel endent sites often very near the city For reasons explained in the center. Together, however, they Statistical Annex, the US Army statis- almost equally between two lines of defense. The first line fanned out comprise the same types of facilities tics in the following section reflect located on one site in the United the situation in 1991. along southern sections of the inner-German front-line, with its States. Figure 4: US Air Force and Army Shares of Primary Base Indicators September 1991 Source: DoD/OASD, 1993

Acreage in Germany Personnel in Germany Sites Operated in Germany

Air Force 14% Air Force 15% Air Force 13%

Army 86% Army 85% Army 87% 12 B.I.C.C US forces in Germany

Table 3: Military = names underlined mark the dependents. Additionally, endstrength regional headquarters of the Military expresses the number of authorized Community Community positions per base. Composition of Area Notes: ** Since the Berlin Brigade and the Support Groups * Personnel endstrength is defined as Munich Military Community were September 1991 all military personnel, US civilians and already scheduled for disbandment foreign nationals working at the partic- when the command consolidation Source: DoD/OASD, 1993 ular facility. It does not include family occurred, they were not included in the members and other non-working ASG structure.

Military Community Personnel endstrength* Size in Acres Number of sites 6th ASG Totals 12,960 4,442 31 Stuttgart 12,960 4,442 31 26th ASG Totals 36,014 18,312 78 9,515 6,561 18 Heilbronn 1,456 529 3 Karlsruhe 8,647 2,798 22 12,402 7,726 16 Worms 3,985 698 19 29th ASG Totals 27,356 12,798 39 Kaiserslautern 12,863 5,897 16 Pirmasens 8,881 4,631 17 Zweibrücken 5,612 2,270 6 53rd ASG 22,718 4,764 48

Bad Kreuznach 4,953 1,015 13 sharing the burden 10,939 2,457 19 Mainz 6,826 1,292 1 54th ASG 1,595 1,524 10 Rheinberg 1,595 1,524 10 98th ASG Totals 20,192 23,520 35 933 3,643 10 7,050 12,949 7 Würzburg 12,224 6,928 18 99th ASG Totals 26,600 22,403 75 5,582 4,006 14 5,171 3,587 12 3,462 3,545 6 Göppingen 21 6 1 Heilbronn 0 636 5 Garmisch (Munich) 1,103 750 13 Nürnberg 11,261 9,873 24 100 ASG Totals 20,390 114,223 21 Grafenwöhr 4,252 54,827 10 Hohenfels 7,442 39,180 3 5,260 2,193 1 Wildflecken 3,436 18,023 7 103rd ASG Totals 25,598 4,783 70 7,565 2,740 20 Frankfurt 11,261 776 37 6,764 1,267 13 104th ASG Totals 30,243 21,781 83 Fulda 5,117 6,381 23 Gießen 13,191 12,751 33 Hanau 12,035 2,649 27 543rd ASG Totals 7,901 1,145 24 Garmisch (Munich) 461 239 9 Norddeutschland (Bremerhaven) 7,440 906 15 Berlin Brigade** 6,554 2,078 42 Munich Community** 3,082 378 6 TOTAL 241,273 232,151 562

B.I.C.C 13 report 4 june 95

Each Military Community consists of Figure 5: The Cold Warriors––Authorized one or more barracks, or Kasernen, near the city center which acts as Endstrength of Army Military Communities, 1991* the administrative and social center Source: DoD/OASD,1993 of the community. The soldiers and Notes: *The Military Communities of Bad Tölz, Neu Ulm, and Göppingen––closed in 1990–– were included in this graph as they existed in 1989. See: Duke, 1989. their families may live in nearby US- operated ‘family housing complexes’ or find their own housing within Gießen neighboring German communities. Stuttgart Most Military Communities also operate training ranges and airfields Kaiserslautern outside the city center. Additionally, Mannheim the community likely supports a Würzburg number of other, isolated sites such as radio stations, depots, ware- Hanau houses, and hospitals. All of this Nürnberg causes the average community to operate more than 17 different sites Frankfurt in at least two different German Baumholder . With 42 individual installa- tions, the Berlin Brigade operated Heidelberg the most isolated sites. Pirmasens Shortly after the end of the Cold Karlsruhe War, the Military Communities were Darmstadt reorganized under the command umbrella of Area Support Groups Hohenfels (ASGs) to facilitate consolidation. Norddeutschland Thirteen ASGs were established in Germany in 1991, containing a Schweinfurt total of 34 Military Communities Mainz (USAREUR/PA, 1993; DoD/OASD, Wiesbaden 1993). The union of several multi- city Military Communities under one Berlin command made ASGs even less Zweibrücken similar to domestic bases than were the Military Communities. Ansbach There is only a limited correlation Vilseck between the three ways of measur- Augsburg ing an installation’s size—end- Fulda strength, area, and number of sites. In 1991, the Gießen Military Community had the largest number Göppingen* of authorized positions with an approximate endstrength of 13,000 Grafenwöhr positions, but it covered less than Neu-Ulm* 13,000 acres (5,265 hectares). The 54,000-acre (21,870-hectare) Worms Grafenwöhr Military Community Bamberg covered the most area, but had an Wildflecken authorized endstrength of just over 4,000 positions. At the same time, Munich despite the Berlin Brigade’s 42 indep- Rheinberg endent sites, its 6,500 authorized positions and 2,000 acres (810 hec- Garmisch tares) were not among the largest. Heilbronn However, if Berlin’s 5,000 civil employees employed by the German Aschaffenburg government in support of the US Bad Tölz* Forces are included, the figure grows significantly (Deutscher 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Bundestag, 1991). 14 B.I.C.C US forces in Germany

Figure 6: Covering the Bases–– While personnel is fairly evenly dis- tributed between different Military Size of US Army Military Communities in 1991 Communities, base size is dominat- In acres ed by the three large training areas Source: DoD/OASD,1993 in the Grafenwöhr, Hohenfels, and Wildflecken Military Communities (see Figures 5 and 6). Taken togeth- er, these three Military Communities represent more than 50 percent of all US Army land holdings in Germany. Grafenwöhr A number of installations with both Hohenfels a large size in acres and a high Wildflecken authorized personnel endstrength, such as Gießen, Stuttgart, and Schweinfurt Nürnberg, represent the primary Gießen troop locations of the Cold War US Nürnberg Army base structure in Germany. The second tier of installations, as Mannheim shown by personnel and size, was Würzburg formed by the military districts of Mannheim, Würzburg, Hanau, Heidelberg Frankfurt, and Kaiserslautern. Fulda US Air Force Bases Kaiserslautern Unlike the highly decentralized, Pirmasens multi-site nature of the US Army Stuttgart Military Communities, US Air Bases in Germany are relatively compact Ansbach facilities where the primary func- Aschaffenburg tions of the base are conducted on one massive ‘main site.’ Isolated Augsburg sites, while still significant—espe- Bamberg cially on the larger Air Bases—are Karlsruhe limited in comparison to their Army counterparts. One indication of this Darmstadt difference is that all Air Force per- Hanau sonnel are assigned to the main site, while Army personnel are usually Baumholder assigned to a number of sites within Zweibrücken a community. The concentrated nature of the US Air Bases in Germany Vilseck is also consistent with the structure Berlin of the United States’ domestic Air Rheinberg Force bases. Mainz Unlike in the case of the Army bases, a strong correlation exists Wiesbaden between the size and personnel of Heilbronn the different Air Bases. Bad Kreuznach Figure 7 clearly indicates that was the United Garmisch States’ primary Air Base in Germany. Norddeutschland Bitburg, Hahn, and Spangdahlem represented the second tier. The Frankfurt other bases were much less signifi- Worms cant and were generally positioned Munich near major troop concentrations. Thus, Tempelhof provided air ser- Göppingen vice for the Berlin Brigade and Lindsey provided air support for the 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Wiesbaden Military Community. B.I.C.C 15 report 4 june 95

Table 4: US Air Bases Notes: detail regarding the number and size * Except for Hessisch-Oldendorf and of the bases’ specific sites. The size and in Germany for Fiscal Zweibrücken, which had closed by site data for the two closed bases may be Year 1987* 1991, the DoD Base Structure Report FY underestimated and should be handled 1993 (1991 figures) was used for these with care. See the Statistical Annex for Source: Statistical Annex categories because it allowed greater more details.

Installation Location Personnel Size in acres* Number of sites* endstrength Bitburg Air Base Bitburg 6,443 1,704 15 Hahn Air Base Lautzenhausen 6,857 1,934 18 Lindsey Air Base Wiesbaden 2,932 105 3 Ramstein Air Base 14,810 5,234 23 Rhein-Main Air Base Frankfurt 6,285 504 4 Sembach Air Base Sembach 4,124 1,048 12 Spangdahlem 5,701 1,314 6 Hessisch-Oldendorf Air Station Hessisch 648 27 5 Zweibrücken Air Base Zweibrücken 2,867 694 5 Tempelhof Berlin 1,868 908 2 TOTAL 10 Bases 52,535 13,472 93

Figure 7: Troops vs. Size–– Individual US Air Bases’ Share of Indicators 1987 Source: Statistical Annex

Personnel Area

Bitburg 12% Hahn 14% Hahn 13% Bitburg 13% Lindsey 1% Zweibrücken 5% Lindsey 6% Zweibrücken 5% Tempelhof 4% Tempelhof 7% Spangdahlem 10%

Spangdahlem 10%

Sembach 8% Ramstein 28% Sembach 8% Ramstein 38% Rhein-Main 12% Hessisch-Oldendorf 1% Rhein-Main 4% (Hessisch- Oldendorf 0%)

16 B.I.C.C US forces in Germany

After the Cold War: Munich and four sites in Heilbronn. Restructuring Over the next two years, the United States returned the remaining sites the US Presence in Heilbronn (Vest, 1994) and changed the name of the Munich Military Community to Garmisch, in Germany reflecting its new geographic orien- tation.

Unless otherwise noted, the figures in US Army Base Closures Stuttgart experienced the largest this section are drawn from the Statistical absolute reductions in the early Annex. The principal sources are the News Releases on the 18 rounds of European base The Early Rounds: 1990 months of the post-Cold War realignments. Please refer to the Annex for The US European Command made restructuring, with ten sites details on specific sources and methodology. its first site-return announcements in returned. Despite this reduction, 1990, when it dissolved the Military Between January 1990 and February Stuttgart remained the one of the Communities of Bad Tölz and Neu- 1995, the US Department of Defense largest Military Communities in Ulm. The Göppingen Military announced 20 rounds of overseas Germany. Community was also severely base closures; the operation of a reduced through the return of seven total of 953 installations has been Between one and five sites were installations to the German civil ended, reduced or placed on a returned at each of 16 other Military authorities. Only one small commu- standby status. Eighteen of those Communities, but none of them nications site with nominal person- rounds affected 636 sites in were primary sites. These secondary nel of 21 authorized positions Germany. The majority of the US sites included small training ranges, remained after September 1991. installations in Germany to be storage sites, and communication involved in the readjustment meas- facilities. Nevertheless, apart from The Munich and the Heilbronn mili- ures have been Army facilities (556 the aforementioned reductions, tary districts of the US Army were sites), while 80 sites belonged to the many bases were untouched by the reorganized at the same time, with US Air Bases. early restructuring. sections destined for different ASGs. In the course of that process, the United States returned all nine sites located within the city limits of ▼ ▼ Next page: Figure 8: The vast majority of vehicles awaiting shipment to the Pace of US Overseas Base Closures United States are stored in Number of sites returned per year , between Source: USEUCOM, Rounds 1 - 17 Heidelberg and Karlsruhe.

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 300

250

200

150

100

50

0 B.I.C.C 17 report 4 june 95

18 B.I.C.C 1990

Norddeutschland

BERLIN Berlin Brigade Hessisch-Oldendorf Tempelhof Airport

Rheinburg

BONN Gießen Fulda Spangdahlem Lindsey Rhein-Main Wildflecken Hahn Wiesbaden Hanau Schweinfurt Bitburg Mainz Frankfurt Capital Baumholder Sembach Würzburg Army Military Aschaffenburg Community Bad Kreuznach Ramstein Darmstadt Bamberg Kaiserslautern Ansbach Air Force Base Worms Zweibrücken Nürnberg Mannheim Pirmasens Heidelberg 7th Army Training Center Karlsruhe Heilbronn

Göppingen Stuttgart Augsburg Neu-Ulm Munich Bad Tölz Garmisch US forces in Germany

1996

BERLIN

Rheinburg

BONN Gießen

Spangdahlem

Wiesbaden Hanau Schweinfurt Capital Baumholder Würzburg Army Military Community Bad Kreuznach Ramstein Darmstadt Bamberg Kaiserslautern Ansbach Air Force Base Worms Mannheim Heidelberg 7th Army Training Center Karlsruhe

Stuttgart Augsburg

Garmisch

B.I.C.C 19 report 4 june 95

Gaining Momentum: 1991-1994 Figure 9: Feeling the Pain In 1991, the readjustment program US Army Personnel Reduction Since 1991* by Military Community of the US Army Europe (USAREUR) Source: DoD/OASD,1993. Notes: * These bases closed before 1991, and the statistics represent gained dynamic momentum. approximations for 1989. No German civilian figures are available. See: Duke, 1989. Between September 1991 and ** This figure does not include the 5,000 German civilians that the German government October 1994, the United States reportedly employed in support of the US forces in Berlin (Deutscher Bundestag, 1991). returned 264 out of the total 563 USAREUR military installations it still Nürnberg operated in Germany. An additional Frankfurt 44 installations were reduced in operation. Through this restructur- Stuttgart ing, the number of US Army installa- Pirmasens tions in Germany dropped approxi- mately 50 percent over three years. Norddeutschland Gießen During this period, the US Army abandoned some of the most Berlin** powerful symbols of the Cold War, Karlsruhe including Check Point Charlie, as Mainz well as the rest of its 42 Berlin facil- ities, all three Fulda border observa- Hanau tion points and other holdings in Fulda that strategically important passage, and the massive 17,000-acre (7,000- Kaiserslautern hectare) Wildflecken Training range. Göppingen* Such massive troop concentration points as Frankfurt, Nürnberg, Neu-Ulm* Norddeutschland, and Pirmasens— Wildflecken all with endstrengths in excess of Zweibrücken 10,000—were disbanded. Munich Leveling Off: 1995-1996 Würzburg As the US Army’s European draw- down enters its final stages in 1995, Baumholder its impressive scope has become Worms clear (USEUCOM, 23 February 1995, Round 18). Darmstadt Augsburg ■ The level of US Army personnel ■ Ansbach American Military and in Germany has been reduced Civilian Reductions from 210,000 in 1989 to approxi- Heilbronn ■ German Civilian Reductions mately 82,000 today, and is pro- Wiesbaden jected to level off at 65,000 by 1996—a total reduction of more Bad Kreuznach than 70 percent (Statistical Aschaffenburg Annex; USAREUR/PA, 1995). ■ The US Army disbanded 2 40 Rheinberg percent of its Military Bad Tölz* Communities (15), while no Military Community was able to Grafenwöhr completely avoid reductions. Bamberg ■ The US Army has returned more Mannheim than 100,000 acres (40,500 hec- tares) of land to German civil Heidelberg authorities since 1991. Garmisch

2 As DoD does not define ‘closure,’ this report Vilseck defines closure to be the reduction of 80 percent of personnel, area and sites. Schweinfurt See: Cunningham and Pages, 1994. Hohenfels

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 20 B.I.C.C US forces in Germany

■ The US Army has eliminated of the Aschaffenburg, Bad Tölz, usual (Deputy Chief of Staff for 32,000 direct German civilian Berlin, Frankfurt, Fulda, Göppingen, Conventional Forces in Europe and positions on US bases since Heilbronn, Mainz, Munich, Neu- USAREUR Public Information offi- 1991. These employment Ulm, Norddeutschland, Nürnberg, cial, interviews, 24 March 1995). impacts may be even more Pirmasens, Wildflecken, and Although the Army’s component severe when the loss of contract Zweibrücken Military Communities, will not be officially completed until spending and the multiplier other communities have experi- 1996, the drawdown is ahead of effect are considered (see enced significant personnel reduc- schedule at most sites (USAREUR/PA, Impacts on the German tions. While avoiding complete clo- 1995). In the majority of bases, the Economy, below). sure, for example, the Military current authorized endstrength is Communities of Stuttgart, Hanau, already approaching the target level Although most Military Communities Gießen, Karlsruhe, and for the end of drawdown. The most have become a fraction of their for- Kaiserslautern experienced reduc- recent European Command base mer size, other installations have tions of more than 2,500 personnel closure list stated: „To date, the retained the vast majority of their each—a greater number than in Secretary of Defense has announced personnel and facilities as consoli- many complete closures (Statistical his intention to return or reduce dation sites. The Army has com- Annex; 415th BSB, 1995; 104th operations at 953 overseas sites thus mitteditself to maintaining its largest, ASG/414 BSB, 1995) . virtually completing our drawdown“ most useful training sites, which are (USEUCOM, 23 February 1995, located at Grafenwöhr, Hohenfels, Figure 9 illustrates the direct US and Round 18, p.1). and Vilseck. Consequently, these German personnel reductions that facilities have experienced only have occurred through the return of token reductions. The US Army’s military sites at each of the Army’s US Air Force Base European Headquarters in 37 Military Communities (in terms of Closures Heidelberg has also benefited from authorized positions). According to being a consolidation point for clos- the Army, the number of actual The Air Force cut more aggressively ing bases throughout the region— positions filled is an average of 10 in the early rounds than did the by some accounts, it retains more percent less than the number of Army. In 1990, the Air Force positions than it did in the 1980s authorized positions. In this case, announced the closure of two of its (USAREUR Public Information offi- however, budget problems and the smaller German airfields—Hessisch- cial, interview, 24 March 1995). severe nature of the reorganization Oldendorf, located near the city of In addition to the complete closure may make the average higher than Hannover in the federal state of

Figure 10: Concentrated Air Power Reductions at US Air Force Main Sites in Germany Number of Fully Operated Main Sites Remaining Source: Statistical Annex; Vest, 1994.

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 B.I.C.C 21 report 4 june 95

Lower , and Zweibrücken, in More recently, US Air Force Europe German civilians were laid off, a the federal state of Rhineland- reduced operations at Rhein-Main reduction of more than 50 percent. Palatinate at the German-French Air Base toward its goal of concen- It is currently impossible to accu- border. As an indication of future trating activities at Ramstein Air rately determine how much land reductions, a number of the individ- Base (GAO, 1994b). To facilitate that the US Air Force has returned to ual sites belonging to the Hahn and transition, the German company Germany due to the status of Sembach Air Bases were also operating the civil portions of the reduced facilities. According to the returned during the early rounds. Rhein-Main Airport is subsidizing official DoD closure announce- Combined, the closures in 1990 the construction of new facilities on ments, for example, the Air Force affected 16 Air Force sites. Ramstein as an in-kind payment for has not returned any land at Rhein- the value of the US facilities it Main Air Base despite already The Air Force also used the Desert received (GAO, 1994a). The airport accepting payment for the facilities Storm conflict in 1990-1991 to rotate authority will use the free space at from German authorities. Given this fighter squadrons state-side. For Rhein-Main to establish a new cargo complication, it is clear that the Air instance, Hahn Air Base’s squadron center (European Stars and Stripes, Force has returned at least 4,000 of F-16 fighters never returned to 23 December 1994, p.4). This reduc- acres (1,600 hectares) as a result of Germany after Desert Storm (former tion had still not been officially complete returns. Director of Host Nation Relations, announced as of April 1995. Hahn Air Base, interview, 8 The total effects of the Air Force’s As the US Air Force drawdown December 1994). Concurrently, the restructuring in Germany impact 60 enters its final stages, the complete Air Force’s realignment program individual sites and 6 main sites. In closures of the already greatly accelerated in 1991 with the closure four years, the United States reduced Rhein-Main and Sembach of the Bitburg, Tempelhof, and reduced 60 percent of its Air Force Air Bases are the only additional Lindsey Air Bases and the reduction installations in Germany. changes expected. These returns of Sembach Air Base. Much smaller may be announced when the sites belonging to Ramstein and From 1990 to 1994, the United States upgrades at Ramstein Air Base are Spangdahlem Air Bases were also withdrew approximately 28,500 Air completed sometime in 1996. returned during that year. Force soldiers and civilians—a 60 percent reduction—while 2,500

Figure 11: Grounded Personnel Reduction at US Air Bases since 1987 7,000 Source: Statistical Annex; USAFE, 13 February 1995.

6,000 ■ German Civilian Reductions ■ American Military and Civilian Reductions 5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 Hahn Bitburg Rhein- Sembach Lindsey Zwei- Tempel- Hessisch- Spang- Ramstein Main brücken Oldendorf dahlem 22 B.I.C.C US forces in Germany

Endstate: Aside from the obvious need to The Emerging US retain the US Army Europe (USAREUR) Headquarters at Heidel- Base Structure in berg, the other facilities retained by the USAREUR in Germany appear to fall into one or more of three cate- Germany gories: (1) location convenient to airlift bases; (2) location near large training sites; (3) best of the The Future Army Base from two Corps (V Corps and VII facilities. Structure Corps) supporting 147 Combat Battalions in 1990 (USAREUR/PA, Military Communities Near 1995). As the Army enters the final stages Airlift Bases of the drawdown, the endstate—or No longer perpetually rooted in The new base structure needed to Europe to protect against a possible post-restructuring level—is in sight. support these forces has also The United States will retain approx- Soviet-led attack, the USAREUR has emerged. Rather than a decentral- a new mission to project US force imately 65,000 military personnel in ized, wide-ranging web of installa- Europe with a commensurate num- overseas. As a result, out-of-area tions in practically every major city deployments by the USAREUR have ber of US and German civilian sup- in southern Germany, many of the port staff. That will leave one Army increased dramatically in recent remaining Army bases are concen- years. In the entire 41 years from Corps (V Corps) supporting 37 trated in the central region of Combat Battalions in 1996, down 1948 to 1989, only 11,851 USAREUR Germany. troops on 18 occasions were sent outside their narrow area of opera- tion. In comparison, during just four years after Desert Storm 3 (1991 through 1994), 21,883 soldiers were deployed on 49 separate missions (USAREUR/PA, 1995). This repre- Figure 12: Staying Put sents a 2,000 percent increase in the US Military Communities with more than number of soldiers deployed out-of- 3,000 authorized endstate positions area per year. Source: Statistical Annex 3 The USAREUR deployed approximately 75,000 soldiers and 40,000 pieces of equipment to Mannheim Desert Shield and Storm (USAREUR/PA, 1995). Kaiserslautern Würzburg Baumholder Hohenfels Schweinfurt Heidelberg Hanau Gießen ■ Endstrength Remaining Wiesbaden Darmstadt Ansbach Grafenwöhr Vilseck Bad Kreuznach Augsburg Stuttgart Bamberg 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 B.I.C.C 23 report 4 june 95

This dramatic increase in deploy- As an indication of the continued Military Communities Near ment is not surprising. The escalation of capability, USAREUR’s Large Training Ranges USAREUR’s 1993 publication, US area of responsibility increased to The United States remains commit- Army Europe—The Right Force for 100 countries in 1994 (USAREUR/PA, ted to retaining its two largest train- a Changing World, described the 1994). Figure 13 illustrates how the ing ranges in Germany— complete shift from a stationary, new focus on out-of-area deploy- Grafenwöhr and Hohenfels—as the defensive force to a forward-based ments has increased since the end primary training areas for the multi- response force: of the Cold War. Recent deploy- national coalition forces of the ments have included such varying future (USAREUR/PA, 1993). The Cold War missions, operational missions as building a civil hospital first high-profile, multi-national procedures and training tech- in the former Soviet State of Georgia training exercise was ‘Atlantic niques are no longer relevant. and security assistance in Liberia Resolve 1994,’ which combined They have been replaced with (USAREUR/PA, 1994). major components from US, new missions calling for rapid German, French, British, and Dutch deployment of force packages As a result of its new focus on forces at the Hohenfels Training across the entire operational deployments, USAREUR has Range. The individual use of the spectrum . . . faced with a differ- retained bases near Ramstein Air training sites has also become more ent environment, uncertain Base—the Air Force’s only remain- international. Since the Cold War, threat and shift in focus from ing, fully active German airlift base. the United States has opened its defense of the European region This may explain the continued training ranges to expanded use by to contingency operations in strength of the Baumholder, Bad the US Marines, Dutch forces, and any of 82 countries in US Kreuznach, Kaiserslautern, and Bundeswehr (German) forces European Command area of Wiesbaden Military Communities. (USAREUR/PA, 1995). responsibility, USAREUR reexam- Despite overall troop reductions in ined its reason for being . . . Europe of 70 percent, these four (USAREUR/PA, 1993, p.9–10). communities have undergone reductions of less than 30 percent since 1991.

Figure 13: Send in the Troops Number of USAREUR Deployments Since World War II Source: USAREUR/PA, 1994; USAREUR/PA, 1995.

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 ’48 ’50 ’52 ’54 ’56 ’58 ’60 ’62 ’64 ’66 ’68 ’70 ’72 ’74 ’76 ’78 ’80 ’82 ’84 ’86 ’89 ’91 ’93 24 B.I.C.C US forces in Germany

To support this policy, the USAREUR Emerging Air Force Nevertheless, since that report was has retained the Military published, Torrejon Air Base in Communities of Hohenfels and Base Structure Spain closed (Vest, 1994). While Grafenwöhr for training, as well as USAFE has not made any formal Vilseck and Würzburg to support Although the Air Force has not - announcement about Rhein-Main’s those efforts. At endstate in 1996, licly announced its future intentions future, the United States has accept- these four Military Communities will as explicitly as has the USAREUR, its ed US $62.5 million worth of pay- retain 87 percent of their cumulative future structure becomes apparent ment-in-kind projects in return for endstrength (23,336) and 98 percent through analysis of the reductions. closing facilities at Rhein-Main of their area (100,786 acres/40,818 Initially, it appeared that US Air (GAO, 1994a). Moreover, the cur- hectares). Force Europe (USAFE) was planning rent endstrength of Rhein-Main is on reducing its base structure to two only 262 military and civilian per- The Best of the Rest primary bases in Germany— sonnel (USAFE, 23 January 1995). The top two guidelines cited in the Ramstein and Spangdahlem (GAO, That represents a significant USAREUR’s eight-step reduction 1994b; Stadt Kaiserslautern official, decrease from its 1987 authorized philosophy are: ‘get out of the interview, 30 November 1994 inter- endstrength of 5,872 (DoD/OASD, worst installations’ and ‘retain the view). 1987). best quality-of-life installations’ (USAREUR/PA, 1994). True to these Both bases were understandable Sembach Air Base also retains a guidelines, the remaining facilities choices. Ramstein is the USAFE small endstrength of 256 (USAFE, 23 represent the best of the V Corps. Headquarters, is located near troop January 1995), resulting from an These include Bad Kreuznach, concentrations in Germany, and is April 1991 reduction, and the USAFE Baumholder, Wiesbaden, large enough to handle all types of may be planning to return the base Darmstadt, Hanau, and Gießen US military aircraft (GAO, 1994b). completely once upgrades at (USAREUR, 1990). Also as a result of Spangdahlem hosted the United Ramstein are completed (Rheinland- this policy, the USAREUR retained States’ most modern fighter planes Pfalz, Ministerium für Wirtschaft und its recently renovated barracks, in Germany (Cragg, 1988) and is Verkehr, 1994a). regardless of location. These include located in the most rural county of barracks at Mannheim (US $14.89 Germany (Henter, 1995). Spang- Based on this analysis, the USAFE million in renovations), Schweinfurt dahlem also benefited from its posi- may already be approaching end- ($8.75 million), Würzburg ($5.6 mil- tion near Bitburg Air Base. When state. Depending on whether or not lion),Stuttgart ($4.5 million), Ansbach Bitburg closed, most of its housing Rhein-Main and Sembach are even- ($2.3 million), and Kaiserslautern units and some support facilities tually closed, USAFE’s endstate ($2.27 million) (USAREUR/PA, were transferred to Spangdahlem could vary between 14,000 and 1994). Facilities at the alpine com- (Trier Bundesvermögensamt official, 14,500 active-duty US military per- munity of Garmisch will remain interview, 19 January 1995). sonnel in Germany, with approxi- at near-Cold War strength for their mately 7,000 US and German civil- quality-of-life benefits as the The plan to consolidate around only ian support personnel (Statistical Armed Forces Recreational Center two Air Bases in Germany, however, Annex). (USAREUR/PA, 1993). may have been derailed by a June 1994 US Accounting Office study questioning its prudence. The report stated:

Torrejon and Rhein-Main [Air Bases] supported 58 percent of the airlift missions during the Persian and, accord- ing to US Transportation Command officials, the United States could not conduct another Persian Gulf War-sized, Middle East operation without these bases (GAO, 1994b, p.5). ▼ ▼ Next page: A Cold War relic. The proving ground at the Mainz Army Depot. B.I.C.C 25 report 4 june 95 Impact on the German Economy

26 B.I.C.C impact on the German economy

B.I.C.C 27 report 4 june 95

The Economic War is comparatively well docu- Impact mented. At the end of the Cold War, there were approximately 62,000 German civilians on payroll at US United States’ restructuring mean for losing or even reducing the oper- Army bases (1991) and 5,800 at Air neighboring local German commu- Cations at a military facility has an Force bases (1987). In addition, nities and regional economies? immediate effect on the economy approximately 5000 German civil- through reductions in spending and ians were employed by the German This chapter analyzes both the lost jobs. Nevertheless, the econo- government at the US base in Berlin employment impact and the spend- mic pain of base closure is limited to (Deutscher Bundestag, 1991). ing impact of the US withdrawal the areas in which reductions Breaking the statistics down by on a national, regional, and local actually occur. Some communities German federal state reveals that the level. It then illustrates the effect on with a high dependence on US southern and western states of Baden- German real estate markets of the defense spending have not suffered Württemberg, Bavaria, Hesse, and return of a total land area greater at all as a result of the drawdown. Rhineland-Palatinate had the highest than the German federal state of Certain consolidation sites, such as direct reliance on the US forces—a Bremen. Heidelberg and Ramstein, have result of the original American occu- actually benefited. pation zone and the later French withdrawal from their zone. On the other hand, seemingly minor Direct Employment nation-wide losses in spending and Effect on the German The United States’ post-Cold War jobs may devastate the local econ- Labor Market base realignment program has had a omies affected by the cuts. The considerable impact on the German closure of Bitburg Air Base, which In understanding the economic civilians employed by the US had a 1987 endstrength of more impact of the US Forces on regional Department of Defense. By April than 6,400 and pumped an annual German labor markets, it is useful to 1995, more than 41,000 authorized DM 200 million into the economy distinguish between their function German civilian positions had alrea- (Henter, 1995), had a very severe as direct employers and indirect dy been eliminated (including the effect on Bitburg county, with an employers of Germans. The role of 5000 German civilians in Berlin), a approximate population of only the US Forces as direct employers reduction of more than 50 percent 93,000 people. What does the of German civilians during the Cold in less than six years (Statistical

Figure 14: German Civilians Employed on US Bases per State at the end of the Cold War Source: Statistical Annex Notes: * This figure does not include the 5,000 German civilians that the German government reportedly employed in support of the US forces in Berlin (Deutscher Bundestag, 1991). 25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 Rhineland Baden Bavaria Hesse Berlin* Bremen North Rhine All others Palatinate Württemb. Westphalia 28 B.I.C.C impact on the German economy

Annex; Deutscher Bundestag, 1991). creates approximately 7000 German centers experiencing large reduc- In absolute numbers, the most jobs.4 Thus in 1989, total contract tions had a very low dependence in severe impacts on local labor mar- spending of US $1.74 billion (DoD, percentage terms on American mili- kets (defined to be more than 1,000 1989) created approximately 21,000 tary activities, often a negligible one authorized positions lost) were construction and maintenance jobs (the city and county of Kaisers- experienced in Berlin, (assuming an average exchange rate lautern and Bitburg, with their signi- Bremerhaven, Frankfurt, Hanau, at that time of 1.68 DM/$). Although ficant dependence on the economic Kaiserslautern, Karlsruhe, Mainz, more complete data is not available, activities of the US Forces, are clear Pirmasens, Nürnberg, Stuttgart, contract spending decreased more exceptions) (Wirtschaftsminister- Zweibrücken and Gießen. It is than 40 percent by 1993 (DoD, konferenz, 1990). important to note that all of these 1993) and has likely decreased bases are in urban centers, with the further since then. Thus, a conserva- In these highly developed, urban exception of Pirmasens, Bitburg, tive guess is that at least 7,000 of areas, the labor market provides and Zweibrücken. Most of these these jobs had been lost by 1995. enough job opportunities to fully areas had hosted Army bases (all absorb German workers displaced but Bitburg), while Berlin and Telling the Whole Story: by the US withdrawal. The case of Zweibrücken had hosted US Air Mainz, a city in the highly industria- Bases as well. Local Economies lized and densely populated Rhein- Affected Main area, illustrates this observa- Contract Employment tion. While Mainz suffered one of The absolute figures of the local the largest layoffs and the US with- layoffs are not comprehensive indi- drawal caused short-term economic US contract spending also results in cators of the negative impact of the direct employment of German US withdrawal on local labor mar- 4 This relationship is taken from multiplier nationals to an uncertain extent. analysis of the input/output tables of RWI, kets. The impact primarily depends Rheinisch-Westfalisches Institut für Wirtschafts- One may produce an estimate based on the structure of the regional econ- forschung, in , and is only a very rough on the assumption that DM 1 billion omy. Indeed, most of the urban estimate.

Figure 15: Post-Cold War Casualties German Civilian Reductions exceeding 1000 at US bases Source: Statistical Annex: The graph does not include the 5,000 German civilian employees laid off at the US base in Berlin, as these civilians were paid the German government (Deutscher Bundestag, 1991).

0 Bitburg ABNorddeutschlandFrankfurtGießen MC MC MCHanau MCKaiserslauternKarlsruhe MCMainz MC MCNürnbergPirmasens MC Stuttgart MC ZweibrückenMC MC&AB

-500

-1,000

-1,500

-2,000

-2,500

-3,000

-3,500

-4,000

-4,500 B.I.C.C 29 report 4 june 95

problems, most of the laid-off wor- jobs in the German economy in iture. According to the statistics of kers either found new jobs or were 1989. By 1995, that figure had fallen the US Department of Defense generously compensated though a to approximately 17,900, indicating (DoD, 1989; DoD, 1993), the spend- special joint American-German an additional 22,900 German jobs ing of the US Forces in Germany in benefits package (Mainzer Rhein- have been lost due to the US draw- Fiscal Year 1989 totaled over US Zeitung, 10 September 1992; see down and bringing the total number $9.7 billion—including all payroll Mainz case study). The local unem- of German jobs lost since 1990 to outlays and prime contracts for ployment rate did rise between 1990 approximately 71,0005 persons—still supply and maintenance of the base and 1993, but unemployment in all a relatively small number compared infrastructure, but excluding the German cities rose during this time with the 26 million registered in salaries of the German civilian due to a nationwide economic Germany’s total employed workfor- employees on US bases. recession. ce in 1993. In 1989, 82 percent of the total mili- The situation is very different in US contract spending and the per- tary budget was allocated for the rural, underdeveloped areas in sonal consumption of US soldiers wages of American soldiers and civi- which the large American military and civilians also have significant lians; only 18 percent of the funds bases were the principal employers indirect employment effects, which was earmarked for construction, for the local workforce. The German may make the number of German service and supply contracts. In the counties hosting the Air Bases in jobs lost considerably higher. Given same year, 511,008 individuals of Hahn and Bitburg exemplify the link the lack of available data, however, American nationality lived and/or between the US withdrawal and a these effects are currently impos- worked on US bases in Germany. rising unemployment rate in struc- sible to measure. This may be divided into active-duty turally underdeveloped districts. In military personnel from the different those counties, a comparatively low number of German civilians (678 Impact on the Regional 5 Statistical Annex; Deutscher Bundestag, 1991. This figure is significantly lower than a figure and 1,042 employees, respectively) Demand for Goods cited by Schmidt-Eenboom (1989) for the lost their jobs when the bases closed indirect employment effects of the US bases in and Services 1988. Although there is reason to believe that (Statistical Annex). Nonetheless, the the latter was overestimated due to the classi- lack of alternative job opportunities fied nature of Cold Ware statistics, the former A useful measure of the economic may underestimate the number of jobs by not caused a temporary—sometimes importance of the US Forces for the permanent—dislocation of those taking into account the indirect effects of US regional demand for goods and ser- contract spending and the consumption of US workers (former Director of Host vices is their annual total expend- personnel. Nation Relations, Hahn Air Base, interview, 8 December 1994). Figure 16: Piling On Indirect Employment German Employment Impacts of US Forces Effects Source: DoD, 1989; DoD, 1993; Statistical Annex; authors’ projections Notes: *Does not include the indirect effects of US contract spending and the Aside from the direct employment consumption of US personnel. lost due to the United States’ with- drawal, a secondary impact on the labor markets has occurred through End, Cold War 1995 the loss of indirect employment 140,000 from US expenditure. One may use ■ Indirect German a multiplier of 1.56 to approximate employment* the secondary employment impacts 120,000 ■ Employment of the US withdrawal, based on a from US military contracts over study of the indirect employment 100,000 effects of the German and the US $25,000 British military forces in the city of ■ Direct Mönchengladbach (Brömmelhörster 80,000 Employment and , 1992a). A study of the of German Civilians on American forces’ withdrawal from 60,000 the city of Bremen reached similar US bases results using an econometric model (Elsner and Voss, 1991). Based on 40,000 this multiplier approximation, the 72,800 German civilians employed 20,000 as a result of the US presence crea- ted approximately 40,800 indirect 0 30 B.I.C.C impact on the German economy

branches of the Forces, American 19 percent of total expenditure)— Unlike the salaries of the US active- civilians employed with the Forces, equivalent to a reduction of 41 per- duty military personnel and and military and civilian depen- cent in four years.9 All types of con- American civilians, the wages of dents. These family dependents tracts were affected by the draw- German civilian employees con- alone account for about 227,000 down, but the primary reductions tributed 100 percent to the regional individuals or approximately 50 per- in US spending occurred in con- demand for goods and services. A cent of all Americans on US bases in struction (92 percent) and military 1991 study on the economic impor- Germany (calculations drawn from research and development (85 per- tance of the US bases in the federal DoD, 1989 and DoD, 1993). cent). In projecting the amount of state of Bavaria quantified the aver- contract spending for FY 1996, one age annual gross income of the Since the end of the Cold War, these may not assume a stable decrease as German civilians employed on figures have dwindled substantially. contract spending will likely level American military installations to be For Fiscal Year 1993, DoD envisioned off. Nonetheless, given that contract about US $27,000 in 1989 a total of approximately US $5.3 spending as a proportion of total (Industrieanlagen-Betriebsgesell- billion to maintain a German base expenditure remained fairly stable, schaft mbH, 1991). Multiplying that structure of 268,477 American indi- at least since the end of the Cold War per capita income by the total num- viduals. Thus, the expenditure of (18–19 percent), and given our pro- ber of German civilians employed the US Forces on troop deployment jection of US $4 billion in total expen- as a result of the US Forces’ pres- in Germany diminished almost 50 diture in FY 1996, one may estimate ence in 1989 (about 72,800 individu- percent in just four years (calcula- a total of approximately US $740 als, including the 5000 employed in tions drawn from DoD, 1989 and million in contract spending for FY Berlin by the German government) DoD, 1993).6 The clear downward 1996. gives a total of US $1.97 billion trend is obvious. (Statistical Annex; Deutscher At the same time, it is important to Bundestag, 1991). With the recent The US drawdown is scheduled to recognize that not all of the contract massive layoffs in the German terminate in 1996 at endstate, with spending of the US Forces in Germany workforce, that figure dropped sig- the projections of the final number actually benefited German contrac- nificantly to an estimated US $1.28 of American individuals (troops, tors. Even before the end of the Cold billion by 1993 and is projected to civilians, family members) on US War, the US Forces had begun to fall further to US $790 million in bases in Germany at about 200,000 redirect part of the contract money persons.7 No projections for the US from regional German suppliers to military budget for Germany in FY American contractors. Such a move 1996 were available at the time of was motivated by both political 6 Budget figures do not include any special appropriations made by the US Congress to publication, but its volume may be and economic reasons. The ‘buy pay for the drawdown. See: USAREUR/PA, estimated to be US $4 billion by American’ strategy of the US com- 1995. 8 7 The projected figure of 200,000 persons in- assuming stable growth. Thus, the mand was supposed to strengthen cludes about 65,000 Army (USAREUR/PA, number of dollars spent by the US American business worldwide and 1995) and 14,000 Air Force (Statistical Annex) Forces in Germany for its military to return American tax money spent soldiers, 18,000 civilians (Statistical Annex) and 103,000 dependents (estimation based on the bases will stabilize in FY 1996 at by the military to the US economy typical dependent-to-military-personnel ratio, endstate at a level about 56-60 per- (Schmidt-Eenboom, 1989). For the drawn from trends in the DoD Atlas/Data cent below Cold War standards. most part, however, the changed Abstracts as well as interviews with USAREUR Public Information personnel). purchasing strategy of the US Forces 8 The US Forces had an average expenditure of Two items in the American military was motivated by the rapidly US $ 18,989 for each American individual assigned to military bases in Germany in FY budget for Germany are of special decreasing purchasing power of the 1989 (DoD, 1989); in absolute terms, that per interest: the expenditure on supply, dollar on the German market. capita expenditure rose slightly to US $ 19,602 service and maintenance contracts in FY 1993 (DoD, 1993), signifying an average increase of approximately US $ 150 per capita and the expenditure on wages for Private Consumption per year. Assuming stable annual growth in the active-duty military personnel and In addition to the contract spending per capita expentiture through FY 1996, one civilians. Both expenditure items have of the US Forces is another factor of may project a figure of US $ 20,000 for each of the assumed 200,000 American individuals. Such direct implications for the regional economic relevance for the host a projection would bring the total expenditure demand for goods and services. country—the private consumption of the US Forces in 1996 to US $ 4 billion. 9 Expressed in absolute numbers, US $ 700 mil- of the people working and/or living lion less was spent on the supply and mainten- Contract Expenditure on the base. This group may be ance of the bases in 1993 than in 1989. When DoD statistics demonstrate that the divided into two subgroups: (1) the one considers the consistent depreciation of the dollar against the German mark and a low total volume of the prime supply, active-duty military personnel and but steady price inflation at an average of 3 service and maintenance contracts the American civilians employed on percent in Germany since 1989, the decrease in (over US $25,000 only) for US bases the base, plus their dependents, and the American demand for German supply and maintenance services appears more severe in Germany reached US $1.74 billion (2) the German civilians employed than the total figure implies. The US $ 1 billion (about 18 percent of total expen- on the base. A principal indicator of spent by the American military on the prime supply and maintenance of its Army and Air diture) in FY 1989. After the end of the volume of the private consump- Force bases in 1993 bought less than two-thirds the Cold War, this was reduced to tion of these two subgroups is the of the goods and services in Germany it would US $1.02 billion in FY 1993 (about total wage paid to them. have in 1989. B.I.C.C 31 report 4 june 95

1996 (assuming an annual growth in Using the estimation of Bebermeyer with private companies or the wages of 4 percent and a linear and Thiemann for 1989 (14 percent) German government.12 Thus, the decrease in the number of German as the calculation base for the pro- total amount of money entering the civilians from 1989 to 1995).10 portion of US wages entering the German economic cycle through US German economy and assuming a military spending was US $4.81 bil- The total wages paid to the 283,520 share of 10 percent for 1993, the priv- lion. By 1993, that figure had drop- soldiers and American civilians in ate consumption of American per- ped significantly to US $2.72 billion. FY 1989 was US $7.96 billion—a sonnel and their dependents enter- As the US drawdown continues figure which would be cut almost in ing the German economy decreased and the dollar’s value falls further, half by FY 1993 (US $4.24 billion) from US $1.11 billion at the end of the dollars stimulating regional (DoD, 1989; DoD, 1993). Figures for the Cold War to US $424 million (a German demand may be expected Fiscal Year 1996 are not available, decrease of 60 percent). Since 1993, to decrease further both in absolute but the volume of financial transfers this figure has been shrinking number and in relative exchange to American base personnel may be further, with serious reductions in value—to an estimated US $1.9 bil- estimated at US $3.71 billion, assum- the number of personnel on US lion at endstate in 1996.13 11 ing stable growth rates. Thus, since bases and the exchange rate reach- the end of the Cold War more than ing an historic low (1.39 DM/$) 10 In the absence of available data, one can only 50 percent of the expenditure on assume that the number of German civilians in March 1995. Assuming the 10 has decreased at a constant rate. Given a start- wages for American base personnel percent share has not fallen further, ing figure of 72,800 German civilians in 1989 has been withdrawn from Germany. and 31,880 remaining in 1995 (Statistical the private consumption of US Annex; Deutscher Bundestag, 1991), German Not all of the money paid to personnel in 1996 may be estimated civilians were laid off at a rate of approximately at US $371 million. 6820 per year. Thus, in 1993, approximately American soldiers and civilians, 45,500 contributed US $ 1.28 billion to the however, was spent in the economy German economy. As the US drawdown levels of the host country. In fact, the Total Entering the German Economy off between 1995 and 1996, so will the lay-offs Together, the consumption of of German civilians; to project the number majority never stimulated the region- remaining in 1996, therefore, one must use a al demand for goods and services Germans and Americans employed rough estimate. Thus, a 15 percent reduction on US bases contributing to the in the number of US troops from 1995 to end- but rather was spent in the shop- state in 1996 (93,685 to 79,000, respectively) ping and social facilities operated by regional demand for goods and implies a corresponding reduction in the the United States. A study of the services in 1989 had a value of US number of German civilians employed to $3.08 billion. In the same year, support them––15 percent of 31,880, or 27,100. economic importance of the US Multiplying this figure by the estimated average Forces in Germany, published by about US $1.74 billion were spent salary for 1996 gives an approximation of US $ the Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft by the US Forces on prime contracts 790 million. in 1989, estimates that in 1986 an average of 28 percent of the wages of the American soldiers and civil- ians were spent on German goods Figure 17: Trickle Down Figures in billions of US Dollars and services (Bebermeyer and Thiemann, 1989). According to Source: DoD, 1989; DoD, 1993; Statistical Annex; Deutscher Bundestag, 1991; Industrieanlagen-Betriebsgesellschaft mbH, 1991; authors’ estimations Bebermeyer and Thiemann, with Notes: *Includes not only payroll outlays for US personnel and contract expenditure, the value of the dollar falling against but also the salaries of German civilian employees. the mark after 1986, this figure decreased to 18 percent in 1987 and 14 percent in 1989. The consistent 1989 1993 1996 12 depreciation of the dollar combined ■ US Military Expenditure with a low but steady price inflation for Germany* in Germany has further eroded 10 ■ US Dollars Entering the American purchasing power since German Economy 1989. Increasing military wages could not compensate for that loss. 8 As a result, American consumers reduced their demand for German goods, changing to American prod- 6 ucts offered in the shops on base. A 1992 analysis of the economic importance of the American forces 4 for the city of Bremen estimated that in 1991, no more than 10 percent of American wages were spent in the 2 local economy ( and Heseler, 1992). 0 32 B.I.C.C impact on the German economy

From a macroeconomic point of regional economies of several that the internal distribution of funds view, the total volume of the con- German federal states. During the among these federal states would tract expenditure and the private Cold War, about 97 percent of the have remained almost stable through consumption of US personnel had total US military budget for Germany 1995—with the possible exception been of marginal importance to the was spent in only four federal states: of a shrinking share for Hesse. The German economy in 1989; with the Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Hesse closure of the large Fulda and number of military dollars spent in and Rhineland-Palatinate. Another 3 Frankfurt Army bases and the simul- Germany cut virtually in half, the percent went to Bremen and North taneous reductions in the operation economic factor of the American Rhine-Westphalia (Berlin does not of the Gießen and Hanau bases—all demand for German goods and appear because all expenses of the four of which are located in Hesse— services has become even less US Forces for its troop deployment probably had a disproportionally significant. Together, the financial in Berlin were paid by the German high impact on the number of transactions of the US Forces in government). The clear geograph- dollars entering that federal state. Germany in 1993 made up US $2.7 ical focus of US expenditure lay on billion, or less than DM 4 billion—a Rhineland-Palatinate; about one- 11 The per capita wage of the American base per- sonnel had been US $ 28,102 in 1989; it rose to negligible proportion of the national third of the total US military budget US $ 33,900 per capita in 1993, the equivalent German economy as a whole in the for Germany went to that federal of an annual growth of US $ 1,500. Assuming such a growth rate to be stable through 1996, same year. state alone. the average per capita income would be about US $ 38,300. Multiplying this figure by the esti- With the US base structure under- mated 97,000 American soldiers and civilians Regional Disparities in assigned to US bases in 1996 would result in going significant cuts, this geo- US $ 3.71 billion spent on wages for American the Economic graphical focus has even expanded: base personnel. (Calculations drawn from since the troop deployments in DoD, 1989; DoD, 1993; USAREUR/PA, 1995). Dependence on the US 12 One should note that although these figures Forces Berlin, Bremen and North Rhine- assume 100 percent of contract money enters Westphalia have been withdrawn, the German economy (due to the lack of avail- 100 percent of US military expenses able data on the exact proportion), the actual Although American contract spend- percentage may be lower. Thus, the above now contribute to the economies of figures may overestimate the number of dollars ing and private consumption had disappearing dollars Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Hesse entering the German economy. a limited impact in relation to the and Rhineland-Palatinate. In the 13 This figure does not take into account potential entire German GDP, it exercised a changes in the dollar’s value against the mark. absence of recent data, it is assumed substantial effect on the local and

Figure 18: Distribution of US Military Expenditure in Germany Per state 1988 Source: Schmidt-Eenboom, 1989.

Hesse 20% Bavaria 26%

Baden-Württemberg 17% Bremen/ North Rhine-Westphalia 3%

Rhineland-Palatinate 34% B.I.C.C 33 report 4 june 95

Absolute figures on the total expen- added by a particular region. The In 1989, all but two German districts diture of US Forces per federal state resulting proportion may mark the with a high economic dependence do not allow a precise measurement possible dependence of a regional on foreign military bases were lo- of the relative importance of the economy on the US bases. Table 5 cated in Rhineland-Palatinate. All of American bases for certain regional highlights the western German these districts and cities especially and local markets. Therefore, the counties with a high dependence vulnerable to any withdrawal of for- total expenditure of each US Base (defined to be more than 10 percent eign troop contingents were hosting must be placed in relation to the of regional GDP) on the foreign US installations. economic strength of the particular troop contingents stationed in the governmental districts hosting them. area. At the end of the Cold War, all The and surrounding In order to evaluate the relative nine governmental districts with a county of Kaiserslautern demon- importance of the US Forces on the significant or high dependency on strated an exceptional dependence regional demand for goods and serv- foreign military economic activities on the economic activities of the ices, the volume of the American hosted American installations; in the Army and Air Force Bases. The com- economic activities (expressed in special case of Zweibrücken, both plete withdrawal of US Forces from monetary terms) in a particular American and French forces were that area would have caused serious county is related to the total value stationed in the district. dislocations. While such a worst-case scenario for the local economy did Table 5: German governmental districts/cities with the highest dependence on the regional demand for goods and services of foreign military bases (1989) Source: Wirtschaftsministerkonferenz, 1990.

County/city Hosting: Federal state: Economic dependence on foreign military bases (% of regional GDP)

Kaiserslautern (County) Ramstein Air Base Rhineland-Palatinate 35.0-43.4 Kaiserslautern Military Community Baumholder Rhineland-Palatinate 16.1-20.3 Military Community Bitburg/Prüm Bitburg Air Base Rhineland-Palatinate 12.8-16.1 Kaiserslautern Kaiserslautern Rhineland-Palatinate 12.7-14.9 Military Community Installations of the Bavaria 10.4-13.7 Würzburg Military Community Zweibrücken Zweibrücken Air Base; Rhineland-Palatinate 11.1-13.1 Zweibrücken Military Community; installations of the French Army Osterholz Installations of the Bremen DC 8.1-10.8 Norddeutschland Military Community Installations of Karlsruhe/ Rhineland-Palatinate 8.0-10.8 Pirmasens Military Community Sembach Air Base Rhineland-Palatinate 7.7-10.1

34 B.I.C.C not materialize, in the course of the Communities Facing The other highly dependent district base restructuring program several not located in Rhineland-Palatinate of the main installations were a Double-hit was the rural county of Osterholz reduced in operation—eliminating in Bremen, which was hit by the approximately 3,000 authorized In some cases, simply recording complete US withdrawal from the positions formerly assigned to the Army and Air Force reduc- local Lucius D. Clay Barracks. The German civilians. About 2000 Army tions individually does not tell neighboring city of Bremerhaven authorized positions for active-duty the whole story. Several com- also suffered from the closure of the military personnel disappeared, munities must attempt to re- Carl Schurz Barracks and the port causing these soldiers together with cover from the simultaneous facilities (in the US Army, the city their dependents to leave the area closure of both an Army Military lost its fifth biggest employer; (415th BSB, 1995). On the other Community and an Air Force Eisbach and Heseler, 1992), but the hand, since Ramstein Air Base (close Base. These communities economic dependence of the city on to Kaiserslautern) is slightly expand- include Frankfurt with the clo- foreign troops never reached similar ing, it is assured that the Army and sure of the Frankfurt Military dimensions to Osterholz. Air Force will remain in Kaisers- Community and the reduction lautern to some extent. of Rhein-Main Air Base, None of the counties or city districts Zweibrücken with the closure of with a high economic dependence In comparison with Kaiserslautern, its Air Station and Military on the US bases were located in the rural district of Bitburg was hit Community, and Berlin with the Hesse. Although the foreign troops worse by the US drawdown. The closure of Templehof Airport stationed in Hesse exercised a con- economy of the county had been and the Berlin Army base. siderable impact—generally in rural strongly linked with the Bitburg Air These double-hits may become counties such as the Wetterau Base: when the Air Force closed the doubly beneficial if the local district, which hosted part of the installation in 1994, it eliminated the economy is prepared to handle Fulda Military Community, or the district’s chief employer. Thousands it. For instance, Berlin will use Main-Kinzig district, where the of Americans left the area, a with- the end of the Cold War to Hanau Military Community is lo- drawal felt painfully by their former quickly replace the withdrawing cated—their economic importance German landlords—renting flats to soldiers as the unified-German was not predominant overall. US personnel living off-base had capital returns to that city. Moreover, the major US bases in been a wealthy source of income for Frankfurt will also benefit; much Hesse were located in structurally the locals—and many others of the Military Community was developed and densely populated (Henter, 1995). With the virtual de- located in valuable urban cen- areas (Darmstadt, Wiesbaden, activation of the neighboring ters, and the Air Base is located Frankfurt), where the importance of Sembach Air Base, Donnersberg on the expanding civilian Rhein- the economic activities of the US county faced a similar situation; as Main Airport. Forces was more restricted. the county’s economy was far less dependent on the American troops, Zweibrücken is not so lucky. In addition, none of the highly vul- however, the negative effects of the The loss of almost 4,000 US Air nerable counties were located in military drawdown may be more Force jobs, 3,300 US Army jobs, Baden-Württemberg. The compara- easy to counter. and thousands of additional tively high economic potential of German civilian jobs from this the counties and cities in that Just two of the German counties predominately rural area near federal state limited the regional with high dependence on foreign the French-German border dependence on the US bases; in troops were located outside (DoD, 1989; DoD, 1993; none of them did the share of the Rhineland-Palatinate.One of them, Steinebach, 1992) will be diffi- economic activities of US bases in Kitzingen in Bavaria, will not suffer cult to overcome. Recently, the regional GDP exceed 5 percent. from the US withdrawal; the Larson Zweibrücken was dealt another and Harvey barracks plus the neigh- severe blow due to the closure In the densely populated area of boring family housing areas have of several other neighboring Air West Berlin (about 2 million inhabi- not closed. Several other rural Bases (Rheinland-Pfalz, tants), the demand for goods and Bavarian counties (for instance, Bad Ministerium für Wirtschaft und supplies of the approximately 6,500 Kissingen county, which formerly Verkehr, 1994a). Although their soldiers and their family members hosted installations of the closed closure will not directly affect had no significant impact on the Fulda Military Community) revealed Zweibrücken, heavy competi- local economy. a considerable economic depen- tion from new civilian cargo and dence on the US Army bases, but in passenger airports at Hahn and none of the districts did their depen- Bitburg will make developing a dence exceed 10 percent of their similar airport at Zweibrücken regional GDP. considerably more difficult.

B.I.C.C 35 report 4 june 95

Impact on the Real Estate Market

Although on a regional basis in or near cities for reasons dis- Germany’s economy was adversely cussed earlier. Air Bases tend to affected by the loss of jobs and be located in more isolated areas. spending resulting from the US ■ The type of military site also withdrawal, the country will regain impacts its reuse potential. A sur- the use of more land than the vey of US sites in Germany German state of Bremen or more revealed that most fall into one than twice the size of America’s of 18 different categories (listed District of Columbia. Receiving an in Figure 19). While large Air area roughly the size of a new state Base main sites hold the most in less than five years is bound to potential for economic develop- have a significant effect on Germany’s ment and job creation, they also real estate market. Whether that pose the largest obstacles for effect is positive or negative depends conversion. A large civil airport upon a number of factors, including may employ thousands, but only site condition, location, and type. if a market and the necessary resources exist. Each individual ■ German authorities report, and Army site has less job-creating visual inspection reveals, that potential, but the decentralized most of the 452 facilities closed nature offers a significant con- since 1991 were in generally version advantage. A community good condition when returned may redevelop each site inde- to the civil authorities for several pendently of the condition of reasons (HLT, 1994a; HLT, other sites within the Military 1994b). First, the US Forces in Community.In Mainz, for example, Europe benefited from generous the Sandflora Family Housing

budgets during the Cold War, Area will be fully converted long allowing them to build and before the plan for Finthen Air ▼ maintain first-rate facilities. on the other side of town is The historic Ludendorff Kaserne Second, the usually positive rela- even completed. The single-site section of the Downs Barracks tionship between the military Air Bases (like US domestic in Fulda and their local hosts facilitated bases) require a more coordina- some creative arrangements ted approach as well as up-front regarding infrastructure and capital for redevelopment. When planning the drawdown, equipment the US left behind. DoD attempted to consolidate its Third, the short interval between The United States operated and activities onto the largest, most cen- the closure announcement and returned significantly more barracks tral, flexible sites (USAREUR/PA, the actual return of the facility and housing units than any other 1994). This policy was particularly (less than one year on average) type of unit (see Figure 19). As the clear with regard to housing facili- ensured that the facilities did not heart of the US military’s infrastruc- ties, where waiting lists had been sit vacant for long periods of ture, Army barracks and Air Base unacceptably long during the Cold time. The condition of facilities main sites are multi-functional by War: „One very positive aspect tends to deteriorate during the nature. Most Air Bases and many of the drawdown for soldiers in long vacancies common in US barracks contain a variety of facili- Europe is that at the endstate there domestic base closures ties within their boundaries, such as will be sufficient government hous- (Cunningham, 1993). administrative complexes, schools, ing for almost every USAREUR ■ The real estate impact also retail facilities, and even hospitals. soldier and his or her family“ depends greatly on the location The following statistics do not (USAREUR/PA, 1994, p.7). As a of the site returned. The return reflect those sub-set facilities. result, the United States is returning of a remote, undeveloped train- the bulk of its smaller sites while ing range will have a very limited The number of facilities, however, retaining its largest ones for future effect on the local economy. says very little about the total size of use. Figure 20 illustrates the pro- Conversely, the return of highly those sites. Training areas dominate gress of this policy by comparing developed barracks, depots or the amount of area retained and the number of barracks, housing housing areas close to a city cen- returned. Nevertheless, much of this units, Air Base main sites, and train- ter could stimulate the local real area is undeveloped wilderness and ing areas returned with the area estate market. Most of the devel- countryside; most of the usable infra- they represent; the return of a smal- oped US Army sites are located structure is located on the other sites. ler percentage of acres than of the 36 B.I.C.C impact on the German economy

number of sites implies a retention of or consolidation onto relatively larger sites. In terms of employment, ‘barracks’ was the again the most abundant type of site, with 164,487 authorized personnel in 1991. Airfields, with 60,971 authorized positions, were the only other major employer in terms of site type (Statistical Annex). This conclusion is not surprising, as barracks are the principal admini- strative sites for the US Army and airfields are their Air Force counter-

parts. Market impact: The return of US ▼ Impact and Potential barracks has a generally positive The now-closed and converted effect on the local real estate mar- Sandflora Family Housing Area by Installation Type ket. Barracks’ proximity to urban in Mainz. Figures are drawn from the Statistical Annex centers, excellent accessibility (most unless otherwise noted. barracks are already included in the Location: The United States’ 118 city’s public transportation network), separate housing sites are located Army Barracks and development-ready buildings on an airfield, barracks or nearby make them valuable property. The suburban area. These installations are the admini- strict German zoning laws make strative headquarters buildings for barracks even more advantageous Size: Combined, family housing US Army Military Communities. (HLT, 1994b). sites covered 10,569 acres (4,280 They are large, mixed-use sites often hectares) in 1991. Individually, they including vehicle storage sites, hous- Reuse potential: Since barracks can range in size from a small num- ing units,administrative office space, tend to be administrative, storage, ber of apartment blocks in an urban and a variety of service facilities. housing, and communication centers, district to an entire town with all of they are well suited to redevelop- the amenities of a small city. For Location: The United States’ 130 ment. Often, civilian equivalents example, the Patrick Henry barracks in 1991 were usually already exist for most of the build- near Heidelberg covers 2,550 acres located near the center of German ings on barracks. Most of these (1,030 hectares) and houses thou- cities. sites were in good to excellent con- sands of American citizens (author’s visual inspection). Size: The combined size was approx- dition when they were returned, making reuse even easier. imately 24,579 acres (9,954 hectares) Personnel: Since the US personnel in 1991. All but three of the barracks that live in family housing units are Although many buildings—such covered less than 1000 acres (405 counted at their place of employ- as housing, administrative offices, hectares) and 60 percent were less ment, the number of people and schools—may be reused immed- than 100 acres in size. The smallest, employed at housing units is very iately, others are less attractive to Kennedy Kaserne in Frankfurt, low or even zero. The combined investors. The large vehicle storage covered only one acre. employment at all Army housing sites and sports fields usually do not units was 7,335. With an average of Personnel: Combined employment attract significant private investment less than one employee per site, in 1991 was 162,000 authorized (Bundesvermögensamt Kassel offi- housing has the lowest personnel positions. Individual employment cial, interview, 4 November 1994; per site among US facility types. varies dramatically from 4 authorized Stadt Mainz conversion official, positions at Strub Kaserne in the interview, 8 December 1994). Restructuring: From 1991 to 1995, Munich Military Community to 7,526 the United States closed 65 family authorized positions at the Smith housing units (60 percent reduction), Barracks in Baumholder. Family Housing Areas returned 2,383 acres (965 hectares, 23 percent reduction), and elimin- Restructuring: Since 1991, the These are groups of apartment-style ated approximately 43,892 author- United States has closed 75 barracks housing units that are specifically ized positions (43 percent reduction). (58 percent reduction), eliminated used for permanently stationed US approximately 80,000 authorized military personnel and their families. Market impact: German cities are positions (47 percent reduction), Many of them also include shopping nearly unanimous in their need for and returned 11,000 acres (4,455 centers and schools. additional housing. Returned US hectares, 46 percent reduction). B.I.C.C 37 report 4 june 95

family housing units are always Training Areas fels: 39,170 acres; and Wildflecken: in high demand. Even on isolated 16,889 acres). Excluding those air bases, housing units never go The largest in terms of area, these three, the average size of US training wanting. sites are used for a variety of military ranges is 1,100 acres (446 hectares), training exercises. There are two with the smallest being the two-acre Reuse potential: Most housing different kinds of training ranges Frasdorf Operations Area in Munich. units are in excellent condition. In operated by the US military: (1) very many cases, the United States even large, undeveloped training ranges Personnel: The combined 1991 left major appliances, such as in rural locations near the former employment for all training ranges refrigerators and washing machines, East-West German border, and (2) was 8,195, but 90 percent (7,217) behind. Developers are eager to smaller, specialized training areas of those authorized positions are purchase returned housing units located near barracks or airfields. All assigned to the Hohenfels training despite the need for renovations, but one of the United States’ training range. Excluding that site, training such as electrical re-wiring and the ranges are operated by the Army. ranges have an average employ- addition of balconies. Many of the ment of 17 positions, and many sites Air Force housing units have an Location: Most of the United States’ have no dedicated personnel. additional major obstacle of being 56 smaller training areas were lo- heated. Since private coal cated in suburban areas, while the Restructuring: From 1991 to 1995, licenses are unavailable for environ- three very large ranges were located the United States closed 34 training mental reasons, these units must be in more isolated, rural areas. ranges (52 percent), returned 69,544 converted to oil or gas power at a acres (28,165 hectares, 42 percent high cost. For instance, the state of Size: The combined size of US reduction). One-fourth of the land Rhineland-Palatinate estimates that training ranges was 162,121 acres returned is due to the closure of the it will cost DM 100 million to convert (65,660 hectares) in 1991, but the 16,889-acre (6,840-hectare) the coal-powered buildings at Hahn three very large training ranges Wildflecken Training Range. The Air Base (Flughafen Hahn official, comprised 63 percent of that area closures eliminated 381 positions (5 interview, 8 December 1994). (Grafenwöhr: 51,685 acres; Hohen- percent reduction). Figure 19: Number of US Military Sites in Germany by Type As of 23 February, 1995 Source: Statistical Annex Notes: *Includes US Army airfields as well as US Air Force Air Base main sites

■ Number Closed Barracks or Reduced Housing ■ Number Communication Remaining Training Arsenal Airfield* Recreation Administrative Sewage Transportation Miscellaneous Storage Hospitals Supply Air Defense Retail Maintenance Depots Schools 0 20 40 60 80 10 0 12 0 14 0 38 B.I.C.C impact on the German economy

Market impact: The return of the fields (60 percent reduction), returned massive Wildflecken Training Range 1,829 acres (740 hectares, 53 percent had no affect on the real estate mar- reduction), and eliminated 2,912 ket as the Bundeswehr continues to positions (24 percent reduction). operate Wildflecken as a military training area (Wildflecken City offi- Market impact: Since airfields are cial, telephone interview, 19 April often large and expensive to pur- 1995). The smaller ranges near urban chase, maintain and operate, they centers have a positive affect on real may become an initial drag on the estate markets. Their location and local real estate market. Usually, the relatively undeveloped state make relevant regional office of the Bundes- them appealing to developers of vermögensamt (Federal Treasurer) all types. However, the potential must break these large properties presence of unexploded munitions into a number of parcels to find

or other types of dangerous buyers. Even then, few private inves- contamination at some sites can ▼ tors are interested in purchasing the temper developers’ enthusiasm for actual airstrip. undeveloped training areas. Aerial view of the city-sized Hahn Air Base. Hahn was more Reuse potential: The obvious reuse opportunity for an airfield is a civil Reuse potential: Since no civilian than three times larger than the airport, yet they represent the most equivalent of a military training closest neighboring community difficult type of site to redevelop. range exists, the sites must be com- of Kirchberg. The returned airfields—especially pletely redeveloped to provide any the Air Force’s bases—took billions economic benefit. As mentioned or been reduced). The Army’s 22 of dollars to build and maintain and above, the redevelopment potential airfields were predominately located are usually in excellent condition. for the smaller, suburban ranges is in suburban regions near troop However, Germany has a relatively high. However, redevelopment has concentration points. low demand for civil airports due been blocked on several occasions to its size and excellent rail system. due to the presence of protected Size: The combined size of US Air Even in areas that might support a plants and animals on the site. In Force airfields was 8,870 acres cargo or passenger airport, other those cases, the ranges are conver- (3,592 hectares) in 1991, averaging significant obstacles exist. Local citi- ted into wildlife preserves.14 887 acres (360 hectares) per site. Army airfields are much smaller by zens, concerned about noise and comparison—an average of 155 pollution, may block an initiative, Airfields acres (63 hectares) per site. The and military airfields are not well smallest Air Force base was the suited for civil aircraft. Even the The United States operates two very Hessisch-Oldendorf Air Station with massive Air Force fighter bases can- different types of airfields. (1) The only 27 acres (11 hectares). The not support fully loaded cargo and Air Force uses a number of massive smallest Army airfield is the two-acre passenger jets without expensive airfields in Germany for jet-powered Landstuhl Heliport, Kaiserslautern. upgrades. All of these - aircraft of various sorts. These are lems would require years and sig- basically medium to large civilian Personnel: The US Air Force bases nificant public support and capital airports complete with all of the had a combined endstrength of to overcome. Even then, an airport associated infrastructure. Some of 52,810 in 1987, ranging from 648 at may not be profitable. For these these main sites even include small, Hessisch-Oldendorf to 14,810 at reasons, most communities do not external air stations for emergency Ramstein Air Base. The US Army plan to use the airstrip at Army air- or overflow use. (2) The Army oper- employed 11,359 at airfields in 1991. fields. On the other hand, most ates a larger number of much smaller Employment ranged from zero per- communities attempt to redevelop airfields for helicopter operations, sonnel at several sites to 4,600 at the Air Force bases into civil airports. which can only support very small Wiesbaden Airfield (however, all That in itself will hurt their chances winged aircraft. Both types of airfields but three had less than 1,000 for success, as Bitburg, Hahn, and usually include air strips, taxiways, employees). Zweibrücken are all in the same hangars, storage facilities, air traffic geographic area. towers, and administrative offices. Restructuring: From 1987 to 1994, 14 See for example: Allgemeine Zeitung, the US Air Force closed six Air Bases 23 March 1994 and 21 April 1994; Mainzer Location: In 1991, all but three of and severely reduced operations at Rhein-Zeitung, 13 March 1994. the Air Force’s ten main Air Bases two others (75 percent affected). It were located in rural areas. The also returned 3078 acres (1,247 hec- Depots exceptions are Tempelhof Airport in tares, 34 percent reduction), and Berlin,Rhein-Main Air Base in Frank- eliminated more than 28,509 posi- These sites are very large industrial furt, and Lindsey Air Base in Wies- tions (54 percent reduction). Since facilities used to repair and upgrade baden (all three have now closed 1991, the Army has closed 12 air- the United States’ Army equipment B.I.C.C 39 report 4 june 95

in Germany. Although tailored to fields, at ‘forward positions’ near the military equipment, such as , former inner-German border, or in these depots are not unlike large isolated areas safely away from all civilian maintenance sites for trains population centers. and other vehicles (authors’ visual inspection, 26 April 1995). Size: Combined, arsenals covered 15,833 acres (6,412 hectares) in Location: All three of the US Army’s 1991. Their individual sizes varied depots were located in or near widely, from 6 acres at the Bad German cities. Kissingen Ammo Facility to 2,269 Size: These depots are massive acres at the Miesau Ammunition industrial sites where thousands of Depot. vehicles may be handled simulta- neously. They covered 2,383 acres Personnel: Combined, depots and

(965 hectares) in 1991. arsenals employed 13,613 in 1991. ▼ Although there were two huge Personnel: Like civilian industrial ammunition distribution points sites the Army’s depots were labor Various US Army vehicles at the (Miesau with 2,286 authorized posi- intensive, employing a total of Mainz Army Depot. tions 15 and South Camp Vilseck with 13,455, or 3,364 per site. These sites 5,260 authorized positions), most were also the largest single-site petitive in the commercial sector is others averaged only 115 employers of German civilian wor- very difficult. authorized positions each. kers—8,476 Germans worked in the three large US depots in 1991. Arsenals 15 The Statistical Annex shows only 1,133 autho- Additionally, these high-paying rized positions due to the restructuring of the Kaiserslautern Military Community. In addition, industrial jobs were generally better This type of site, designed to store Miesau changed Military Communities during than other German positions on US munitions, is very common. Arsenals this time. bases (Stadt Mainz conversion offi- range greatly in size and employ- cial, interview, 8 December 1994). ment. Additionally, arsenals are not Restructuring: From 1991 to 1995, the United States closed 46 arsenals Restructuring: All three depots isolated facilities and are often in- cluded in mixed-use sites, such as (78 percent) and reduced Miesau. As have been severely affected by the a result of the closures, it returned drawdown. Mainz was closed, while barracks, airfields, and training areas. 9,218 acres (3,733 hectares, 57 per- Kaiserslautern and Gießen were cent reduction) and eliminated severely reduced. In the process, 4,806 authorized positions (includ- 11,155 authorized positions were Location: The United States’ 59 arsenals were either located near ing the reductions at Miesau; 35 eliminated, including more than percent reduction). 6,000 German industrial positions main sites such as barracks or air- (Vest, 1994). Market impact: The real estate Figure 20: Number of Sites Returned impact was negligible in all but vs. the Area they Represent ■ Percentage of total Mainz—Kaiserslautern and Gießen Source:80% Statistical Annex were only reduced. In Mainz, how- sites returned ■ Percentage of total ever, the closure of the depot—like 70% the closure of any large manufac- acres reduced turing plant—had a negative effect on the local real estate market. In addi- 60% tion to problems in selling the actual site, interest in the land around the 50% industrial site remains depressed due to questions about the future of 40% the depot (see Mainz case study).

Reuse potential: The reuse poten- 30% tial for depots is deceiving. Since they are modern industrial sites that 20% could employ thousands, local authorities usually have high hopes 10% for conversion; as officials in Mainz found out, however, making a 0% military-specific industrial site com Barracks TrainingTraining AreasAir baseBase Housing Areas main sites 40 B.I.C.C impact on the German economy

taken from closing communities and given to those that remain“ (USAREUR/PA, 1993, p.25). For instance, the United States removed the seats from Hahn Air Base’s theater when it closed (Public Relations official, Flughafen Hahn, interview, 8 December 1994), and took the bowling pins when the bowling alley at Bitburg Air Base closed (Mayor of Bitburg, interview, 19 January 1995).

Communication Facilities ▼ These sites are common, usually near family housing units, barracks, small, isolated radio control towers The Hahn American High School or airfields. The larger sites were or transmitters. Like depots, all com- will house part of Rhineland- located away from troop concentra- munications facilities are not iso- Palatinates new Academy. tions in some of Germany’s most lated sites—many are located on air- popular tourist areas, such as fields, barracks, etc. From 1991 to Market impact: The closure of Garmisch in the and on Lake 1995, the United States closed 30 of ammunition sites located near urban Chiemsee in Bavaria. its 62 communication sites. centers have a generally negative affect on the real estate market. The Size: Combined, all independent sites are often contaminated and not recreational sites covered 1,452 Hospitals easily reused for civilian storage acres (588 hectares) in 1991. (i.e., many of them are heavily rein- The US military operates an Air forced and underground). Even in Personnel: Combined employment Force and Army hospital network instances where contamination is was 1,063 in 1991. located near troop concentration not a problem it is very difficult to points. From 1991 to 1995, the overcome local fears to the contrary. Restructuring: From 1991 to 1995, United States closed 11 of its 15 The more isolated sites, however, the United States closed 14 sites (50 independent hospitals. However, it impact the real estate market less as percent reduction), returned 541 still operates other significant medi- those areas are not being developed. acres (219 hectares, 37 percent cal facilities on barracks and Air reduction), and eliminated 1,000 Base main sites. Reuse potential: Ammunition stor- authorized positions (95 percent age facilities have almost no reuse reduction). Others potential. Even demolishing these concrete reinforced facilities requires Market impact: The return of these This vague category groups together millions (Bundesvermögensamt sites nearly always has a positive installations that do not fit into Kassel official, interview, 4 November affect on the real estate market due another standardized group. It 1994; Stadt Mainz conversion offi- to their location in urban and tourist includes warehouses, military cial, interview, 8 December 1994). locations and the obvious develop- schools, chapels, Army Air Defense ment opportunities they create. sites, and a small number of special However, isolated sports fields may Recreation Areas facilities, such as the US Army not be in high demand. Schwanheim Calibration Laboratory These sites are dedicated to the in the Höchst Area of the Frankfurt recreation of the members of the US Reuse potential: These sites have Military Community, the Bremer- Forces. They vary significantly, and perfect reuse potential for exactly haven Dock Area, and the Rheinau may include the following: officers’ what they were used for by the US Coal Port. clubs, athletic fields, girl scout forces. A bowling alley remains a camps, golf courses, and ski lifts. bowling alley, a stays a hotel. Not all recreational areas are iso- The ease of conversion depends on lated sites; many are incorporated the amount of equipment the United ▼ ▼ States leaves behind. Unfortunately Next page: into other sites such as family Sign of the times. housing units and barracks. for German civil authorities, US policy advocates removal of equip- The once highly controversial ment: „To improve remaining cruise missile facility at Location: In 1991 the United States Hahn Air Base is scheduled operated 27 recreational sites. Many recreational facilities after drawdown is complete, equipment is being now to become part of the smaller sites were located of an 18-hole golf course. B.I.C.C 41 report 4 june 95 Closing, Returning, and Converting US Bases

42 B.I.C.C closing, returning, converting

B.I.C.C 43 report 4 june 95

The Decision Process Weighted criteria for selecting he closure and conversion of US foreign countries (US Congress, US overseas bases Tmilitary bases is neither simple House,1993). However, the language for closure nor automatic. Rather, a significant was eventually weakened to merely number of regulations, on both the require DoD to consider foreign ■ The nature of the threat. US and the German sides, affect this bases when making its domestic ■ The geographical location of often complicated process. This base closure decisions (National the installation (optimum to chapter provides details on the Defense Authorization Act for support assigned mission, method used by the United States to Fiscal Year 1994, 1993). proximity to threat, determine which bases to close, the DoD already endeavors to coordi- proximity to transportation negotiations between US and nate the two efforts. The announce- assets) German authorities, and the land ■ ment of each of the two most recent The number and types of disposal procedure applied by the domestic base closure lists was forces stationed and their German government. logistical support accompanied by a nearly simulta- ■ neous announcement of substantial The existing facility inven- Closing a US Base in overseas closures, perhaps to under- tory with special interest Germany mine domestic public suspicions upon the flexibility to that overseas bases were not being support current/probable Selected sites, based on weighted closed. Further linking the two future missions, on the age criteria, are nominated for closure processes, however, may have the and condition of buildings by the Unified Commanders with unexpected effect of slowing the and infrastructure, on the geographical responsibility, in overseas closure process. Under the recurring costs of the instal- Germany’s case the European current system, most overseas facili- lation and on the local area Unified Commander. DoD then ties are returned to the host country support (utilities, security, seeks input from the military serv- political opposition). within a year of the closure announce- ■ ices, defense agencies, and other ment. This is four times as fast as the Agreements with the host relevant government agencies domestic closure process, which nation including any relevant regarding alternative uses. Once the averages more than four years. treaties or limits on numbers list of sites has been approved by and types of forces and the Unified Commanders, it is trans- weapons deployed in the mitted to the Joint Staff—the highest An Inclusive or country. non-civilian military authority (Vest, Exclusive Process? 1994). Source: Vest, 1994, p.3 In the early stages of the US military The Joint Staff consults with various drawdown in Germany (1990 to DoD components, the National early1991), the German civil author- Security Agency, the US State ities were invited to provide input US commanders. Thus, the state Department, and the German concerning the path of the US mili- requested that the United States Government. Taking into considera- tary realignment strategy. The close primarily installations in tion the comments and requests United States attempted to take densely populated and highly made by these organizations, the those views into account. However, industrialized urban areas along the final version of the list is drafted and as the withdrawal process became river Rhine and river Mosel axis sent to the Secretary of Defense for more intense during 1991–1993, (e.g., Mainz) but keep open the sites approval. Following that approval, most of the German requests located in rural and underdeveloped Congress, host governments and the became impossible to meet. areas of the state (e.g., Bitburg, media are notified (Vest, 1994). Pirmasens, Baumholder). The case of the state government of Unlike the multi-tiered commission Rhineland-Palatinate exemplifies Initially, the US commanders process required for domestic base this situation (Rheinland-Pfalz, responded positively to the request closures (BRAC, 1993), the US Ministerium für Wirtschaft und by making early reductions at Mainz Department of Defense maintains Verkehr conversion official, inter- Military Community and Hahn Air complete authority over the foreign view, 15 December 1994; Rheinland- Base (Vest, 1994). Nevertheless, as base closure process. This has to a Pfalz state conversion clearinghouse the speed and scope of the with- large extent de-politicized the for- official, interview, 15 December drawal increased, the US regional eign base closure process. The US 1994). In 1989–90, Rhineland- planning staff came under severe Congress did make an attempt to Palatinate conducted a comparative pressure to make additional, more link the foreign and domestic base analysis of the area’s US installations aggressive reductions. Rhineland- closure processes by requiring DoD and recommended a selective re- Palatinate’s priorities became incon- to make 25 percent of all closures in alignment strategy to the sequential as the United States was 44 B.I.C.C closing, returning, converting

forced to close bases in both devel- Despite their inability to adequately space at the on-base American oped regions, like Mainz, and consult local authorities or in some high school (former Director of undeveloped regions, like Bitburg. cases delay closures, the US military Host Nation Relations, Hahn Air authorities assisted in easing the Base, interview, 8 December The US withdrawal accelerated transition in other important ways. 1994). during the early 1990s; the United US military and civil authorities ■ As US contracts began decreas- States began announcing additional assisted the German civil authorities ing, the headquarters of the closures on an average of one every by arranging shared-use agreements, Mainz Military Community open- two months during late 1992 and on-site inspections, and even finan- ly encouraged the conversion throughout 1993. As a result, instal- cial compensation for the Germans efforts of the private German lations were told of the US with- laid off by the closure. company operating the US drawal only weeks before the Mainz Military Depot. The two public was informed. The hurried As standard procedure, the US com- most significant areas of assi- pace of the withdrawal did not mand provided detailed information stance included selling the allow sufficient time for the United regarding the particular installations, depot’s equipment to the com- States to adequately consult local their size, function and condition. pany under highly favorable authorities. In many cases, US The inspection of the sites was terms and providing a transition public relations offices struggled to allowed; permission was granted for assistance package of DM 60 keep pace. For instance, both German experts to assess possible million for the 5,700 displaced Bitburg and Hahn Air Bases are cur- contamination on the installation German workers (Mainzer rently listed as reduced sites despite while it was still under operation. In Rhein-Zeitung, 10 September the fact that they have been reduced most other sites, the United States 1992). to zero. was willing to provide additional ■ At Finthen Army Airfield in transition assistance where possible Mainz, a civil air club had been In none of the cases reviewed were and where local interest existed. allowed access to the runway of the German civil authorities able to The following are specific examples Finthen Airfield for years stop or reverse the US decision to of such site-by-site arrangements: (Luftfahrtverein-Mainz director, withdraw. In some limited cases, interview, 26 April 1995). such as Bitburg (described in the ■ Hahn Air Base command allow- Hahn Case Study), German officials ed the airstrip and several buil- The high degree of cooperation were able to delay closure. dings on the Air Base to be co- between the base commanders Conversely, some high-level used by a civil charter airline. and the local communities reflects requests to delay closure were The base commander also allow- the positive relationship enjoyed denied, as in the case of the Mainz ed German school classes to be between most bases and their host Army Depot and the Fulda Military settled provisionally in excess communities. According to inter- Community (described in the case views with local citizens, American studies). service personnel were usually viewed as a positive part of the local Figure 21: neighborhood. Ironically, this posi- Cumulative Number of tive relationship has fostered a more cooperative transition than is pre- US Overseas Sites Returned sent in many of the United States’ Sites returned to date domestic closures, where negotia- Source: USEUCOM, Rounds 1 - 18 tions may deteriorate into bitter court battles (Cynkar, et al., 1993). 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1000 Post-Closure US- 900 German Negotiations 800 When the United States decides to 700 return a facility, it must conduct 600 negotiations with the German government along two lines—com- 500 pensation for buildings and envi- 400 ronmental clean-up. 300 200 100 0 B.I.C.C 45 report 4 june 95

Residual Value buildings. On most real estate, $62 million, in exchange for build- the value of the buildings appre- ings returned at Rhein-Main Air Negotiations ciates the value of the land Base (GAO, 1994a). beyond the construction costs, Although the US military does not but military bases are an excep- According to the GAO, the US mili- own the land at its German military tion. For instance, the construc- tary hopes to continue focusing on facilities, it did construct and im- tion of reinforced F-16 fighter PIK agreements in future negotia- prove many of the buildings at those shelters on Hahn Air Base was tions with Germany. Nevertheless facilities. Since improvements can costly, but they retain little or no the US Congress, favoring cash settle- significantly increase the site’s land market value as the planes have ments, has restricted the types of value, the United States is eager departed (see Hahn Case study). PIK agreements available and has to seek some compensation for In Hahn, the shelters will have to placed bureaucratic hurdles in the the infrastructure improvements it be demolished in order to devel- way of approval, thus delaying the financed. The final compensation op the site for civil purposes. negotiation process (representative agreement is called the site’s Although it has not yet occurred, of the USAREUR Director of Real residual value (GAO, 1994a). theoretically the expenses result- Estate, phone interview, 30 October ing from the demolition of for- 1994). The potential residual value for mer military infrastructure could returned military installations in be posted as negative residual Environmental Germany is considerable. A June value, causing the Bundesver- 1994 report by the US General mögensamt—the regional Clean-up Accounting Office (GAO, 1994a) branch of the German federal estimated the total residual value of Finance Ministry, which is res- The residual value of former US returned sites in Germany to be US ponsible for the disposal of military installations in Germany $3.4 billion (out of a total of US $3.8 returned US base property—to will be offset to some extent by the billion in Europe). However, the ask the United States for financial costs of their environmental clean- GAO report voiced explicit skepti- compensation (Bundesvermö- up. Both German and US govern- cism over whether the United States gensamt Kassel official, inter- ment policies require the United can expect to receive such a large view, 4 November 1994). States to clean all contamination at monetary compensation, as the the facilities for which it is respon- United States and Germany inde- To date, the United States has sible and to return the land in the pendently calculate the residual received only US $3 million in cash same condition it was found. Such value of the capital improvements from Germany for a small number mutual agreement rests on the made to the property. These inde- of properties returned before 1991. NATO statutes governing the station- pendent calculations rarely agree. Unable to negotiate additional ing of foreign troop contingents in Differences in value occur in two satisfactory cash-settlements with Allied countries (Wegman and predictable areas. Germany, the US military turned to Bailey, 1994). In some cases where the United States took over an ■ payment in-kind (PIK). Under PIK The difference between uncom- agreements, the German govern- existing military facility after World pensated day-to-day mainte- ment finances necessary military War II, it has been impossible to nance and compensated capital construction projects within determine the exact cause of all improvements. While the Germany instead of paying in cash. contamination on the site. German government will pay for Germany favors these agreements capital improvements to the land because they create jobs for German There are two options for fulfilling it receives, it will not pay for workers and preclude the need for the legal requirements: (1) the ordinary, mandatory mainte- future residual value negotiations if United States may clean the contami- nance. Many of the capital that site closes. DoD also prefers nation, and (2) the German govern- improvements claimed by the these agreements as they allow the ment may clean the site and deduct United States, such as new roofs completion of projects that may the cost from its agreed-upon resi- or modern plumbing, are con- have otherwise been unaffordable dual value. The second option is sidered to be mandatory daily (GAO, 1994a). preferred by both governments in maintenance by German audi- By April 1993, the US negotiators had areas of low-level environmental tors (Bundesvermögensamt concluded PIK agreements totaling contamination (Wegman and Bailey, Kassel official, interview, 4 US $197.7 million for construction 1994). Conversely, the German November 1994). government requires the US govern- ■ and upgrades at consolidation The difference between the build- points for the US Army and Air ment to clean toxic dumpsites and ing costs and the current market Force. In the largest PIK settlement, other highly polluted areas before value for the building. the German government agreed to returning the site (Bundesvermö- Buildings have two values—the finance several construction projects gensamt Kassel official, interview, cost of construction and the mar- at Ramstein Air Base, totaling US 4 November 1994). ket value of the land with those

46 B.I.C.C closing, returning, converting

The value of former military installa- The German Base ■ Non-military federal agencies tions has become a complicated have the next opportunity to issue for the German federal Disposal Process request parts of closing bases. Bundesvermögensamt and public or Once the US Forces vacate bases, For instance, the national private parties interested in pur- the sites are officially returned to the German telephone company, chasing individual sites. Although German Government through the Deutsche Telekom, claimed one the German national government regional offices of the building on the now-closed Lee attempts to minimize the price it Bundesvermögensamt, which are Barracks in Mainz (author’s must pay the United States for a responsible for administering all visual inspection). As a result, closed military facility, it also hopes federal property within the region. that component of the base was to maximize the amount it receives With regard to returned US military immediately converted, while through a third-party sale. bases, that responsibility includes the rest of the facility continued Like the United States during the providing security and maintenance, through the land disposal pro- residual value negotiations, the cess. documenting the facilities and con- ■ German national government has dition—including environmental State-level government agencies found that no one is prepared to contamination—and calculating the have the next chance to pur- pay a high price for most closed US residual value of the buildings and chase land at a closed base. For bases. In most cases, the national the technical infrastructure. In theory, example, the state of Hesse has government is forced to lower its the sites are not be re-incorporated decided to purchase a large part asking price for the land significant- into the Federal Treasury until the of the closed Downs Barracks in ly to make a sale (HLT officials, US negotiations are completed, Fulda for use as a new regional interview, 10 November 1994; Stadt but in practice, the conversion pro- police headquarters and a new Mainz conversion official, interview, cess is not significantly delayed by office of development and agri- 8 December 1994; Stadt Fulda con- culture (see the Fulda case study). the slow pace of US-German nego- ■ version official, interview, 21 tiations. Aware that an agreement City-level government is the final negotiation process October 1994). The negotiation pro- will eventually be reached, the public authority to receive an cess may last years, stalling conver- Bundesvermögensamt converts the opportunity to purchase closed sion needlessly. For example, the site as quickly as possible. US facilities. Although cost is national government initially offered often a major problem, many Hahn Air Base for a price of DM 360 Once the Bundesvermögensamt cities attempt to purchase facili- million (former Director of Host receives the site, a specific land dis- ties in order to guide the Nation Relations, Hahn Air Base, posal process—similar to the one in redevelopment effort. For interview, 8 December 1994). the United States—is automatically instance, the city of Mainz has Almost two years later, it was forced triggered (Nordrhein-Westfalen, voiced its intention to purchase to sell the property for DM 30 mil- 1995). Priority for purchasing the all of the closed Finthen Army lion—with an option of another DM land observes the following pro- Airfield site in the hope of 7 million if the planned conversion gression: redeveloping it into a large project is ultimately successful housing complex. The city of (Rheinland-Pfalz, Ministerium für ■ The German military forces may Fulda also considered purchasing Wirtschaft, Verkehr, Landwirtschaft claim sites or parts of sites. For large parts of the former Downs und Weinbau, 1995). During a poten- instance, the German military Barracks, but eventually decided tially damaging winter, the site lay claimed the massive closed US it could not afford it (see the vacant (see the Hahn Case Study). Wildflecken Training Range for respective case studies). its own use (Wildflecken city Hahn is not alone. In both other official, phone interview, 19 Finally, the remaining land is made case studies, the government will be April 1995). available for purchase by private forced to significantly lower the ■ Next, the Bundesvermögensamt investors. For instance, at Bitburg price of facilities to attract interest. evaluates the legitimacy of Air Base, the Bundesvermögensamt Nonetheless, the German national any third-party claims of land is accepting private offers for the government may have solved the ownership. The largest example facility (Trier Bundesvermögensamt problem by implementing a more of disputed ownership has official, interview, 19 January 1995). flexible pricing mechanism in 1994, developed over the US sites as evidenced by the recent sales of initially seized by the German ▼ ▼ Hahn Air Base and Lee Barracks. As Reichswehr before World War II. Next page: this is the largest short-term obstacle An association representing An aerial view of the Fulda to successful conversion, the govern- many of the affected cities is cur- Military Community at the ment’s attempt to solve it is encour- rently challenging the 9 October 1993 closure ceremony aging. Bundesvermögensamt’s ruling shows Sickels Airfield in the that ownership of this land foreground,Downs Barracks remains with the federal govern- beyond the fields, and the city of ment (see the Fulda case study). Fulda in the background. B.I.C.C 47 report 4 june 95 Case Studies

This section of the report will show how three particular communities have responded to the closure of a large neigh- boring military facility. These cases were specifically chosen to provide a broad view of different facility types and local approaches to conversion, as indicated in Table 6. 48 B.I.C.C case studies

B.I.C.C 49 report 4 june 95

Fulda Military its occupation zone. To maintain Community order, it took over operation of the former German military facility, called the Ludendorff Kaserne, Background located near Fulda’s city center. The Unless otherwise noted, all data in the Fulda United States’ role changed quickly, case study, including cited articles, was verified through the authors’ on-site in- The city of Fulda is located in the however, with the formal partitioning spection and through personal interviews with of Germany. the following individuals: Bundesvermögensamt central-eastern section of the Kassel official, 4 November 1994; Stadt Fulda German state of Hesse. Fulda lies in conversion official, 21 October 1994 and 27 the gap formed by the Rhön and April 1995; officials of HLT Gesellschaft für The Cold War created a very tense mountains. With a popu- Forschung Planung Entwicklung mbH, 10 situation at the border between November 1994. lation of 60,000, Fulda is the urban eastern and western Germany. center for the largely rural region of Suspicion of a possible invasion Eastern Hesse, less than 20 miles (30 led to significant troop build-ups kilometers) from the former border on each side of the border by the of East Germany. United States and the Soviet Union. During that time, the role of the Since World War II, the United States Fulda Military Community contin- maintained a strong permanent ued to grow. In size, the barracks Table 6 presence in Fulda. Initially, the US spread well beyond the original Sources: Statistical Annex; Forces moved into Fulda as part of visual inspection by author. boundaries of the Ludendorff Kaserne, and an airfield was built at another site within the city. In Fulda Mainz Hahn importance, Fulda became the US Facility types headquarters for monitoring and patrolling the 385-kilometer border Barracks ● between West and East Germany, with a special focus on the strategi- Depot ● cally important Fulda Gap. Housing ●●●Fulda’s military importance appeared to vanish on 3 October 1990 upon Training the reunification of Germany, which Army Airfield ●● eliminated the border defended by US troops for 45 years. Fulda pro- Air Base main site ● vided a dramatic illustration of the complete restructuring the end of ●●● Storage site the Cold War would require for the US military forces in Germany. Two Arsenal ●●● years after reunification, the prin- School ●●ciple mission of the more than 5,000 US soldiers in the Fulda Military Communication ●●●Community had become patrolling an open border (DoD/OASD, 1994). Retail ●● ● The US presence would not last. Hospital Early in 1991, the United States Leadership announced the closure of its Fulda Border Observation Posts (Vest, City Government ● 1994). By the summer of 1993, the US European Command decided State Government ● to close all three major locations of the Fulda Military Community and National Gov’t. ● return the sites to the German Location government. The last American sol- diers left Fulda just one year later in Urban ● the summer of 1994. Suburban ● Rural ●

50 B.I.C.C Fulda Military Community

Community Response ■ Fulda requested the state-owned the success of Fulda’s conversion real estate and development effort will ultimately hinge on its Unlike other urban regions within consulting company Hessische ability to convert them. Europe, Fulda’s community leaders Landesentwicklungs encouraged the United States to Treuhandgesellschaft (HLT) to Downs Barracks and remain. The community actually conduct an appraisal of the clo- mounted a campaign to save the sure sites. HLT’s recommend- Family Housing base, similar to efforts by American ations provided more guidance Complex communities (Stadt Fulda, 1994; to the federal authorities charged Cunningham, 1993). A local delega- with attracting investment. Fulda The Facility tion visited in also surveyed its inhabitants on As Downs Barracks was the com- hoping to reverse the their views of the future role of mand and cultural center of the decision to close the Fulda Military the former base (the results of Fulda Military Community, it pro- Community. Fulda used many of the the survey are not yet known). vided a wide range of services for same arguments US communities the military families stationed at use in defending local military Historical events also helped Fulda Fulda— family housing units, a bases—the excellent condition of retain control of the facilities (HLT, large parade ground, numerous facilities and military-friendly dispo- 1994b). Fulda never sold the area administration buildings including sition of its citizens (Stadt Fulda, that became Sickels Air Field to the facility headquarters, troop dormito- 1994). As is usually true in the case federal government. Instead, it ries, a car pool, a school, a bank, a of American communities, Fulda leased the site to the German federal gasoline station, officers and enlisted government through a special con- waged its campaign to save the base clubs, a fitness center, a cinema, a Downs Barracks in vain. The United States had already tract. The national government, in bowling center, a hospital, sports decided to withdraw from the old turn, sublet the land to the US Army. fields, and a firing range. border and concentrate its troops Thus, the title to the actual land is near its Air Bases in the region where retained by Fulda (see the Sickels The age of the facilities varies. The the Main and Rhine rivers join. Air Field section for details). parade grounds, a number of admin- istration buildings, and dormitories Once the community’s leaders real- Scope of Facilities on Downs Barracks constituted the ized the decision was final, Fulda Ludendorff Kaserne before it was turned its attention toward mitigating taken from the German military The Fulda Military Community, like the closure’s negative economic during World War II. The rest of the most US Army bases in Germany, is impacts. Although primary respon- buildings were constructed after spread over a number self-contained sibility for marketing the base lies 1945. The buildings, the waste dis- sites; it consists of 26 independent with the German federal govern- posal system, and the traffic infra- facilities spread throughout the ment, the city has remained very structure of Downs Barracks were city of Fulda and two neighboring active in the redevelopment pro- all produced to German standards communities, to the cess. Fulda has attempted in a num- and are considered to be in excel- north and to the ber of ways to ensure that its con- lent condition (HLT, 1994b). The south. Two of the Military cerns regarding the conversion pro- installation even has a rail connec- Community’s primary facilities— cess are considered. tion to Germany’s national rail Downs Barracks and Sickels system (the Deutsche Bundesbahn). Airfield—are located within the city ■ Fulda, along with other German of Fulda. The third, McPheeters communities, has challenged the German-US Negotiations Barracks, is located in Bad Hersfeld. federal government’s claim to the Residual value negotiations have area of the former Ludendorff not yet begun, but they promise to Downs Barracks and Sickels Airfield Kaserne (see the Downs be very complicated (Vest, 1994). represent more than 70 percent of Barracks section for details). The buildings on Downs Barracks the total employment lost due to the ■ Fulda considered declaring parts fall into one of three differently closure of the Military Community. of Downs Barracks an emergency handled categories (HLT, 1994b) In the community of Fulda, these development zone or using that combine to result in an initial two facilities accounted for 99 per- relevant paragraphs of the German residual value claim of US $42.9 mil- cent of the troop presence and 73 Construction Code to exert its lion (Vest, 1994). percent of the land holdings of the authority. Qualifying for such US military. The Downs Family status at closed military facilities ■ Several of the troop dormitories Housing Complex, adjacent to would allow the community to and administrative buildings in Downs Barracks, occupied an addi- control the type of development heart of the complex were built tional 26 acres (10.5 hectares) at the site by providing a pre- as part of the Ludendorff (Statistical Annex). Due to the size emptive purchase right over all Kaserne prior to World War II. and importance of these facilities, areas of the zone (see the Downs Since these buildings were built Barracks section for details). by the Germans, the United B.I.C.C 51 report 4 june 95

States cannot make any residual The environmental contamination at German government has been value claims on the original Downs Barracks, consisting primar- responsible for securing and main- structures. However, it may claim ily of fuel and automotive lubricants, taining the facility during conversion compensation for any capital is typical for this type of the facility. planning. improvements it financed. The US European Command estimates German government tends to that environmental clean-up for the The rapid conversion of Downs view such improvements as Fulda Military Community as a whole Barracks to civilian use would bene- necessary maintenance and, will cost between US $250,000 and fit everyone involved. The German thus, not covered in residual $1,000,000 (Schmidt-Eenboom, government could stop paying the value calculations. 1992). In cases where neither high costs of maintaining an aban- ■ Many of the buildings at Downs German nor US officials consider doned facility. Fulda could begin Barracks were built by the the environmental contamination building its local tax base and United States between 1945 and serious, they have agreed that the replacing the positive economic 1955. These buildings, including host government will deduct the stimulus of the large US presence. most of Downs Barracks Family environmental clean-up costs from The 538 displaced German workers Housing units, were built using their final residual value payments could have an opportunity to find German reparation fees paid to (Wegman and Bailey, 1994). new jobs on the converted facility the US Forces after World War II. (Statistical Annex). The German government claims Land Disposal ownership of these buildings. It Fulda has joined forces with other As the first step in land disposal, the is unclear if the United States German cities through the Städtetag, German federal government has will challenge that claim in its or national mayor’s association, to waved its right to claim parts of the residual value negotiations. As challenge the federal government’s Downs Barracks. The Bundesver- with the old Ludendorff Kaserne, claim to ownership over the former mögensamt has therefore parceled it may claim the value of any German barracks. In 1937, the the base into a number of individual capital improvement it made to German military required Fulda to sites for sale to public or private these buildings since 1955 (Vest, cede land for use as the Ludendorff investors. 1994). Kaserne. After the war, the Allied ■ After 1955, the United States built Forces took de facto control of The Bundesvermögensamt’s additional structures financed many such bases. In the agreement generous projections of DM 60–100 entirely with American dollars. between the new West German million in revenue from property The United States will claim the government and the United States sales at Down Barracks may not be present value of these facilities that formalized the terms of the US overly optimistic. The HLT’s analysis (Vest, 1994). Germany, however, bases in Germany,the German revealed that the barracks complex may argue that some of the government claimed ownership of profits from a number of develop- buildings have less value for the land it leased to the US military ment advantages, including a civilian uses. For example, an for an undetermined amount of time convenient location near Fulda’s ammunition storage site may for defense purposes. city center, modern, excellently cost millions to build, but is maintained facilities, and a natural useless for any other purpose. Recently, as the Allied Forces return balance of residential and commer- facilities seized before the war, the cial buildings. Two additional factors will tend to communities wish to recover the counterbalance the United States’ land. Arguing that the cities should Consequently, a number of invest- legitimate claims for residual value. regain ownership of land ceded ors have shown interest in the facil- First, the United States is required to before World War II, the Städtetag ity. One interested party is the return the facilities in the same con- has filed a lawsuit against the Hesse state government—next in dition as they were received. This federal government. Fulda and line after the federal government. It obligation is irrelevant in the many the other communities are arguing plans to re-locate the regional police cases where the buildings are con- that the Bundesrepublik seized the headquarters, establish an office of sidered an improvement to the land in the same way the German development and agriculture, and property, but in other cases where military did in 1938. The court has move other utility-related offices to the structures have no civilian use, not yet rendered a decision on this Downs Barracks. The exact offices Germany may seek to deduct the claim. to be located in Fulda and the facili- demolition costs from the United ties required are currently under States’ residual value claims (i.e., the Redevelopment negotiation. large asphalt-covered car pool and Despite the lawsuit, the German tank garages). Second, the United federal government took control of As the final public entity entitled to States is required to pay for clean-up Downs Barracks—with the support purchase land, Fulda has not made of its environmental contamination of the city—following the departure public any intentions of retaining (NATO, 1949). of the US troops in the summer of parts of the barracks for city offices. 1994. As the facilities’ caretaker, the Nevertheless, Fulda has not ceded

52 B.I.C.C Fulda Military Community

all of its rights to the future develop- ment of the facility. As mentioned above, Fulda may reserve the right to purchase the land to block certain investors by declaring parts of Downs Barracks an emergency development zone, or ‘Sanierungs- gebiet.’

In addition to the public interest in Downs Barracks, a number of private investors have already voiced interest in various parts of the facil- ity, and some small firms have already moved onto the site on a rent-to- own basis called ‘Verkaufsoptions- verträge.’ In most cases, the private investment closely matches the mili- tary equivalent for each site. Thus, the old officers’ club may become a discotheque, the base chapel will become a Protestant church, the fuel reserve tanks may be converted for use by a petroleum trading com- pany, and even the tank garages may be converted for the storage of construction machinery. In a more unusual case, the German Red Cross’ orchestra hopes to use one of the troop dormitories as an exercise facility.

Additionally, the Bundesvermögens- amt has reached an agreement on all 290 residential units at Downs Barracks Family Housing. A group of private investors has agreed to purchase the entire lot for DM 23.5 million. Renovation is already well underway and some families have already moved onto the site. ▼ Cold War scars. Miles of barbed-wire fence, like this row at Downs Barracks, are one of the more visible obstacles to conversion. B.I.C.C 53 report 4 june 95

While most areas of the facility purchasing the facility would have enjoy some investment interest, the required Fulda to pay more than recreational areas have not. Of a DM 50 million, conduct environ- number of athletic fields and facil- mental clean-up negotiations with ities, only the tennis courts are the German government, and devel- rented by the local tennis club for a op a base-marketing plan. nominal price. The Bundesvermö- gensamt will integrate the street Second, Fulda could have super- infrastructure of Downs Barracks vised the Bundesvermögensamt’s into Fulda’s existing network. negotiations by declaring the facility Consequently, the city has already an emergency development zone, established several bus stops con- as mentioned earlier. However, this venient to the facility. Even the dis- strategy also contained substantial puted ownership lawsuit is not costs. As in the former option, it impeding conversion. Fulda has would have required Fulda to create agreed to let the Bundesvermögens- a special ‘Rahmenplan,’ or exact amt market and sell the disputed site-by-site description of the parcels. In turn, the German govern- development to occur. What might ment has agreed to re-pay any profit be a simple re-zoning effort in some from the sale of disputed land (less countries is significantly more the value of the buildings) if Fulda cumbersome in Germany. Cutting wins the case. through the bureaucratic red tape may take months or years if These efforts to redevelop Downs environmental groups or neigh- Barracks are showing impressive boring interests object. results. The Bundesvermögensamt already estimates that the businesses After considering the costs, the moving onto the barracks will create regional recession, and the local 250-300 new jobs. This alone would demands for swift redevelopment, replace half of the local jobs lost the Fulda City Council voted for a when the barracks closed. cooperative strategy led by the Bundesvermögensamt. At the same Additional Perspectives time, however, Fulda has not elimi- Based on its analysis, HLT suggested nated the possibility of declaring facility. Downs benefits from a num- a different route for Fulda. HLT parts of the barracks an emergency ber of natural advantages that cannot recommended that Fulda develop development zone as a potential simply be re-created at every closing the entire facility into a new neigh- future option. In another attempt to base. Facilities that lack Downs’ borhood within Fulda. Like other influence the development, Fulda excellent condition, marketable neighborhoods, it already contains claims that articles 34 and 35 of the buildings, and good location will housing, commercial and recrea- German Construction Code already find redevelopment more difficult. tional sub-sectors. This plan would provides the city with the right to allow Fulda to better target and control development within its define the future of the site and, in boundaries. Sickels Airfield effect, its city. HLT suggested that The Facility Fulda consider marketing the facility Conclusion Sickels Airfield was a 180-acre US as a regional conference center for Fulda chose against developing an Army helicopter airfield situated in academic and business institutions entirely new neighborhood by itself the western-most part of Fulda, just (HLT, 1994b). in favor of a less glamorous but south of Downs Barracks. The facil- more practical approach to convert- ity is dominated by a 670 by 21 Fulda could have implemented this ing Downs Barracks. By allowing meter airstrip. The buildings on strategy in one of two ways. First, the Bundesvermögensamt to market Sickels include an air traffic tower the city could have purchased the the facility immediately, Fulda will attached to an administration build- entire facility from thefederal govern- have a fully redeveloped barracks in ing, two hangers with garages and ment. However, the costs of this a relatively short amount of time. storage spaces, some living quarters option were prohibitively high— with social facilities, a car pool, and The quantity of private sector inter- four fuel tanks with a total capacity est in the base suggests that Downs of 300,000 liters. Sickels has an Barracks was a diamond in the emergency electrical generator but rough—the passive approach to used the city’s electrical service for conversion will not work on every normal daily operations.

54 B.I.C.C

Fulda Military Community ▼

German-US Negotiations the United States and Germany may Diamond in the rough. The pic- The German government rented the disagree on the residual value of turesque Ludendorff Kaserne site for Sickels from Fulda in 1954 Sickels. Since the United States built section of Downs Barracks has and sublet it to the US Army for use and paid for the entire facility, it has attracted a number of public as a helicopter airfield. Since all of estimated the site’s residual value to and private investors. the buildings on the site were con- be US $15.3 million (Vest, 1994). structed by the United States after While the German government 1955, it will have some valid resid- agrees that the site has value, it ual value claims. The German estimates the market value of Sickels government’s estimations are lower, to be near zero or even negative once as it plans to demolish much of the demolition costs are considered. facility. These differences had not yet been resolved when this report was Contamination caused by the facility published. landfill and fuel leaks was judged slight by HLT and the US European The facility’s overall positive condi- Command (HLT, 1994b). Neither is tion caused HLT to publish the fol- expected to delay conversion lowing statement in its final report: efforts. As with other US closure sites, the cost of cleaning the conta- Generally it has to be stated, the mination was factored into the airfield is in excellent condition. residual value negotiations for the If the airfield could be taken site. over with the whole existing infrastructure, it would proba- Although the environmental conta- bly be one of the best installations mination, as with Downs Barracks, of its type in Germany (HLT, is not expected to cause a problem, 1994b, trans. Klemmer, p.22).

B.I.C.C 55 report 4 june 95

Gauging by the facilities’ excellent Facility Redevelopment ■ The project would be too expen- condition, the prospects for Despite the unique ownership sive. Still attempting to recover redevelopment are high, but low circumstances, the Bundesvermö- from a regional recession, Fulda local demand for a helicopter air- gensamt is also responsible for lacked the necessary funds. field or a new regional airport— marketing the facility to investors. ■ The project would require too regardless of condition—temper It offered two possible conversion much time. Fulda would have to those prospects. approaches to Fulda. rezone a large region and create a ‘Rahmenplan;’ the bureaucratic Land Disposal 1. The Bundesvermögensamt could red tape would take years to cut The property disposal process at market the facility to private through, delaying redevelop- Sickels airfield is unusual. The investors. It could try to find an ment. German national government owns investor willing to purchase the ■ The project may have been most of the land at US military entire facility, but a more realistic unfeasible. Unlike Downs bases, but in this case the city of option involved parceling the Barracks, which is located near Fulda rented the land to the German site and selling the individual the city center, Sickels is in a government under a special contract lots. Any profits would be split slightly more rural area. known as a ‘Gestattungsvertrag.’ between the city and national Commercial rezoning of the area Through this contract, Fulda governments. could meet with insurmountable allowed the national government to opposition from neighboring negotiate with US Forces to con- 2. Fulda could purchase the build- land owners and interests fearful struct and maintain an Army airfield ings at Sickels and develop its of the effect rezoning would at the site while retaining ownership own conversion strategy. For have on their quality of life. locally. Consequently, Fulda will not assistance in creating the best have to buy the land back now that plan, Fulda requested aid from As a result, Fulda reached an agree- the base is closing, though it does the HLT. ment with the Kassel Bundesvermö- not own the buildings on the land gensamt on the future of Sickels. (HLT, 1994b). The initial idea was to develop the The living quarters and social facil- site as a new regional airport. As ities will be converted into low- This unusual situation placed the mentioned earlier, the site is among price student housing, and the air regional Bundesvermögensamt in the best of its kind in the country. traffic tower will be retained as a an awkward position. While the However, HLT’s analysis revealed monument in memory of US forces community owned the land at very low demand for a regional air- stationed in Fulda. Unfortunately, Sickels and the United States owned port. Fulda’s proximity to the largest this piece-by-piece marketing the buildings, the Bundesvermö- airport in Europe, Frankfurt Rhein- approach does not guarantee that gensamt was in of negotia- Main, as well as the city’s excellent all portions will be used. The ting with both sides. After conclu- rail connections, dashed any hope Bundesvermögensamt has been ding environmental and residual that Fulda could successfully devel- unable to attract any interest in value negotiations with the US op an airport at Sickels. much of the facility—there seems to Forces, the Bundesvermögensamt be no civilian interest in the runway, had to switch roles and begin the The HLT report analyzed a number rollfield, or car pool under this reuse same negotiations with the commu- of options. A wind-energy park was strategy. nity or local investors. The Bundes- rejected for the same basic reason as vermögensamt attempted to mini- the airport concept. Developing a The Bundesvermögensamt plans to mize the residual value payments to conference center or graveyard eventually demolish any unsold the United States, and the local com- were rated more favorably in the buildings and facilities. Until then, munity did the same in its bargain- report (HLT, 1994b). As an altern- however, the Bundesvermögensamt ing with the Bundesvermögensamt. ative, HLT recommended that Fulda will lease the facilities on short- Throughout these delicate, lengthy purchase the buildings and develop term contracts of one to two years. negotiations, the Bundesvermögens- it as a long-term real estate resource. For instance, a transport company amt paid to maintain and secure This plan would allow Fulda to con- has leased the helicopter hangers the facility despite not owning the trol the development and ensure the for storage of their over-sized buildings or the land. Finally, on most efficient long-term land use vehicles. To develop a concept for 1 March 1995, Fulda accepted (HLT, 1994b). Although purchasing the site’s long-term future, Fulda responsibility for the security and the buildings may have been the conducted a development contest maintenance of Sickels (Stadt Fulda best long-term strategy, the Fulda for Sickels among local architects in conversion official, letter to authors, City Council voted not to purchase 1994. The results will be announced 5 April 1995). the buildings for a number of late in 1995 (Stadt Fulda conversion important reasons. official, letter to authors, 5 April 1995).

56 B.I.C.C

Fulda Military Community Conclusion the site. The Hahn Air Base case ▼ Problems with marketability of an study illustrates the difficulties of Dancing anyone? airstrip, even an excellently main- converting a large, multi-purpose The closed ’s club on tained one in a largely rural region, site. Downs Barracks will become have stalled the conversion of Sickels. Fulda’s newest discotheque Since the costs of demolishing the Sickels could hardly be described as according to German officials. facility are currently too high, Sickels a showcase of conversion success, will remain largely abandoned while but a more ambitious approach to the Bundesvermögensamt focuses developing an unwanted airfield is on the Downs Barracks. also problematic. The Mainz case study of Finthen depicts the prob- There is little compulsion to rush lems of taking a more ambitious the conversion of Sickels in Fulda. approach to converting an Army The ability to redevelop an Army airfield. Military Community piece-by-piece gives them a large advantage over more centralized bases. The new companies moving onto Downs Barracks will be completely unaware that Sickels remains vacant. On an Air Base, on the other hand, where all of the different activities tend to be concentrated on one site, it is much more difficult to successfully redevelop sections without address- ing less-desirable aspects of

B.I.C.C 57 report 4 june 95

Mainz Military facilities were not easily convertible Community to housing units. To be successful, therefore, conversion would require considerable amounts of time and Community Response resources. Aware of these obstacles, Unless otherwise noted, all data in the Mainz Mainz demonstrated its willingness case study, including cited newspaper articles, was verified through the authors’ on-site inspec- The withdrawal of the US forces in to seize the opportunities and face tion and through personal interviews with a the challenges of base closure by Stadt Mainz conversion official, 8 December Mainz was greeted with guarded 1994 and the director of the Mainz-Finthen air enthusiasm. The return of almost initiating and accessing a number of club (Luftfahrtverein-Mainz), 26 April 1995. 1000 acres (405 hectares) of prime development programs: ■ land provided the city with an Mainz immediately expressed its unprecedented chance to overcome intention to purchase a number Background one of its historic deficiencies—a of the US facilities. Negotiations 12,000-person housing shortage with the German government The city of Mainz has a population (Mainzer Allgemeine Zeitung, 8 regarding price and timing of approximately 185,000 and is the September 1994). This opportunity began in 1992. ■ capital of the federal state of led the city to eagerly plan for re- Mainz qualified for state assist- Rhineland-Palatinate. development of the facilities, in ance through the two-year-old Geographically, it is located on the some cases even before the decision Rhineland-Palatinate conversion western fringe of the densely popu- to close them was final. Such an program, which provides finan- lated, highly industrialized plain enthusiastic response to base clo- cial and technical support for created by the junction of the Rhine sure is in marked contrast to the local conversion efforts through- and Main rivers. visceral reaction of many American out the state. Through that pro- communities (Cunningham, 1993). gram, Mainz contracted studies Large numbers of foreign troops of the environmental contamina- have been stationed in Mainz since Mainz’s enthusiasm was tempered tion and ecological importance World War II. For the first five years by two important factors. First, the of several of the US sites following the war, France main- economic impact of the closures (Stadtteil Layenhof, 1994). ■ tained bases in Mainz as part of its was severe—thousands of Germans Mainz successfully applied for occupation zone. The United States lost their jobs when the bases inclusion as one of nine model took over the bases in 1949 when closed. The US Army depot alone cities in a 1994 federal govern- the Bundesrepublik Deutschland was the second largest German ment experimental urbandevel- was established. Mainz became an employer in Mainz and, unlike other opment program, the ‘For- important element of NATO’s strate- US bases, this site provided German schungsprogramm Experimen- gic second line of defense from a workers with high-paying industrial teller Wohnungs-und Städtebau,’ possible invasion from the east. jobs. Finding acceptable re-employ- which provided logistical and The United States also made use of ment for these workers would not financial support for Mainz’s the region’s industrial might by be easy. Second, in most cases the conversion effort. developing a large armored-vehicle ■ Mainz established a provisional, maintenance and repair facility in inter-communal working group Mainz. By 1990, the Mainz Military with the relevant cities to coordi- Community had an authorized nate the development of the endstrength of more than 7,700, facilities that cross city borders. of which more than 3,700 were German nationals (Statistical Annex). Table 8: Mainz Military Nevertheless, sweeping transforma- Community Closure Impacts tions loomed on the horizon. Most Source: Statistical Annex of the military facilities throughout Mainz were made expendable by Community Number of Sites Total Acres Endstrength the end of the Cold War. The first Returned Returned Reductions closures in Mainz were announced in 1990; by the end of 1994, the Heidesheim 1 57 0 United States had completely with- drawn from the city. Ober-Olm 1 160 17 Mainz 10 947 5,428 Rüsselsheim 1 6 217 Wackernheim 1 22 0

58 B.I.C.C Mainz Military Community

Scope of Facilities

Similarly to other US Army Military Communities in Europe, the Mainz Military Community was spread over a number of self-contained sites throughout the neighboring communities of Rüsselsheim, Wackernheim, Ober-Olm, and Heidesheim. However, most of the major closures occurred within the city of Mainz itself.

Of the ten facilities closing, Mainz’s two most ambitious projects include the conversion of the Mainz Military Depot and the redevelopment of Finthen Army Airfield. Finthen Army Airfield

Finthen Airfield is located on the largely undeveloped, western-most edge of Mainz, and small parts of it actually cross the city border into the neighboring communities of Wackernheim and Essenheim. The facility is surrounded by a combina- tion of open fields, the very small Mainz subcommunity of Finthen, and the ecologically sensitive Ober- Olm forest. Although Finthen is less than six miles (ten kilometers) from the Mainz city center, its current access is very limited. One small road passes through the Finthen suburb, and the only other road runs directly through the forest.

The site was initially developed as an airfield in 1939 by the German . Following the airfield’s seizure by the Allied Forces early in 1945, France continued to occupy the site as part of its occupation zone. The United States took over the site in 1959 and built it into a modern military heliport. The United States continued to invest heavily in the facility throughout its life. In 1990, it invested US $26.4 million to construct two state-of-the- art helicopter maintenance hangars, a sum representing almost 20 per- ▼ This anachronistic bus stop is within walking distance to a number of the closed US facilities in the Mainz Military Community. B.I.C.C 59 report 4 june 95

cent of the US Army’s annual mili- countries that previously owned the three-year basis. The two primary tary construction budget for airfield would make determining the tenants are the previously mentioned Germany (Mainzer Rhein-Zeitung, guilty party very difficult and costly air club and a helicopter transport 8 November 1989; Vest, 1994). (Stadtteil Layenhof, 1994). company. Some individual buildings have been rented by private Even that investment could not save Land Disposal companies for storage, and others Finthen. In August 1992, the United The Koblenz Bundesvermögensamt are used by local musicians and States announced that Finthen’s assumed responsibility for Finthen artists (Mainzer Rhein-Zeitung, primary tenant, the 158th Aviation in August of 1993 upon its return by 26–27 February 1994). To round out Regiment, would be withdrawn. the US Army. The costly process of the odd selection of uses, the former Less than one year later, the base securing the facility is one of the Army airfield even hosted an open- was returned to Germany. The small immediate responsibilities of the air rock concert 16 attended by tens radar station and flight surveillance agency.In the case of Finthen, security of thousands of people. Any revenue simulator, still under US control, will costs approximate DM 400,000 a from such operations is used by the be returned in 1995. year (Mainzer Rhein-Zeitung, 26–27 Bundesvermögensamt to offset the February 1994). In an attempt to expenses of securing the facility. Nevertheless, the base was not en- avoid such costs, the Bundesver- tirely vacated when the Americans mögensamt began the property dis- Once it purchases the facility, Mainz left. In a relatively unusual agree- posal process almost a year before has very ambitious plans for ment, the US Army co-used the air- the base officially closed. Finthen. The city leaders hope to field for a number of years before establish an entirely new, model closure with a German civil air club, With the first opportunity to claim suburban neighborhood with Luftfahrtverein-Mainz (Mainzer land on the base, the federal govern- 10,000–15,000 inhabitants. Although Rhein-Zeitung, 5 September 1992). ment retained three apartment this plan will require demolishing After the Army left the base, the air blocks of the former Finthen Family the entire facility and starting from club took over the new hangars and Housing area, made minor reno- scratch, it was supported by the two continued operating the airfield. vations, and began renting them to other communities that hold a small federal employees in June 1994. The share of Finthen. A housing project A visual inspection of the facilities Deutsche Bundespost (the German is attractive to communities for a revealed that, except for the minor postal service) also voiced interest number of reasons: areas still used by the United States in using the airfield as a cargo cen- and the air club, remaining idle for ter. It halted planning, however, ■ The current housing shortage. As more than a year has taken a serious when the city of Mainz opposed it. mentioned earlier, Mainz and its toll on the condition of Finthen. neighbors suffer from a severe Although the newer facilities are still After the state government of shortage of housing. The addi- in excellent condition, the rest of Rhineland-Palatinate renounced its tion of enough units to house up the infrastructure is deteriorating. purchase option, Mainz proceeded to 15,000 people could give with its plans to purchase the entire Mainz a housing surplus for the German-US Negotiations facility. Any hope for a quick, first time since World War II. Although the base had been oper- smooth transfer vanished when the ■ Tax benefits. The federal govern- ated by the German Luftwaffe and two sides disagreed on the price of ment provides city governments the French military, the United States the facility. As negotiations deter- with a portion of the income tax funded the construction of all new iorated, Mainz began preparing it collects each year. The sum facilities. Upon closure, the US legally to declare the site an urban each city receives is based on the Department of Defense calculated development zone (see Down number of people who live the value of improvements to the Barracks in the Fulda case study). there. As a result, attracting facility to be US $8.8 million. However, After conducting negotiations for 10,000–15,000 people increases the German government claims the more than two years and paying to the city’s federal tax return signi- market value of the facility is much secure a mostly abandoned facility ficantly. Additionally, the city less. Upon publication of this report, for over a year, however, the government would receive tax no final residual value agreement Bundesvermögensamt has hinted revenue from all new businesses had been reached (Vest, 1994). that it is willing to compromise on that an increased population is the price. By publication, Mainz city bound attract. The environmental study commis- officials had voiced optimism about sioned by the city of Mainz in 1993 reaching a price settlement. 16 The concert, featuring Rod Stewart, Tina Turner, and others, was held in the summer of showed slight amounts of contami- 1993 over the protests of local farmers. It was nation on Finthen. Mostly limited to Redevelopment largely responsible for raising the DM 180,000 that the German government has recouped surface contamination from a kero- Until it reaches terms with Mainz on from leasing parts of the base. See: Mainzer sene tank and other petroleum the sale of Finthen, the Bundesver- Rhein-Zeitung, 4 May 1993 and 15 May 1993; products, the contamination is not mögensamt is renting space at Allgemeine Zeitung, 5 May 1993 and 11 May considered serious. The number of Finthen to private tenants on a 1993.

60 B.I.C.C

Mainz Military Community ▼ Inherited infrastructure large and small. Above: An aerial view shows Finthen Airfield with the Mainz skyline in the background.

Abandoned office equipment at ▼ the Mainz Army Depot.

B.I.C.C 61 report 4 june 95

■ New jobs. Although a cargo cen- ter or other type of industrial development might have even- tually produced more employ- ment, a new community of this size is bound to create many new jobs, principally in the serv- ice sector. ■ Political popularity. New hous- ing is a common political prom- ise for candidates throughout Germany. Particularly necessary in Mainz, housing development is opposed by comparably few interest groups as compared to other types of development.

These factors created severe obstacles for all other types of development. For example, any plans to establish a civil or regional airport at Finthen were immediately rejected (Mainzer Allgemeine Zeitung, 17 July 1992; Mainzer Rhein-Zeitung, 3 September 1992). The neighboring land owners—tired of the constant noise pollution and worried about the additional traf- fic—bluntly opposed the plan. This problem was clearly illustrated when the German Postal Service considered establishing a large cargo center at Finthen. Although the plan was initially supported by Wackernheim, Mainz’s opposition killed the project. Mainz’s primary argument that such development would have an adverse effect on traffic and congestion rings hol- low—a new community of 15,000 people is bound to have a similar effect on local traffic.

Environmental groups had an entirely different idea for the base (Moseler, 1994). They argued that the base should be demolished and reincorporated into the Ober-Olm Forest. This would nearly double the current area of the forest, which has been shrinking due to develop- ment. Although these groups’ plans did not prevail, they considerably delayed the planning process. ▼

Moving out. US Army trucks preparing to depart the closed Mainz Army Depot. 62 B.I.C.C Mainz Military Community

Currently, environmental groups ■ The nearby Wackernheim will be finished long before and even Mainz’s Landespflegeamt Shooting Range, used jointly by the Layenhof and promises to (the city’s landscaping official) the US Army and the German add 700–1000 affordably priced express skepticism about the future police force, is not scheduled for housing units to Mainz. of any plan for Finthen Airfield. closure. Community officials express hope that the range will Lost momentum. When the project Obstacles also close, but if it does not there began, the political, media, and A new housing plan sounds promis- is a very slim possibility of attrac- public support was extremely high. ing, and politicians find it easy to ting people to a neighborhood Since the project has become bogged support, but a number of over- just over 820 feet (250 meters) down, that support has gradually whelming obstacles will delay the from a shooting range where faded, and the city is now consider- project for years, if not halt it automatic weapons are com- ing delaying the purchase of the entirely. The obstacles to the project, monly used. facility. If support for the project recently named ‘Layenhof,’ include ■ The only two access routes to continues to decay at this rate, it may the following factors. the airfield either run directly just fade away entirely. On the other through the small suburb of hand, support for the project may The scope of the plan. Mainz has Finthen or through the ecologi- rise next year with the international not yet developed a plan for finan- cally sensitive Ober-Olm forest. design contest described earlier. cing the construction of the new city The citizens of Finthen and the or even estimated how much such a community of Ober-Olm have Mainz Air Club Opposition. If project might cost. Several aspects voiced their intention to block possession is nine-tenths of the law, of Layenhof guarantee that the price the necessary upgrades to the the Mainz Air Club could single- will be very high. For example, roads that 15,000 new residents handedly halt the Layenhof project. Mainz’s plan for building houses for would require. Any new road It has mobilized significant commu- 10,000–15,000 people envisions would face similar opposition. nity support for retention of the site applying state-of-the-art construc- as a small civil airport. A petition in tion techniques, building a tram Environmental Concerns. There favor of the airport concept has connection with the city center, and is documented evidence of a wild already received more than 3,700 incorporating ecologically sound bee population and rare plants signatures (Martin Morawek, technologies into the houses. As the on the large, open spaces of the spokesperson for the Flugplatz preliminary step to developing a Finthen Airfield site. Complete re- Mainz Finthen movement, letter to more detailed plan, the German development of the site as a housing authors, 27 April 1995). national government, the state of complex would destroy their current Rhineland-Palatinate, and Mainz natural habitat. The redevelopment Conclusion have agreed to jointly finance a DM could also harm the already shrink- Mainz has blocked the practical plan 710,000 international urban develop- ing Ober-Olm forest (Stadtteil of developing Finthen Airfield into a ment contest from 1995-1996 (the Layenhof, 1994; Mainzer Allgemeine cargo center supported by the national government will pay DM Zeitung, 19 August 1992). German Postal System in pursuit of 390,000, the state DM 260,000, and an ambitious housing plan. Although the city DM 60,000; Mainzer Allge- Questionable demand. Although Layenhof is politically popular, the meine Zeitung, 19 August 1994). Mainz suffers from a serious hous- severe obstacles it faces have already The schedule. While city leaders ing shortage, several projects are delayed the project and may eventu- hope that construction can begin in already underway that may make the ally destroy it. The combined 1998 and that the whole project can Layenhof neighborhood excessive. strength of communities and the German Postal System would have be completed in 2007, such a time- ■ table will prove impossible. The The United States is already in helped to remove those obstacles absence of any detailed plan or the process of returning approxi- had they chosen the former option. funding mechanism, the opposition mately 800 housing units in of environmental groups, and the Mainz, such as the entire Martin At the same time, the site is already sheer size of the project will certain- Luther King Family Housing unit, well suited for a modest cargo cen- ly delay it well into the next century. which was immediately devel- ter or civil airport, but at its current oped as housing. rate of deterioration, it will not be At the same time, Mainz does not ■ even currently own the land. Lee Barracks, located in an exis- usable for much longer. In order to ting developed neighborhood develop a new neighborhood, Two ‘K.O.’ Factors. There are two and already connected to public Mainz will have to spend millions unavoidable problems that the local transportation, is also being con- to completely demolish a site media has dubbed ‘K.O.’ factors, after verted primarily into housing. worth more than US $8.8 million the popular boxing acronym for With the land already purchased (Vest, 1994). In this instance, Mainz ‘knock-out.’ Unless Mainz finds solu- and work underway, the project may have missed a reachable goal tions to both of these problems, either searching for Utopia. one could destroy the entire plan. B.I.C.C 63 report 4 june 95

Mainz Military Depot operated by MIP. In turn, the United States in- vested DM 300 million to upgrade and convert the facility (Mainzer Rhein-Zeitung, 1–2 February 1992).

The depot reached its peak in 1987 as Mainz’s second largest employer, with 5,705 mostly German workers. Working at maximum capacity, the plant fed more than DM 550 million into the local economy through pay- roll and local sub-contracts every year (, 17 October 1992). Nevertheless, the plant’s 100 percent dependence on defense contracts entailed ominous consequences for the future of MIP. When the Cold War ended, the United States decided not to con- tinue its DM 2 billion, five-year maintenance contract with MIP in favor of year-to-year contracts. With its defense market drying up, MIP attempted to diversify into civilian markets—a policy explicitly sup- ported by the US Army.

In April 1992, the firm was reorgan-

ized to reflect its diversification ▼ (Mainzer Rhein-Zeitung, 1–2 depot in 1953 after taking over the February 1992). The new umbrella MIT’s bankruptey has left the site from the French forces. It in- holding company was named the section of the Mainz vested heavily in the facility over Mainz Industrie Technologie- Army Depot largely abandoned. the next 30 years, creating a highly Gesellschaft für Umwelt, Transport modern industrial complex able to und Verkehr (MIT). The firm hoped to replace its declining defense con- Mainz Military Depot conduct all necessary repairs and tracts with the repair and mainten- maintenance for US tanks and per- ance of civilian vehicles such as The Facility sonnel carriers. Quickly, the facility buses, trams, and trains. Less than Three different facilities comprise grew to become one of the largest one month later, the US Army the Mainz Military Depot—the origi- military maintenance depots in announced its intention to halt nal Mainz Military Depot and the Europe. all future contracts to MIT and dis- Repair & Utility (R&U) Area, both in mantle the Mainz Military Depot. , and the Mainz Military In a fairly unique arrangement, the MIT, in turn, announced its intention Depot in Mombach. The three depot had been built by the United to continue operating the facility industrial facilities cover more than States but was operated by a as a civil depot (Mainzer Rhein- 400,000 square meters (4.3 million German contractor. The depot was Zeitung, 2–3 July 1994). square feet) and consume equal operated by the German firm Luther amounts of land in the Mainz sub- and Jordan until its bankruptcy in Land Disposal communities of Gonsenheim and 1979. Operation of the depot was The land ownership issue was not a Mombach (Frankfurter Rundschau, immediately taken over by Mainz problem for MIT, as both the land 17 October 1992). Their military Industries Panzerwerk (MIP)—a pri- and buildings were owned by the mission was the maintenance and vate company founded with the German government. On the other repair of the various types of heavy help of a public development bank. hand, the United States owned all of armored vehicles used in Germany. The depot expanded significantly in the physical equipment inside the 1983 when the German government buildings. The Army’s initial plan The site had been a German military purchased a bus production facility was to remove that equipment upon parade ground since 1911 at the in Mainz-Mombach from the firm closure, but that arrangement would time of its capture by Allied troops. Iveco-Magirus and leased the facility have turned a modern industrial The United States founded the to the US Army for use as part of the plant capable of employing thou-

64 B.I.C.C Mainz Military Community

sands of workers into an empty ees to ease the transition and by the Mainz Public Transportation warehouse. Realizing the plan providing free consulting and Company has offered to move onto would make MIT’s conversion effort job-search assistance to the the southern part of the Gonsen- impossible, the Koblenz workers who were laid off heim site (Mainzer Rhein-Zeitung, Bundesvermögensamt convinced (Allgemeine Zeitung, 28 July 23 September 1994 and 24 March the US Army not to remove the 1994; Mainzer Rhein-Zeitung, 2 1995). equipment. In early 1994, the US December 1992 and 6 October Army agreed to sell all of the 1992). Although the city’s purchase prefer- depot’s equipment, valued at DM 50 ence in the German property dis- million, to MIT for much less Even this level of across-the-board posal process may allow it, MIT’s (Mainzer Rhein-Zeitung, 11 support could not save MIT—the demise created such a complicated February 1993). conversion effort fell apart when mess that even this modest plan MIT was unable to make its civilian must overcome several obstacles. Redevelopment services cost efficient. When the First, the site is not quite aban- Due to the large number of jobs and Mainz Public Transport Company doned. Private companies that had local revenue it produced, the found that it could virtually pur- rented space at the depot before depot’s successful conversion drew chase new vehicles for the price MIT went bankrupt, as well as broad support from across the poli- MIT charged for recycling older several of MIT’s subsidiary compa- tical spectrum. Local, state, and models, it announced in November nies that were purchased by other national leaders showed rare solid- 1992 that it would not award any companies, are still operating on the arity in helping to ensure the contracts to the former depot. MIT site. Most recently, one of these sub- successful conversion of the site. lost its other recycling contracts for sidiary companies has voiced its Even the United States supported similar reasons (Mainzer Rhein- intention to become independent what quickly became the largest Zeitung, 2 December 1992 and 13 and to continue conducting minor conversion effort to date in June 1994). repairs on US military equipment Rhineland-Palatinate. Saddled with an enormous debt and (MIT representative, interview, 26 the losses posted by most of its sub- April 1995). ■ The United States invested sidiaries, MIT looked to the state for approximately DM 60 million Conclusion additional assistance. None was into a social security fund for forthcoming. The state’s blunt refu- The political need to find a quick employees laid off during the sal to provide the necessary millions replacement for Mainz’s second transition (Mainzer Rhein- to bail out the firm, and the private largest employer made some large Zeitung, 10 September 1992) sector’s equal reluctance to invest, risks by the state and MIT necessary. and, as mentioned earlier, agreed forced MIT to declare bankruptcy in It is impossible to establish the spe- to transfer the depot’s equipment the summer of 1994 (Mainzer Rhein- cific reasons for MIT’s failure, but to MIT under favorable terms. Zeitung, 1 July 1994). By declaring several facts are unavoidable. ■ The German federal government bankruptcy, MIT defaulted on its intervened in the US-MIT nego- ■ agreements with the state, the US Rhineland-Palatinate may have tiations to support continued Army, and the federal government. been overly optimistic about defense contracts during MIT’s MIT’s chances for success when transition. After that effort failed, ■ Rhineland-Palatinate must it guaranteed DM 75 million in the government helped to en- assume the responsibility for the loans without conducting a feasi- sure that the equipment would DM 75 million private loan it bility study. remain at the depot. ■ guaranteed, and it lost additional MIT certainly underestimated the ■ The state of Rhineland-Palatinate millions in investment money. obstacles of converting a large played the largest role in sup- ■ The United States never received military maintenance plant and porting the conversion effort. payment for the equipment and, was forced to ask for additional Most importantly, the state guar- in theory, regained the rights to funds. anteed DM 75 million in private ■ the industrial equipment in the Everyone demanded that the loans to MIT for conversion, and depot. firm completely convert itself in funded an additional DM 5.7 mil- ■ The Bundesvermögensamt must two years. When it was unable lion for MIT investment projects assume responsibility for securing to become competitive in that from state technology funds. The and maintaining the facility. short time period, support for state also agreed to co-finance the project evaporated. the recycling of the city’s old All of this caused the Mainz Military buses and trams at the former Depot project to become Germany’s In the end, an early abundance of depot. Finally, the state assisted largest conversion failure to date. funds and wishful thinking without the dislocated workers by Rising out of the ashes of the failed patience, a plan, oversight, or even supplying direct assistance of MIT, however, is a proposal by the a concept of the project’s feasibility DM 10 million to approximately very agency that refused to recycle caused the state’s largest conversion 300 handicapped MIT employ- its vehicles at the depot—ironically, project to end in bankruptcy. B.I.C.C 65 report 4 june 95

Hahn Air Base tion force was transformed into a friendly relationship extending to When the Cold War threat of an German communities. Thousands of Unless otherwise noted, all data in the Hahn American families lived outside the case study, including cited newspaper articles, invasion of West Germany subsided, was verified through the authors’ on-site inspec- the United States was left with a base in a variety of neighboring vil- tion and through personal interviews with the huge excess capacity of expensive lages. The symbiotic association following individuals: former Director of Host reached its peak in the early 1990s, Nation Relations, Hahn Air Base, 8 December air fields. In 1991, the Air Force 1994; Public Relations official, Flughafen Hahn, announced it would make major when Hahn’s schools began accept- 8 December 1994 and 25 April 1995; Rheinland- reductions at Hahn. The Desert ing German students. The base’s Pfalz Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Verkehr economic effects were even more conversion official, 15 December 1994; Storm conflict provided an excellent Rheinland-Pfalz State Conversion Clearinghouse transition for the fighter aircraft at important than its positive social official, 15 December 1994; Flughafen Hahn effects. Through the purchasing official, 8 December 1994; Hahn holding com- Hahn, and F-16s assigned to the pany representatives from Wayss and Freytag Persian Gulf returned straight to the power of more than 13,000 AG, 25 April 1995; Turkish embassy official, 7 United States after completing their Americans and the employment of December 1994. mission. The soldiers departed Hahn more than 800 Germans, Hahn was two years later. On 30 September easily the largest single economic 1993, most of the facility was re- force in Rhein-Hunsrück turned to civil German authorities. (Lindemann, 1993). Background The United States continues to oper- ate a very small ammunition dump, Though the positive relationship Hahn Air Base was located in the two radio stations, and some recrea- and the economic vitality the base Hunsrück region of the federal state tional facilities in one corner of the brought with it made Hahn’s closure of Rhineland-Palatinate, specifically sprawling base, but the ammunition a severe disappointment to the sur- in the small community of Kirchberg dump will close in 1995. Although rounding region, the state regarded (population 4000). Largely rural Hahn officials voiced optimism that the closure more positively. With and undeveloped, the Hunsrück the radio stations and recreational five of the eight military airports in is situated roughly between the facilities would also be returned in Rhineland-Palatinate closing, the urban centers of Mainz to the east, 1995, the United States has not yet state viewed Hahn as the most eas- Luxembourg to the west, and officially announced its intentions. ily converted. As Kirchberg and the to the north. other surrounding were too small to handle the conversion of Before the French forces founded Community Response the massive base, the state took the an air base on the site in 1951 the lead from the very beginning. area was farmland, and most of the As with most US facilities in area surrounding the base remains Germany, what began as an occupa- farmland to this day. In 1952, the United States took over the installa- tion and began to erect the seventh Figure 22: Hahn’s Buildings largest US Air Base in Europe and Source: Operation Hahn Take-Off, 1994. the second largest in Germany. At the end of the Cold War, the base ■ supported more than 13,000 people Commercial and three squadrons of F-16 fighter ■ Housing jets (Vest, 1994). ■ Administrative ■ Industrial Situated away from the front line of ■ the Cold War, Hahn was a major Jet Hangars part of the United States’ close-knit, continental European air power center. The United States’ other major German Air Bases of Zweibrücken, Ramstein, Sembach, Bitburg, and Rhein-Main are all within 60 miles (100 kilometers) of Hahn. Beyond their location in the heart of US troop concentrations, these Air Bases were well situated to reach all locations within Europe and the Mediterranean region.

66 B.I.C.C Hahn Air Base

Scope of Facilities

Unlike US Army Military Communities, US Air Bases tend to be more rural and centralized. The main site at Hahn is 1396 acres (565 hectares) in area, with a 8,025- (2,440-meter) runway and addi- tional space for rollfields and taxi- ways. The base also contains 283 buildings of various types (see Figure 22) (Operation Hahn Take- Off, 1994).

Most of the buildings were con- structed in the mid-1950s, but US investment continued throughout the life of the base. For instance, the huge commissary, the base chapel, and parts of the high school were build in the 1980s, the new kinder- garten was completed in 1990, and the new Burger King Restaurant was only open for several months before the base closed.

Most of Hahn’s buildings and infra- structure were well maintained. A visual inspection of the base revealed that the family housing units were particularly well pre- served by the US Air Force; the United States even left the kitchen and laundry appliances intact in each of units of the large Hahn Family Housing complex. The older buildings are powered and heated by coal, which will cause significant redevelopment problems, while the newer buildings are powered by oil. All of Hahn’s utility infrastructure is still operational, including a modern bio-composting plant. Moreover, the huge jet-fuel storage tanks have currently valid German operating licenses.

Although Hahn has a complete internal network of well-maintained roads, the external access to Hahn is less favorable. The base is con- nected to a secondary line of the German rail system, but the single track does not allow two-way trans- portation. The two-lane road connecting the installation to the ▼ A final look. The last two US F-16 fighter jets depart Hahn Air Base. B.I.C.C 67 report 4 june 95

federal highway system is 22 miles for DM 30 million—one tenth of open. The state got its wish briefly (35 kilometers) away from Mainz its original asking price. As part of when the United States announced and is not suitable for heavy traffic. the agreement, the state will pay the closure of Hahn in 1991; two an additional DM 7 million if its years later in July 1993, however, Land Disposal subsequent private sector marketing the United States also announced is successful. the closure of Bitburg Air Base Undisputed ownership and control (Vest, 1994). of Hahn went to the German federal Early Redevelopment government when the United States Efforts Despite the ultimate outcome, the departed in 1993. The site was closure of Hahn was initially wel- administered through the Koblenz comed by Rhineland-Palatinate. Realizing that US reductions would Only months after the closure regional office of the occur after the end of the Cold War, Bundesvermögensamt. Thus, the announcement, the state declared Rhineland-Palatinate analyzed the its intention to convert Hahn into standard base disposal process effect of an American withdrawal applied to Hahn. a civilian airport. At that point, it from the various Air Bases within embarked upon the long process of the state as early as 1989 and devel- Once the federal government constructing and implementing a oped a priority listing of possible master plan for Hahn. passed on its opportunity to closures that was forwarded to the purchase parts of the facility, the US Command (Rheinland-Pfalz, In January 1992, nine months state of Rhineland-Palatinate voiced Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Verkehr, its intention to purchase the entire before the base closed, the state Landwirtschaft und Weinbau, 1995). and several affected communities main site of the Air Base. The As all of the US Air Bases in ensuing negotiations over the cooperated to create a public devel- Rhineland-Palatinate were located opment company for Hahn Airport, purchase price began poorly. The in rural, undeveloped areas, none of installation was initially valued at the Entwicklungs und Betriebsge- them were excellent candidates for sellschaft Flugplatz Hahn (EBGH). DM 360 million by the Bundesver- redevelopment. Nonetheless, the mögensamt, a sum that Rhineland- The primary objective of the two- state’s analysis showed that Hahn person, DM 1 million authority was Palatinate bluntly refused to pay. would be the easiest of the group to After two years of negotiations, the to encourage civil co-use of the base convert. After preparing economic before it closed, coordinate the Bundesvermögensamt’s asking price feasibility studies, Rhineland- fell dramatically. In September 1994, smooth transfer of the base to civil Palatinate requested that the United authorities, and develop a concept the Bundesvermögensamt agreed to States close Hahn, but leave Bitburg sell Hahn to Rhineland-Palatinate for converting the base. EBGH

Figure 23: Rebirth of an Airfield? German Employees at Hahn Source: Lindemann, 1993; Rheinland-Pfalz, Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Verkehr, 1994a.

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

68 B.I.C.C Hahn Air Base

grew to almost 100 employees as the conversion concept matured (Rheinland-Pfalz, Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Verkehr, 1994a).

In April 1993, EBGH successfully negotiated a modest co-use agree- ment with the US Air Force. A civil- ian was established in a building near the front gate of the base, and a civil airline con- tracted for one charter flight a week out of the newly created Hahn Airport. Throughout 1993, the civil- ian side of the airport supported a modest level of business, including 1000 flights and 7200 passengers (Rheinland-Pfalz, Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Verkehr, 1994a).

The base was officially returned to Germany on 30 September 1993. Less than one month later, EBGH signed a mutually beneficial, five- year ‘emergency-use’ agreement with NATO. Under that agreement, NATO retains the right to use the airstrip and approximately one-third of the base in the event of an emer- gency. Since the agreement officially made the site a military installation, it allowed the development com- pany to avoid many of German’s time-consuming, bureaucratic - riers to development.

The state was then able to begin the redevelopment process immediately (Rheinland-Pfalz, Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Verkehr, 1994a). As the United States had removed the navigation equipment from the flight tower upon closure, the state invested more that DM 25 million to purchase a state-of-the-art electronic air navigation system that would allow the airport to qualify for the highestlevel of landing license avail- able (CAT III). A lower-level CAT I operating license was immediately ▼ Conversion potential. Above: Hahn’s cargo warehouse could become the heart of a thriving civilian airport. Below: Until then, local farmers use parts of the base for hay storage. B.I.C.C 69 report 4 june 95

granted, and CAT III became opera- Building a Master Plan ■ Airport: The airstrip, all of the tional in March 1995 (Rheinland- base’s administrative area, and Pfalz, Ministerium für Wirtschaft, for Hahn even some of the F-16 hangars Verkehr, Landwirtschaft und are designated for airport develop- Weinbau, 1995). The Rhineland- The Hahn redevelopment received ment. The success or failure of Palatinate Ministry of Economic a much-needed private sector boost the entire plan hinges on the Affairs and Traffic granted the Hahn in September 1994 when Rhineland- successful development of a Airport a 24-hour operating license, Palatinate created the Hahn Holding civilian airport, easily the largest but some local citizens, concerned Company in cooperation with section of the base. The master about noise pollution at night, have Wayss & Freytag AG (W&F), a large plan envisions a three-pronged threatened to file a lawsuit when German construction company. approach to developing the Hahn attempts to implement the Under the terms of the agreement, airfield. First, redevelopment license in late 1995. Until the poten- W&F owns 74.9 percent (50 percent authorities will continue to tial lawsuit is resolved, the airport by W&F, 24.9 percent by Hortana, a develop the charter business possesses a day-only license. W&F subsidiary) of the stock and already underway. Second, they As the conversion effort began to the state owns the other 25.1 per- hope to add a number of sche- gain momentum toward the end of cent. The company embarked with duled flights through the stan- 1994, Hahn Airport successfully DM 10 million in operating capital dard passenger carriers. Third, attracted 11 new companies to its and a ten-year goal of DM 120 mil- officials hope to encourage facilities. The types of contracts lion in investment (Rheinland-Pfalz, cargo services to use Hahn range widely from an Azerbaijan Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Verkehr, (Operation Hahn Take-Off, charter service to local farmers who Landwirtschaft und Weinbau, 1995). 1994). This may require luring use the F-16 hangars for hay stor- business away from the Frank- age. Combined, these companies Soon after the agreement on the furt’s very popular Rhein-Main have created approximately 100 holding company was finalized, International Airport only 60 new jobs (Rheinland-Pfalz, Rhineland-Palatinate unveiled its miles (100 kilometers) away, or Ministerium für Wirtschaft und master plan for the future of Hahn simply accepting the overflow Verkehr, 1994a). Airport (see Figure 24). The ambi- demand when the latter reaches tious plan focuses on a division of maximum capacity in about the base into different development 2020. sectors, including airport, educati- ■ Education: The western family on, sports and leisure, trade and housing complex has been desig- industry, service, and commerce nated for educational purposes, zones. and much of its redevelopment 70 B.I.C.C Hahn Air Base Hahn master plan

Figure 24: Converting an Air Base Source: Operation Hahn Take-Off, 1994 has already been completed (Operation Hahn Take-Off, ■ Airport 1994). W&F, through the holding ■ Education company, will conduct the reno- ■ Sports and Leisure vations and, in turn, sell the ■ Commercial facility to the state for DM 48 ■ million. The state’s purchase of Service a facility in which it already ■ Trade and Industry owns a share is designed to limit W&F’s risk. On 7 June 1994, Rhineland-Palatinate announced that the state’s police academy would move onto two-thirds of the base’s family housing com- plex and high school. The first 700-person class will begin in August of 1995. A state construc- tion academy has voiced interest in taking over the balance of the housing complex and the ele- mentary school, but at publica- tion no final agreement had been reached. ■ Sports and Leisure: The base’s nine-hole golf course, the recrea- tional facilities, and the ammuni- tion storage area have been designated for sports and leisure B.I.C.C 71 report 4 june 95

facilities. The plan envisions expanding the golf course onto the former ammunition dump and adding a hotel with a con- ference center to the site. Since the United States still retains some the facilities at the site and to date no private investor has voiced interest in that aspect of the plan, it remains a long- term goal. In the interim, a local golf club has taken over the operation and maintenance of the course. ■ Commercial: When the United States departed, it left a brand new, huge commissary that served as the grocery and shopping center for base per- sonnel and their families. Not surprisingly, the master plan has designated the commissary for retail development. A center built to serve 13,000 people, however, is clearly too large for the region’s current level of development. Accordingly, no private investor has moved onto the site. One Hahn authority envisioned its transformation into a Duty Free Center for the airport if the charter service continues to grow. W&F has hangars will be very difficult to cent share in HFG and is in turn res- suggested that the huge refrig- dismantle. The approximately ponsible for the airport’s eventual eration capacity be utilized for DM 48 million price tag for prosperity or failure (Rheinland- perishable cargo storage. demolishing the hangars may Pfalz, Ministerium für Wirtschaft, ■ Service: The base’s power plant guarantee that hay storage and Verkehr, Landwirtschaft und and water treatment plant have the like will be the highest level Weinbau, 1995) in the short run. If been designated as service areas of development the trade and the 24-hour license is successfully and eventually their operation industry section will reach in the implemented, W&F’s stake increases will be contracted out to the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, to 50 percent. private sector. W&F has suggested that demol- ■ Trade and Industry: The rest of ishing the hangars one-by-one To advertise the base to potential the base consists of two of the as the cargo center expands will investors, the state has financed three F-16 squadron hangar make the demolition process a lavish promotional campaign. areas designated for trade and more affordable. A variety of glossy promotional industry. Although the plan envi- pamphlets, brochures, posters, and sions business parks on these As part of the master plan, the hold- a picture book are available in both sites, they will not develop any- ing company will create individual German and English. The EBGH time soon. Largely eye-sores companies to operate each section. sponsors ‘open houses’ and site today, the reinforced hangars are EBGH became the airport admini- visits for a wide-range of potential too small for civil aircraft, and strator and was renamed Hahn international investors. For instance, without windows they are use- Flughafen Gesellschaft (HFG). A in November 1994, the EBGH less for everything but storage. sign of their comparative impor- hosted a diplomatic delegation from Even demolishing the hangars tance, none of the other operating the Turkish embassy in Bonn to sur- and starting from scratch is prob- companies have been established. vey the base for a Turkish company. lematic—since they were built to withstand a bomb attack, the Although the state maintains a minority position in the entire hold- ing company, it owns a 66.7 per-

72 B.I.C.C

Hahn Air Base ▼

An eerie silence dominates the currently abandoned Hahn Housing Annex, but that will change when it becomes the home of the state police aca- demy. ▼ Conversion obstacles. The rein- forced F-16 bunkers at Hahn, like the ones pictured here, have no practical civilian use and will cost DM 48 million to demolish. B.I.C.C 73 report 4 june 95

utility meters on housing units, but undeveloped area. It is questionable whether a civilian airport in Rhein- Prospects for the two others are particularly trouble- Hunsrück could ever attract enough Future some. First, the runway currently will demand to completely utilize a facil- not support larger jets completely ity that supported 13,000 people. Since the demise of the Mainz Army full of cargo or passengers, and few Depot project, the Hahn Airport has charters or cargo companies will Finicky Private Support: W&F has become Rhineland-Palatinate’s pri- agree to do business at Hahn if they a conditional stake in the airport mary conversion effort. For that rea- can not use all of their airplanes’ aspect of the master plan. Early in son, the state will work overtime to capacity.The holding company could the project, it will spend the major- see the Hahn Airport project suc- solve this problem by lengthening ity of its resources developing the ceed. The presence of W&F as a the runway to 4,000 meters, a more secure educational sector. As major private investor also indicates process which would take time, mentioned earlier, there is already a the potential prosperity of Hahn resources, and possibly the move of major tenant interested in that Airport. At the same time, the sheer a road for the second time. Second, area—ironically, the state. If W&F size of the project makes complete approximately 40 of the buildings pulls out after completion of that success difficult to achieve. and housing units at Hahn are aspect, the rest of the project may Currently, simply maintaining empty powered by coal. Once the US Air fall apart before it had a chance to buildings and staffing the 34-officer Force left, the Hahn development succeed. police team requires an investment company was unable to secure a of millions each year. In the most coal-operating license for environ- Despite these obstacles, Hahn has optimistic scenario, state officials do mental reasons, making the buildings several factors in its favor that may not expect the airport to begin turn- currently uninhabitable. However, help it overcome these obstacles ing a profit for 20 years. In stark the DM 100 million cost to convert enroute to becoming a successful contrast, W&F expects the airport to these buildings to oil power could and profitable project. Hahn’s fate begin turning and operating profit be prohibitively expensive. rests on the ability of the holding by 1996. Furthermore, the long-term W&F has planned a ‘conversion as company to be realistic, at least in success of the project depends on necessary’ strategy to make it more the short run, about Hahn’s poten- how the holding company resolves affordable. Nonetheless, not solving tial. There is virtually no possibility the following obstacles. either of these problems would limit of converting a rural, Cold War Air the potential success of Hahn’s Base into a vacation spot. Trying to Problematic location. Hahn is not conversion. do so only wastes millions. located conveniently near an urban center, and poor transportation Contradictory visions: The master The charter airline business also has access heightens that impression. plan draws two opposite visions of limited potential. There are already The state has plans to connect the base. Half of the plan foresees several commercial airports in the Hahn to the direct highway system business parks, recreational facil- area, including mainland Europe’s and the rail connection could be ities, and a shopping center. The largest airport—Frankfurt Rhein- improved and repaired, but those other half envisions a busy charter Main. Additionally, some of the four plans stretch well into the next and cargo airport. These are not other closing Air Bases in century. If access to the site is not complimentary uses. Few people Rhineland-Palatinate will attempt to improved dramatically, Hahn will dream of cargo airports and empty compete with Hahn for the charter not be able to handle the kind of F-16 hangars for vacation or con- business (see Bitburg box). traffic a profitable civilian airport of vention spots. The work required to Moreover, at one or two flights per its size would create. Nevertheless, convert Hahn into an attractive lei- company, Hahn would have to the state has promised to build a sure center would be enormous, attract thousands of charter flights highway connection to Hahn, and and even then, its potential market- just to cover expenses. On the other W&F now reports that adequate rail ability is highly questionable. hand, although it is unlikely Hahn connections to Hahn exist through can support itself completely on one of its subsidiary’s purchase of Size: The sheer size of the facility charter companies, they do bring in the line. will force the holding company to revenue and will not preclude develop the base section-by-section. Hahn’s best chance for success. Deficiencies in base infrastruc- As it develops one part, however, ture. Although a military Air Base the other parts will deteriorate as More practically, the base could seems perfect for a civil airport, the they sit vacant. Even the new facil- focus on developing itself as a cargo fit is much less than exact. Hahn is ities will age quickly if they are not center. Some of the obstacles to the riddled with infrastructure chal- properly maintained. Additionally, master plan as a whole would not lenges. Some can be overcome the Air Base created a huge, artificial affect Hahn’s ability to develop a quickly, such as installing individual source of demand within a largely cargo center. For instance, aesthetics

74 B.I.C.C Hahn Air Base

Next Up: Bitburg

Two years after the United are not important at a cargo cen- States has not yet closed the base, States closed Hahn and not long ter—the F-16 hangars, abandoned possibly due to a recent GAO study after the state of Rhineland- buildings, and ammunition dumps noting that further Air Base reduc- Palatinate committed itself to that discourage the development of tions in Europe could jeopardize help finance Hahn’s conversion, a leisure center would have abso- necessary capabilities (GAO, the United States also decided to lutely no effect on the success of a 1994b). Regardless of whether the close the nearby Bitburg Air cargo airport. Regional United States closes Rhein-Main Air Base. Very similar to Hahn, may also favor a new cargo center Base, however, studies have shown Bitburg hosted three full squa- in the region. Frankfurt has success- that Frankfurt will reach capacity by drons of F-15s (72 planes) and fully developed the largest airport in 2020. had an authorized endstrength Europe largely because of its central of 6,500 in 1987. location in Europe. Hahn’s location, Conclusion only 60 miles (100 kilometers) This closure was a significant west of Frankfurt, gives it the same Hahn benefits from being the darling blow to the county with the central location, and Hahn enjoys of a number of Air Base conversion largest per capita defense some competitive advantages over efforts in Rhineland-Palatinate. The dependence in Germany—18 its large neighbor. money and exposure that creates percent of its income. At the ■ are bound to attract interest, but will end of the Cold War, Bitburg It has received approval on a 24- not guarantee success. Hahn must Air Base was Bitburg county’s hour operating license. Due to focus on its practical advantages largest German employer, its more urban location, and avoid impractical—but politi- engaging more than 1,000 Frankfurt does not have this type cally popular—money pits, while employees and pumping more of unrestricted license. If Hahn it works to increase private sector than DM 200 million into the can overcome the potential court investment in the airport. local economy annually. case blocking implementation of the license, this could become a Although the entire base needs Following closely in Hahn’s major selling point to freight attention and resources to imple- footsteps, Bitburg officials are companies over Frankfurt. ■ ment the master plan, more practical planning to convert the closed It can offer a more cargo-friendly aspects (such as lengthening the Air Base into a civilian/cargo air- environment. With the recent runway and improving highway port. Unfortunately, since it is opening of the second massive connections) that will make the air- located less than 60 miles (100 passenger terminal, Frankfurt’s port more attractive to all compa- kilometers) from Hahn Airport, cargo customers may start to get nies—especially freight compa- the state has been reluctant to squeezed out (even with the nies—require immediate work. The invest in Bitburg’s conversion. withdrawal of the United States state can waste its money building Private investors have also stayed from Rhein-Main discussed and golf courses on former away. Two public tenderings below). Hahn can promise large ammunition dumps or it can focus have produced no serious bids amounts of excess space both on on its half of the airport equation— for the airport section of the the ground and in the air for the upgrading the airport infrastructure base. foreseeable future. ■ and building a friendly investment It can offer a price advantage. As climate. Undeterred, local officials are a no-frills cargo center, Hahn moving forward with the sup- could provide price relief from port of the Bitburg Brewery— Frankfurt’s regional monopoly. Germany’s largest. Like Hahn, Its fees are currently 30 percent local officials at Bitburg have less than those of Frankfurt and established themselves as a 10–20 percent less than those of NATO emergency site and have other small airports in applied for an all-weather, 24- Luxembourg and Brussels. hour operating license. Even more encouraging for Hahn is Sources: Statistical Annex; that Frankfurt may reach its capacity Henter, 1995; within the next 20 years. The Wirtschaftsministerkonferenz, demand for airspace above 1990; Trier Frankfurt has become so great that Bundesvermögensamt official, the airport management company interview, 19 January 1995. actually paid to move the US Air Base co-located at the site to a dif- ferent site (Ramstein). The United

B.I.C.C 75 report 4 june 95

Conclusions and (Hohenfels and Grafenwöhr); and Recommendations 3) the best, most modern facilities belonging to its only remaining corps (V Corps) (USAREUR, 1990). he United States’ comprehensive closed 21 major bases in the five Meanwhile, USAFE has consolidated Tmilitary withdrawal from years since the US base restructuring onto its most modern fighter base— Germany has presented a number process began in 1990. This total Spangdahlem—and the largest, of opportunities and challenges for includes 15 Army Military most flexible air mobility base, both countries. This study has Communities and 6 Air Force Bases, Ramstein (GAO, 1994b; Cragg, 1988). attempted to compensate for the and represents a decrease in the information deficiency regarding number of bases of over 40 percent. this drawdown by documenting the From another perspective, almost 90 Impact on the German scope of the US withdrawal, iden- percent of all US bases in Germany Economy tifying the number and mission of were reduced to some extent. A the United States’ remaining troops, combination of factors—area Several indicators may be used to and assessing the German commu- returned, employment lost, and measure the US withdrawal’s impact nities’ prospects for converting the number of sites closed—provides on the German economy. The with- closed facilities. the most accurate picture of the scope drawal process has already led to and significance of various sites, and the loss of more than 150,000 autho- In addition to utilizing US Department reveals that Army barracks and Air rized positions, including more than of Defense data, the authors were Force main sites are at the heart of 35,000 German civilian positions, able to gain an accurate sense of the the US withdrawal. In addition, it due to facility closures and reduc- US withdrawal on both the macro appears that the United States is tions. Nürnberg, with the loss of and micro levels by reviewing locally returning its smallest facilities and more than 11,000 authorized positi- published newspaper articles, retaining its largest, most flexible ons, was the largest closure in terms conducting on-site interviews with sites. This is especially true of hous- of total personnel, while Mainz lost local, state, and national German ing units, which the United States is the most German civilian posi- authorities as well as USAREUR and retaining to compensate for pre- tions—more than 4,400 layoffs— USAFE officials, and visiting relevant vious shortages by providing US- due primarily to the closure of the facilities repeatedly. Following is a operated housing for all of its troops massive Mainz Army Depot. summary of the most significant by 1996 (USAREUR/PA, 1994). findings of this year-and-a-half long Many of the United States’ largest study. At endstate, the United States will facilities were reduced in the still retain approximately 80,000 US restructuring rather than closed. US Restructuring military personnel in Germany. Excluding these officially and These troops have adopted two new unofficially reduced sites from the missions since the end of the Cold employment equation would The United States has taken a site- War. First, the United States will use underestimate the impact of the US by-site approach to base closure its European-based forces to project withdrawal by more than 25 percent. and return in Germany. While US power— through rapid deploy- Personal inspection has revealed domestic base closures tend to fol- ments—into a 100-country region that in many cases these sites have low a standard path, DoD retains including , the Middle been reduced to virtually zero. More considerably more flexibility in its East, and Africa (USAREUR/PA, than 38,000 total authorized posi- overseas closures. Special sale 1995). Second, as multi-lateral tions, including more than 4,000 arrangements, joint use of sites, and military operations such as Desert German direct employees, were cut transition assistance for displaced Storm have grown in importance, as a result of these partial closures Germans are examples of the type the US forces in Germany have or reductions. of arrangements local officials may begun more frequent participation negotiate with individual base com- in multi-lateral training exercises The restructuring process has there- manders and DoD officials. At the and exchange programs with fore impacted many communities same time, the US overseas base European countries. where the United States still retains closure is generally more efficient a significant presence. Six of the 18 than the domestic closure process. The future American base structure German communities that have lost On average, the United States returns in Germany has emerged with these more than 4,000 total authorized overseas bases less than one year new missions in mind. The bases positions did not experience com- after the closure announcement. retained by the USAREUR meet one plete closures. The most extreme The same procedure takes more or more of three general criteria: 1) case is Kaiserslautern Military than four years for domestic bases. proximity to the United States’ Community, which lost almost 5,000 remaining fully-active air mobility total authorized positions even No single indicator can adequately base (Ramstein); 2) support of its though none of its 18 individual assess the magnitude of the US two major training ranges facilities were completely closed. withdrawal. The United States has 76 B.I.C.C conclusions & recommendations

In addition to its direct employment high level of cooperation between prevalent on sites with very limited effects, i.e., German civilians laid off German and American authorities. public demand, such as airfields. from US bases, the drawdown has In many instances, US base com- As few public or private price for resulted in indirect employment manders allowed German author- closed base property, however, the effects that, although more difficult ities to begin moving onto a base Bundesvermögensamt has often to measure, are no less significant. before the actual closure, and in been forced to ultimately lower the In total, at least 70,000 German jobs almost all instances, site investiga- price to meet demand. have been lost due to the US with- tions previous to closure were drawal. allowed. This level of cooperation The relatively rapid, efficient imple- has helped the German authorities mentation of US overseas base clo- In terms of spending effects, the US speed redevelopment by months or sure decisions benefits communities military’s yearly demand for goods even years. On the other hand, by allowing the community quick and services in Germany has fallen while US authorities attempted to access following the US departure. by approximately US $3 billion consider German authorities’ In contrast, domestic American since the beginning of the draw- restructuring requests early in the bases are often virtually abandoned down. This sum includes the impact process, less communication and for years before the site is formally of lost contract spending, salaries of coordination was possible as the closed, allowing significant deterior- conclusions laid-off German civilians, and the withdrawal gained momentum in ation to occur (Cunningham, 1993). loss of American military personnel 1992. One reason DoD delays closure on and family members’ consumption domestic bases is to allow commu- in the German economy. The case-by-case negotiations pro- nities time to prepare, but in prac- cess, applied to all 636 returned or tice this policy tends to waste scarce Although the US withdrawal’s effect reduced US sites for environmental resources while the facility con- on the German economy as a whole clean-up and residual value, creates tinues to depreciate. Thus, German has been limited, the loss of billions too great of a burden for US and communities gain an advantage in of dollars has seriously affected the German officials. As a result, these their ability to redevelop closed communities most dependent on negotiations lag far behind the military sites almost immediately. the US Forces. As the US presence efforts to convert the property. was almost exclusively limited to its Unless these highly political nego- Nevertheless, the conversion pros- (and France’s) former occupation tiations are resolved equitably, they pects for US facilities in Germany zones in southern and western could delay conversion and taint an are not equal—the condition, loca- Germany as well as Berlin, those otherwise smooth withdrawal. tion, and type of a facility have a regions have experienced the bulk large impact on its reuse potential. of the withdrawal’s consequences. Conversion Well-maintained, urban sites with Chief among the affected regions complementary civilian uses—such was the relatively small state of There are three essential approaches as housing, recreational, and admin- Rhineland-Palatinate, which has suf- to the conversion of US bases in istrative sites—are the easiest to fered from the closure of the Hahn, Germany. First, larger cities may convert. Conversely, large, rural, Bitburg, and Zweibrücken Air Bases ensure their control of the base undeveloped training ranges, such and the Mainz, Zweibrücken, and redevelopment process by pur- as Wildflecken, have little or no Pirmasens Military Communities. At chasing the whole facility from the civilian development value. the same time, while larger cities German government—as Mainz has may create sufficient job opportuni- done—and redevelop it themselves. In general, Army Military ties to quickly absorb Germans laid Where a smaller community is un- Communities are more easily con- off as a result of the US withdrawal, able to purchase a facility, the state verted than Air Force Bases for two smaller communities with a higher may take an active role in conver- reasons. First, Military Communities dependence on US spending, sion, as Rhineland-Palatinate has tend to be located in urban cen- such as those surrounding Bitburg done with Hahn Air Base. In cases ters—due in large part to their orig- and Hahn Air Bases, may require where neither the state nor the city inal occupation mission—while successful base conversion to replace purchase the facility, the Bundes- Air Bases tend to be located in the jobs lost on the American bases. vermögensamt becomes responsible more rural, isolated areas. Second, for marketing and redeveloping the Military Communities are decentra- US-German real estate, as is the case in Fulda. lized, multi-site facilities that allow Negotiations a site-by-site conversion approach. The Bundesvermögensamt’s require- Air Bases, on the other hand, are more concentrated on one ‘main The US bases and military personnel ment to sell closed base property at market-value prices has unneces- site,’ requiring a more coordinated generally enjoy a positive relation- conversion approach. ship with their host communities, a sarily delayed the conversion process relationship that has influenced the at many sites by months and even withdrawal process by allowing a years. This problem is especially

B.I.C.C 77 report 4 june 95

Although the US restructuring pro- changes are possible. First, DoD German government policy should cess has almost been concluded, the should strive to close domestic apply realistic prices for base prop- conversion process is just begin- bases faster; slow closure only erty. Current policy still requires ning. In order to improve that pro- allows unnecessary depreciation of communities or companies to pay cess and to help communities suc- potentially valuable sites. Second, full market value for former base cessfully redevelop closed bases, additional flexibility to make such property that was, in many cases, the authors offer the following site-by-site arrangements as shared returned free of charge. Not surpris- recommendations for US officials, use and pre-closure environmental ingly, the Bundesvermögensamt German authorities, and local screening may allow DoD to avoid often cannot attract market value leaders. the occasional confrontational bids for closed base property, lead- relationships with local officials. ing to delays and lengthy negotia- Recommendations for tions. Based on similar experiences, Tracking well over 1,000 sites in the United States enacted a regula- US Officials Europe during a restructuring of this tion allowing communities in rural extent is a monumental task, and or depressed regions to purchase The United States should consider USAREUR and USAFE should con- base property at a discount or even negotiating a net-zero arrangement duct a complete survey of their no cost (Revitalizing Base Closure with German authorities in terms of active installations at endstate to Communities and Community residual value and environmental ensure that each facility’s status is Assistance, 1994). This policy helps contamination. These offsetting accurate. Currently announcements both the government and commu- claims have the potential to delay an of realignments and closures, parti- nities: government benefits by otherwise expeditious withdrawal cularly at reduced sites, lag behind eliminating years of costly marketing, process. To avoid this possibility, implementation. This is especially and communities may use the funds high-level representatives from both true of Air Force Bases—for example, saved for necessary infrastructure countries could agree up-front that the United States accepted residual upgrades. Despite these advantages, the United States will not pursue value payments for Rhein-Main the German government continues payments for facilities and that Air Base in 1993 despite the fact that to demand market-value prices; Germany, in turn, will clean the less no official reduction or closure it could save time and money by serious sites. This approach is not announcement was ever made. The adopting a policy similar to the historically unprecedented—the relative stability achieved at endstate American one. United States has already incorp- will allow the US Forces to conduct orated this type of net-zero arrange- an accurate, site-by-site survey and German authorities should either ment into its status-of-forces agree- to update any inaccurate or mis- establish a national-level base ments with Japan, South Korea, and leading information. conversion clearinghouse or link the (Wegman and the current state-level efforts. US Bailey, 1994). Recommendations for domestic base conversion efforts have benefited from the DoD’s 35 The US Department of Defense State and National years of base closure experience should promote its positive overseas German Authorities through its Office of Economic closure experiences as a model for Adjustment (OEA). OEA recognizes other downsizing efforts. The con- German authorities should focus not only that redevelopment is most tinued level of good-feeling between conversion assistance programs successful if led by local authorities, the United States military forces and on small and/or highly dependent but also that the national govern- German local officials, despite the communities. Most of the USAREUR ment has a vital counseling role. severe reductions, is remarkable. closures have occurred in highly By providing a case worker to DoD could also inform American developed urban areas such as advise each community in planning communities about some of the Frankfurt, Mainz, and Nürnberg, redevelopment and by making more positive individual conversion which can absorb laid-off German modest grants for such efforts, OEA efforts. For instance, US states and civilians and finance conversion has helped communities success- cities could learn from Hahn’s without significant outside assistance. fully replace two civilian jobs for creative public-private investment Therefore, programs targeting every one they lose (EAC, 1993). partnership. only the number of jobs lost may Although the German states have inadvertently help less needy attempted to compensate for the The United States should model its communities. Instead, such pro- lack of a German counterpart, none domestic closure process after the grams should direct their attention have been as effective or efficient overseas process, rather than vice to isolated bases where dislocated as OEA. By linking the agencies versa. The overseas process allows Germans are less likely to find currently active in Hesse, North DoD a flexibility currently impos- acceptable re-employment. Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland- sible in the politically charged Palatinate, and Bavaria—either domestic base closure process. Nonetheless, certain positive

78 B.I.C.C conclusions & recommendations

independently or through a national It is vital for local leaders to set nities outside their state, country, clearinghouse—Germany could realistic goals for conversion. Base and continent would yield a number exponentially increase the resources conversion is difficult, expensive, of additional benefits. Local officials and effectiveness of these efforts. and risky, and must be recognized may be surprised to discover a strik- as such. Excessive optimism or ing number of similarities among unattainable goals virtually guaran- US base closures throughout Recommendations for tee the future perception that con- Europe: 1) as the bases were built German Communities version was a failure, despite signifi- during generally the same time cant accomplishments. For instance, period, they offer comparable Communities should start planning achieving all of the somewhat infrastructure opportunities and immediately, for once the United incompatible goals of the Hahn obstacles; 2) the United States States decides to close an overseas master plan is unlikely; as a result, applies the same site-by-site nego- base, it is usually returned in less the conversion effort may be judged tiation approach throughout than one year. While this speed harshly despite the fact that the Europe, allowing communities to maintains the base’s good condition, development of a profitable public- learn from the negotiation strategies it does not allow much time to plan. private airport partnership in itself and ideas of other communities; and High-level requests and delegations would be a first-time achievement in 3) communities may learn creative to Washington, DC to reverse clo- Germany. By setting realistic goals, conversion ideas and funding sure decisions have always met with local officials may avoid creating strategies from other communities. disappointment; community leaders overexpectations in the media and Although the ideas themselves should therefore concentrate their public. may not be directly applicable, the efforts where they can make a dif- decision-making process used ference. Since local base comman- German communities need to to develop creative ideas may be demonstrate creativity in conversion transferable. This is true for bases

ders retain considerable flexibility recommendations in implementing the closure, they planning, rather than following pre- all over the world. are often in a position to negotiate dictable strategies regardless of local favorable agreements—such as demand. Overusing the same ideas While local officials should explore co-use agreements, environmental or ignoring demand is frequently every available avenue, they cannot screening, and infrastructure trans- a recipe for failure, which may on outside assistance. fers—with local officials. Initiating become the case at Bitburg Air Base, Ultimately, the responsibility for the planning cycle even before the where community leaders plan to addressing the effects of the US United States decides to close spe- open a civil airport despite the pres- withdrawal from Germany lies with cific sites may also ease some of the ence of five other airports with 60 leaders at the community level. natural anxiety associated with base miles—including two already closure. struggling, recently converted mili- tary sites. Many US communities At the same time, local officials have overcome similar market prob- should prepare for further reduc- lems by developing more creative tions. Although the drawdown is ideas for base reuse—from a truck scheduled to reach endstate in 1996, driving school at England Air Base some additional closures are still in Louisiana to a mushroom farm in expected and the United States may the massive storage facilities at decide on additional cuts beyond Loring Air Base in Maine to a state the current endstate levels as has prison at Chase Naval Station in occurred in the past (USAREUR/PA, Texas (Cunningham, 1993). German 1994). Future reductions could have local authorities can multiply their serious consequences for unpre- chances for success by applying pared local communities. As the fresh initiatives to their own conver- majority of reduced sites are subse- sion efforts. quently closed, communities that host reduced sites have the greatest Toward this end, they can learn risk of future closures. Despite from other base closure commu- earlier reductions, for example, the nities in Europe and around the Gießen Army Depot and Sembach world. Most community leaders in Air Base still employ a significant Germany tend to view base closure number of German civilians; if the as a local challenge, to be solved United States decides to close these locally; any communication with facilities in the future, it may create outside sources often takes place considerable dislocations if local through their state conversion authorities are caught unprepared. agency.While that is certainly useful, direct contact with other commu-

B.I.C.C 79 report 4 june 95

References EAC. See: US President’s Economic Adjustment Committee. 104th Area Support Group Cragg, Dan, SGM. 1988. Guide to (ASG)/414th Base Support Battalion Military Installations. 2nd Edition. Eisbach, Joachim and Heiner (BSB). 1995. FY 95 Population Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books. Heseler. 1992. „Truppenabzug—und Density Data Tables (as edited by was kommt danach? Die Arbeits- Cunningham, Keith. 1993. Base Public Affairs Office). As of 29 marktfolgen des Abzugs der Closure and Reuse: 24 Case Studies. January. Copy in author’s archive. Amerikanischen Stationierungs- A report of the BENS Defense streitkräfte aus Bremerhaven.“ 415th Base Support Battalion (BSB). Transition Project. Washington, DC: Rüstungskonversion im Land 1995. Army Stationing Installation Business Executives for National Bremen. Ansätze, Probleme, Plan (ASIP), Kaiserslautern Area, Security. Perspektive. Joint publication of the FY 1996. Printed 10 March. Copy in ______. 1994. „US Foreign Base Bremer Arbeiterkammer and author’s archive. Closure with European and Pacific Angestelltenkammer. Bremen, American Map. 1993. Euro-Atlas: Case Studies.“ Paper submitted for pp.14–24. Germany. Maspeth, NY: the UNDP Human Development Eisbach, Joachim, Heiner Heseler, Langenscheidt Publishing Group. Report 1994. Washington, DC: Rudolf Hickel and Werner Voss. Business Executives for National Bebermeyer, Hartmut and Christian 1991. Truppenabzug ohne Arbeits- Security. Thiemann. 1989. „Die ökonomische losigkeit. Risiken und Alternativen Bedeutung der US Streitkräfte in der Cunningham, Keith B. and Erik R. des Abbaus ziviler Arbeitsplätze bei Bundesrepublik.“ Beiträge zur Pages. 1994. Uncovering the Shell den Stationierungsstreitkräften in Wirtschaft- und Sozialpolitik. Köln: Game. Why Closed Military Bremerhaven. Bremen. Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft, Facilities Don’t Stay Closed. A report Elsner, Wolfram and Gerhard Voss. No.173, July. of the BENS Defense Transition 1991. „Bericht zu den Abrüstungs- Project. Washington, DC: Business Biehler, Hermann, Gerhard Richter, folgen für das Land Bremen und zu Executives for National Security. and Detlef Sträter. 1990. „Regionale den Handlungsmöglichkeiten.“ Konversionsforschung.“ In Lutz Cynkar, Robert J. (Counsel of BAW—Regionalwirtschaftliche Kölner and Burkhardt Huck, ed. Record), Bernard Petrie, Steven T. Studien 9. Bremen. Abrüstung und Konversion. Walther, John B. Rhinelander, Fuhrmann, Russell L. 1993. Frankfurt/New , pp. 452–475. Alexander W. Joel, and Ann C. „Maßnahmen auf dem Gebiet des Peterson. 1993. „Motion for Leave to Blank, Rebecca and Emma Umweltschutzes bei der Nutzung File Brief and Brief for Business Rothschild. 1985. „The effect of und Freigabe von durch die US- Executives for National Security as United States defence spending on Streitkräfte genutzten Amicus Curiae in Support of employment and output.“ Liegenschaften in Deutschland unter Petitioners.“ On Writ of Certiorari to International Labor Review. besonder Berücksichtigung der the US Court of Appeals for the Vol.124, No.6, pp.677–697. Zusammenarbeit mit den deutschen Third Circuit, in the US Supreme Umweltbehörden.“ Document BRAC. See: Defense Base Closure Court, Dalton v. Specter. No. 93-289, presented at the ‘Internationaler and Realignment Commission. 2 December. Workshop über Militärische Brömmelhörster, Jörn and Rüdiger Defense Base Closure and Altlasten’ of the German Ministry Hamm. 1992. Realignment Commission (BRAC). for Environment. Berlin, 20–22 Regionalwirschaftliche Risiko- und 1993. Report to the President 1993. September. Chancenpotentiale der Standorte- Washington, DC: GPO, July. GAO. See: US Government konversion. Eine empirische Deutscher Bundestag. 1991. Accounting Office. Bestandsaufnahme dargestellt am Document 12/1139. Bonn, 30 Beispiel der Stadt Mönchengladbach. Gersdorf, Marianne. 1992. September. : -Forschungsinstitut „Auswirkungen der Truppenredu- für Innovations- und Strukturpolitik. DoD. See: US Department of zierungen und der Rüstungskon- Defense. version in Niedersachsen-Bremen.“ ______. 1992. In Uwe Blien. Folgen von Truppen- „Regionalwirtschaftliche Folgen der DoD/OASD. See: US Department of reduzierungen und Rüstungskon- Standortekonversion—ein Defense. Office of the Assistant version für den Arbeitsmarkt Problemaufriß.“ RWI-Mitteilungen. Secretary of Defense. (Beiträge zur Arbeitsmarkt- und Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.323–350. Duke, Simon. 1989. United States Berufsforschung 158). Nürnberg, Brunn, Anke, Lutz Bähr, and H.J. Military Forces and Installations in pp.221–260. Karpe, eds. 1992. Conversion— Europe. Stockholm International Gettmann, Alfred. 1992. Die Opportunities for Development and Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Konversion der Air Base Environment. Heidelberg: Springer- NY: . Zweibrücken. Ein Modellfall? PFK Verlag. Texte No. 16. .

80 B.I.C.C references

______. 1993. Abzug der US- Industrieanlagen-Betriebsgesell- Nordrhein-Westfalen. 1995. Streitkräfte—was nun? Perspektiven schaft mbH. 1991. Kriterien für die Konversionsbericht Band II. Folgen der deutschen Zivilbeschäftigten: strukturpolitische Beurteilung von und Chancen des Truppenabbaus das Beispiel Rheinland-Pfalz, Kieler Truppenstandorten der Bundes- in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Düsseldorf. Schriften zur Friedenswissenschaft. wehr und der US-Streitkräfte. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Münster: Lit-Verlag. Gutachten der Industrieanlagen- (NATO). 1949. „Agreement regarding Betriebsgesellschaft mbH im Auftrag Gettmann, Alfred and Hans Joachim the status of forces of Parties to the des bayrischen Staatsministeriums Schmidt. 1992. „Trupenabbau und North Atlantic Treaty.“ Reprinted in für Wirtschaft und Verkehr. Konversion in Hessen und Duke, 1989, pp.406–415 (Annexe E). . Rheinland-Pfalz.“ Friedens- Operation Hahn Take-Off. A Global forschung Aktuell. No. 31, Spring. International Institute for Strategic Perspective. 1994. Promotional Studies (IISS). 1993. The Military Grundman, Martin and Margitta brochure for Hahn Airport, jointly Balance. : Brasseys (UK) Ltd. Matthies. 1993. Kleinere Bundes- published by Rheinland-Pfalz, wehr und weniger Rüstung. Kroll, Peter, ed. 1994. Rheinland- Wayss & Freytag AG, and Flughafen Münster/: Lit-Verlag. Pfalz. Ein Porträt. Mainz, DC: Hahn. Landesregierung Rheinland-Pfalz. Harkavy, Robert E. 1989. Bases Renner, Michael. 1992. Economic Abroad. The Global Foreign Laurance, Edward J., Herbert Wulf, Adjustment after the Cold War: Military Presence. Stockholm and Joseph DiChiaro, III. 1995. Strategies for Conversion. International Peace Research Conversion and the Integration of Dartmouth: United Nations Institute Institute (SIPRI). NY: Oxford Economic and Security Dimensions. for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) University Press. BICC Report 1. Bonn: Bonn publication/Aldershot. International Center for Conversion, Henter, Bernhard. 1995. „Daten und Revitalizing Base Closure January. Fakten zur Air Base.“ Hand-out Communities and Community materials from the seminar, Lindemann, Ulrike. 1993. Die Assistance. 1994. Interim Rule ‘Conversion in Britain and Germany: Auflösung des NATO-Flugplatzes Amendments. 59 Federal Regulation Challenges following the closure of Hahn/Hunsrück. Ein Beitrag zur 53,735 (1994) §91.7. military installations,’ held 17–20 Analyse der regionalökonomischen Rheinland-Pfalz. Ministerium des January, in Trier, Germany, spon- Bedeutung militärischer Einrich- Innern. 1992. Konversion in sored by the Anglo-German tungen in strukturschwachen Rheinland-Pfalz. Bewältigung einer Foundation. Copy in authors’ Gebieten. Bonn: Geographische großen Zukunftsaufgabe. Mainz, archives. Institute der Rheinischen-Friedrich- February. Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn. HLT Gesellschaft für Forschung und March. ______. 1993. Ausführungs- Planung Entwicklung mbH. 1993. hinweise des BMF zur Veräußerung Konversion in Hessen. Wert- Matthies, Margitta and Alfred von Konversionsliegenschaften zum ermittlung als ertragsorientierte Gettmann. 1993. sanierungs- oder entwicklungs- Überschlagsrechnung. Beispiel Beschäftigungsprobleme und -per- unbeeinflußten Grundstückswert. . HLT Information zur spektiven weiblicher Zivilbeschäf- Mainz, April. zivilen Folgenutzung bisher militä- tigter bei den US-Streitkräften: Das rischer genutzer Flächen, No.9. Beispiel der Kreuzberg-Kaserne ______. 1994. Organisations- Wiesbaden. Zweibrücken. Mainz: Ministerium struktur Konversion und für die Gleichstellung von Frau und Streitkräfte. Mainz, April. ______. 1994. Altlasten auf Mann des Landes Rheinland-Pfalz. Konversionflächen. Haltung des ______. 1994. Rückgabe landes- Bundes. HLT Information zur zivilen eigener Konversionsflächen (NV- Moseler, Claudius, member of Öko- Folgenutzung bisher militärischer Wald) durch den Bund. logische Demokratische Partei genutzer Flächen, No.13. Bedingungen und Verfahren. (Ödp). 1994. Telephone interview Wiesbaden. Mainz, February. by author, 8 December. ______. 1994. Konversion in Rheinland-Pfalz. Ministerium für National Defense Authorization Act Fulda, Nutzungskonzepte Downs Wirtschaft und Verkehr. 1994. for Fiscal Year 1994. 1993. US Barracks und Airfield Sickels. HLT Konversion in Rheinland-Pfalz. Code. Pub. L. No. 103–160. Report No.414. Wiesbaden. Mainz. NATO. See: North Atlantic Treaty ______. 1994. Organization. Truppenreduzierungen und wirt- Network DEMILITARIZED. 1994. schaftliche Bedeutung der Streit- The Conversion of Military Sites: A kräfte. Mainz. handbook outlining a commercial audit procedure to assist the re-use of former Defence Establishments. Wiltshire County Council, UK. B.I.C.C 81 report 4 june 95

Rheinland-Pfalz. Ministerium für ______. 1994. USAREUR USEUCOM. See: US European Wirtschaft, Verkehr, Landwirtschaft Stationing as of 1 January 1994. Command. und Weinbau. 1995. Flughafen AEAEN-EH-PI. Heidelberg: US European Command Hahn—Gesellschaften gegründet/ USAREUR, 13 January. (USEUCOM). Periodic. News Flughafen vom Bund gekauft. Press US Army Europe. Office of the Releases. European Base release, Hahn, 31 March. Secretary of the General Staff Realignment Announcements, Schmidt, Hans Joachim. 1992. (USAREUR/OSGS). Military History Rounds 1–18. January 1990 to Welche Zukunft haben die US- Office (MHO). 1994. Campbell February 1995. Streitkräfte in der Westpfalz? PFK Barracks. The Story of a Caserne. US General Accounting Office Texte No.17, Kiel. 1937 to 1994. Heidelberg: (GAO). 1994. European Drawdown. USAREUR, December. Schmidt-Eenboom, Erich. 1989. Status of Residual Value Militär in Mainz. Eine Analyse der US Army Europe. Public Affairs Negotiations in Germany. militärischen Strukturen in der Office (USAREUR/PA). 1993. US GAO/NSLAD-94-195BR. Stadt Mainz und ihrer ökologi- Army Europe. The Right Force for Washington, DC: GPO, June. schen, sozialen und ökonoischen a Changing World. Heidelberg: ______. 1994. Strategic Airlift. Enflüsse auf die Landeshauptstadt USAREUR. Further Air Base Reductions in von Rheinland-Pfalz. Gutachten des ______. 1994. US Army Europe & Europe Could Jeopardize Forschungsinstitutes für Friedens- 7th Army. Continuity, Change, Capability. GAO/NSLAD-94-138. politik e.V.im Auftrag des Ober- Growth. Heidelberg: USAREUR. Washington, DC: GPO, June. bürgermeisters der Stadt Mainz. . ______. 1995. US Army Europe & US President’s Economic Adjustment 7th Army. Into the 21st Century. Committee (EAC). 1991. Planning Sharp, Jane M.O., ed. 1990. Europe Heidelberg: USAREUR. Civilian Reuse of Former Military After an American Withdrawal. Bases. Washington, DC: GPO. Economic and Military Issues. US Congress. House. 1993. Defense Stockholm International Peace ______. 1993. Civilian Reuse of Authorization Bill for FY 1994. Research Institute (SIPRI). NY: Former Military Bases. Summary of 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H.R. 2401. Oxford University Press. Completed Military Base Economic US Department of Defense (DoD). Adjustment Projects. Washington, Stadt Fulda. 1994. Farewell 1989. Atlas/Data Abstract for the DC: GPO. Blackhorse: Der US-Militärstandort United States and Selected Areas Fulda 1945-1994. Fulda. Vest, Gary D. 1994. See: US (Fiscal Year 1989). DIOR/L03-89. Department of Defense. 1994. Stadtteil Layenhof. [1994]. Washington, DC: GPO. Provisional report of Layenhof Wegman, Richard A. and Harold G. ______. 1993. Atlas/Data Abstract working group. Mainz, February. Bailey, Jr. 1994. „The Challenge of for the United States and Selected Cleaning Up Military Wastes When Steinebach, Gerhard. 1992. „Die Areas (Fiscal Year 1993). US Bases are Closed.“ Ecology Law Wiedernutzug der brachgefallenen DIOR/L03-93. Washington, DC: Quarterly. Vol. 21, No. 4. US-Airbase Zweibrücken. Ein GPO. Modellfall militärischer Konversion.“ Welcome to USAREUR 95. [1995]. ______. 1994. Report on Overseas Informationen zur Raumentwick- : Off Duty Publications, Basing, by Gary D. Vest, Principal lung. May, pp.362–372. Ltd. Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of USAFE. See: US Air Force Europe. Defense—Environmental Security. Wirtschaftsministerkonferenz. 1990. Report to the Senate and House „Wirtschaftliche Auswirkungen der USAREUR. See: US Army Europe. Armed Services Committees. Rüstungseinschränkungen Washington, DC, March. einschließlich des Truppenabbaus.“ USAREUR/PA. See: US Army Report of working group. Bonn. Europe. Public Affairs Office. US Department of Defense. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense US Air Force Europe (USAFE). (DoD/OASD). Annual. Base Office of Public Information. 1995. Structure Report (Fiscal Years 1987, Letters to author from Capt. Michael 1993 and 1994). Washington, DC: J. Paoli. Ramstein AFB, 13 February GPO. and 23 January. US Department of Defense. Office US Army Europe (USAREUR). 1990. of Economic Adjustment USAREUR Stationing as of 1 July (DoD/OEA). 1993. Civilian Reuse of 1990. AEAEN-IP-MP. Heidelberg: former Military Bases. Summary of USAREUR, ODCSENGR. completed Military Base Economic Adjustment Projects. Washington, DC: GPO.

82 B.I.C.C statistical annex

Statistical Annex bases were also not available. ■ For a significant number of Methodology cases. Where possible, other reduced or partially returned sources were used as supple- sites, in-depth interviews were he Statistical Annex provides the ments for the three Army bases conducted with the relevant Tdetailed figures used to derive that closed before 1991 (see local Army and Air Force Public this report’s charts, graphs and statis- below). The Base Structure Information Officers and Base tical analysis of the size, type, loca- Report for FY 1987 is generally Stationing Managers. Thus, tion, and number of personnel of US used for Air Force sites (with the multiple phone interviews were bases in Germany. Virtually all of exception of area information; conducted with officials at the the figures were drawn from US see below). Thus, ‘end of the following bases: 54th ASG; 98th Department of Defense sources; Cold War’ as used in this report ASG; 29th ASG/415th BSB; 26th our foundation documents were signifies 1987 for the Air Force ASG/293rd BSB; 99th ASG/279th the DoD Base Structure Report FY and 1991 for the Army. BSB; 6th ASG; 53rd ASG/222nd 1987 for the Air Force analysis and ■ The United States streamlined its BSB. These findings were then Base Structure Report FY 1993 command structure from Military verified to the greatest extent (September 1991 figures) for the Communities into Area Support possible through the European Army analysis, as well as the official Groups (ASGs) to allow for a Headquarters in Heidelberg methodology news releases for the 18 rounds smaller force structure. In some (Army) and Ramstein (Air Force). of US European base realignments cases, the former Military In the many cases where sites that were published periodically be- Communities are not directly have been reduced to at or near tween January 1990 and 23 February comparable to ASGs. For exam- zero, the site is handled as a 1995 by US European Command. ple, the Munich Military closed site even though it is not The data contained in these Community was subdivided and yet officially designated as such announcements are comparable assigned to three different com- by the US Forces. See Part II for with the data in the DoD Base mands. What is now called the the specific status and sources Structure Reports. The statistics Garmisch Military Community for officially reduced sites. were then verified through the Army was part of the now disbanded ■ Kaiserslautern and Hanau and Air Force European Public Munich Military Community Military Communities were Information Offices in Heidelberg before the reorganization. To unique. In these cases, the and Ramstein, respectively. compensate for these discrep- USAREUR statistics did not match Where data discrepancies could ancies and to avoid obscuring those of the Base Structure not be resolved, the specific unit the true nature of the drawdown, Report because they have been was contacted or the data was this report continues to cate- reorganized internally—i.e., corroborated through local Military gorize the bases under the old some consolidating operations Stationing Installation Plans, local Military Community system. moved in while other operations military and civilian officials, and at the bases were de-commis- other publicly available sources. More specific data inconsistencies sioned or were transferred out. were overcome in the following Thesechanges were not reflected Two general problems were not ways: through closures or reductions as completely avoidable: is usually the case. To harmonize ■ To account for the three Army the data, the authors used the ■ The Base Structure Reports before bases that closed before 1991 Army Stationing Installation 1990 provide only a macro-level (Bad Tölz, Neu-Ulm, and most of Plan for Kaiserslautern (415th view of US Army deployments in Göppingen), additional sources BSB, 1995) and the FY 1995 Germany, with little community- were used: Duke, 1989 and Vest, Population Density Tables of the specific information, due to the 1994 (see Part III for details). 104th ASG/414th BSB (1995) to high level of data sensitivity ■ For the area covered by the US assess the changes at Hanau. during the Cold War. Soon after Air Bases, the more accurate site- ■ The Base Structure Reports list the end of the Cold War, the char- by-site information in the DoD some facilities as ‘combined’ acter of the report was made far Base Structure Report FY 1993 sites. This precludes a perfect more specific; the Base Structure was used (rather than the FY categorization of the site in the Report for Fiscal Year 1993 pro- 1987 volume), except in cases Annex. Two examples of this are vides detailed information about where a base closed before 1991 the Bernbach Training and specific sites as of September 1991. (none were reduced). Therefore, Storage Areas, Hanau and the Although the US overseas realign- the areas of Zweibrücken and Flynn Family Housing and ment commenced in January Hessisch-Oldendorf Air Bases, Training Area, Bamberg. The 1990, it did not gain momentum both of which closed before problem is resolved in this until 1991—therefore, using 1991, may be slightly under- Annex by using the most signifi- 1991 figures should not affect the valued. Accurate statistics for cant category, i.e., airfield, bar- accuracy of the data in most German civilians at these two racks or training range.

B.I.C.C 83 report 4 june 95

Part I

Status of US Army Sites in Germany by Military Community

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Böblingen Fam Hsg Stuttgart 6 housing 0 1 23 24 25 10.125 Böblingen Officers Club Stuttgart 6 rec 0 9 0 9 2 0.81 Böblingen Range Stuttgart 6 training 0 0 0 0 19 7.695 Böblingen Tng Area Stuttgart 6 training 0 0 0 0 2221 899.505 Panzer Kaserne Stuttgart 6 barracks 625 110 245 980 89 36.045 Panzerstrasse Stuttgart 6 barracks 0 0 0 0 9 3.645 Kelly Barracks Stuttgart 6 barracks 411 65 29 505 67 27.135 Möhringen Family Housing Stuttgart 6 housing 0 0 0 0 33 13.365 Kefurt & Craig Village Family Hsg Stuttgart 6 housing 0 0 0 0 39 15.795 Stuttgart 6 barracks 1473 338 100 1911 109 44.145 Steuben & Weicht Village Family Hsg Stuttgart 6 housing 0 0 0 0 48 19.44 Golf Course Stuttgart 6 rec 0 1 36 37 324 131.22 Robinson-Grenadier Family Hsg Stuttgart 6 housing 0 0 0 0 136 55.08 Stuttgart Admin. Facility Stuttgart 6 barracks 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 Stuttgart Dependent School Stuttgart 6 other 0 0 0 0 11 4.455 Stuttgart Open Totals 2509 524 433 3466 3134 1269.27

Aldingerstr. Family Housing Stuttgart 6 housing 0 1 1 2 35 14.175 Flak Kaserne Stuttgart 6 barracks 727 22 70 819 44 17.82 Krabbenloch Kaserne Stuttgart 6 barracks 551 15 43 609 28 11.34 Ludendorff Kaserne Stuttgart 6 barracks 355 26 186 567 29 11.745 Fam Housing Stuttgart 6 housing 62 230 105 397 170 68.85 Stuttgarterstr. Fam Housing Stuttgart 6 housing 0 0 0 0 6 2.43 Wilkin Barracks Stuttgart 6 barracks 534 44 0 578 28 11.34 Echterdingen Airfield* Stuttgart 6 airfield 912 1 1 914 235 95.175 Nellingen Kaserne Stuttgart 6 barracks 1262 431 226 1919 307 124.335 Bad Cannstatt Hospital Stuttgart 6 hospital 434 79 195 708 31 12.555 Grenadier Kaserne Stuttgart 6 barracks 67 153 1260 1480 21 8.505 Kornwestheim AF and TNG* Stuttgart 6 airfield 2 0 4 6 235 95.175 Osterholz Storage Facility Stuttgart 6 arsenal 4 13 94 111 59 23.895 * Stuttgart 6 barracks 234 638 143 1015 53 21.465 Wallace & McGee Barracks Stuttgart 6 barracks 18 149 180 347 23 9.315 Weilimdorf Wharehouse Stuttgart 6 other 0 0 22 22 4 1.62 Stuttgart Closed Totals 5162 1802 2530 9494 1308 529.74 Percentage Closed 50% 73% 30%

Edingen Radio Rcvr Facility Heidelberg 26 commo 26 0 0 26 77 31.185 Hammonds Barracks Heidelberg 26 barracks 6 0 58 64 35 14.175 Heidelberg AFN Relay Facility Heidelberg 26 commo 0 0 0 0 19 7.695 Heidelberg Airfield Heidelberg 26 airfield 193 5 56 254 44 17.82 Heidelberg Community Spt Ctr Heidelberg 26 other 137 425 827 1389 28 11.34 Heidelburg Golf Course Heidelberg 26 rec 0 0 0 0 126 51.03 Heidelberg Hospital Heidelberg 26 hospital 565 232 341 1138 23 9.315 Kilbourne Kaserne Heidelberg 26 barracks 144 166 103 413 13 5.265 Mark Twain Village Family Hsg Heidelberg 26 housing 27 161 79 267 74 29.97 Oftersheim Small Arms Range Heidelberg 26 training 0 0 0 0 35 14.175 Patrick Henry Village Family Hsg Heidelberg 26 housing 36 363 23 422 2550 1032.75 Patton Barracks Heidelberg 26 barracks 617 41 220 878 275 111.375 Training Area Heidelberg 26 training 0 0 0 0 2889 1170.045 Seckenheim Kaserne Heidelberg 26 barracks 12 10 50 72 203 82.215 Tompkins Barracks Heidelberg 26 barracks 835 289 643 1767 89 36.045 Königstuhl Radio Relay Sta Heidelberg 26 commo 32 5 12 49 5 2.025 Heidelberg Open totals 2630 1697 2412 6739 6485 2626.425

Rheinau Kaserne Heidelberg 26 barracks 29 0 0 29 34 13.77 Heidelberg Closed totals 29 0 0 29 34 13.77 Percentage Closed 6% 0% 0%

84 B.I.C.C statistical annex

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Camp Thomas Nast Karlsruhe 26 barracks 97 4 0 101 35 14.175 Germersheim RTO Facility Karlsruhe 26 barracks 0 0 0 0 3 1.215 Training Area Karlsruhe 26 training 0 0 0 0 63 25.515 Wörth Bivouac Area Karlsruhe 26 training 0 0 0 0 246 99.63 Comm Facility Karlsruhe 26 commo 0 0 0 0 2 0.81

Karlsruhe Shopping Center Karlsruhe 26 other 93 73 584 750 36 14.58 Army Mörsch Range Karlsruhe 26 training 0 0 0 0 75 30.375 Paul Revere Village Family Hsg Karlsruhe 26 housing 7 159 33 199 176 71.28 Rheinland Kaserne Karlsruhe 26 barracks 668 27 0 695 33 13.365 Smiley Barracks Karlsruhe 26 barracks 517 107 367 991 41 16.605 Waldstadt AFN Facility Karlsruhe 26 commo 0 0 0 0 10 4.05 Karlsruhe Open Totals 1382 370 984 2736 720 291.6

Berg Storage Point Karlsruhe 26 arsenal 0 0 0 0 131 53.055 Geinsheim Activity Karlsruhe 26 other 3 44 2 49 47 19.035 Germersheim Ammo Area Karlsruhe 26 arsenal 0 0 0 0 246 99.63 Germersheim Army Depot Karlsruhe 26 depot 434 70 1353 1857 454 183.87 Bruchsal Ord Area Karlsruhe 26 arsenal 0 0 0 0 581 235.305 Gerszewski Barracks Karlsruhe 26 barracks 1737 75 352 2164 215 87.075 Karlsruhe Airfield Karlsruhe 26 airfield 0 29 0 29 199 80.595 Neureut Kaserne Karlsruhe 26 barracks 1137 45 338 1520 163 66.015 Neureut Labor Svc Kaserne Karlsruhe 26 barracks 0 0 267 267 31 12.555 Family Hsg Karlsruhe 26 housing 0 4 3 7 10 4.05 Comm Facility Karlsruhe 26 commo 9 5 4 18 1 0.405 Karlsruhe Closed Totals 3320 272 2319 5911 2078 841.59 Percentage Closed 50% 68% 74%

Ben Franklin Village Family Hsg Mannheim 26 housing 105 783 234 1122 231 93.555 Coleman Barracks Mannheim 26 barracks 3106 153 366 3625 580 234.9 Edigheim Beacon Site Mannheim 26 commo 0 0 0 0 1 0.405 Friedrichsfeld QM Svc Ctr Mannheim 26 supply 0 0 0 0 40 16.2 Friedrichsfeld Storage Area Mannheim 26 arsenal 14 42 178 234 16 6.48 Funari Barracks Mannheim 26 barracks 202 232 264 698 30 12.15 Rheinau Coal Pt D-1 Mannheim 26 other 0 0 0 0 38 15.39 Spinelli Barracks Mannheim 26 barracks 1021 39 585 1645 200 81 Sullivan Barracks Mannheim 26 barracks 1699 310 218 2227 108 43.74 Taylor Barracks Mannheim 26 barracks 701 483 653 1837 114 46.17 Turley Barracks Mannheim 26 barracks 594 45 263 902 33 13.365 Mannheim Open Totals 7442 2087 2761 12290 1391 563.355

Lampertheim Ammo Area Mannheim 26 arsenal 0 0 0 0 234 94.77 Bridge Tng Site Mannheim 26 training 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lampertheim Training Area* Mannheim 26 training 0 0 112 112 5112 2070.36 Rheinau Coal Pt-4 Mannheim 26 other 0 0 0 0 6 2.43 - Ammo Storage Mannheim 26 arsenal 0 0 0 0 983 398.115 Mannheim Closed Totals 0 0 112 112 6335 2565.675 Percentage Closed 30% 0% 82%

Grünstadt AAFES Facility Worms 26 other 7 12 1083 1102 20 8.1 Grünstadt Comm Station Worms 26 commo 0 0 0 0 64 25.92 Comm Facility Worms 26 commo 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 Leistadt Comm Fac Hill 460 Worms 26 commo 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 Comm Station Worms 26 commo 44 3 7 54 4 1.62 Comm Station Worms 26 commo 48 24 66 138 344 139.32 Worms Open Totals 99 39 1156 1294 436 176.58

B.I.C.C 85 report 4 june 95

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Haide Labor Svc Camp Worms 26 housing 0 0 249 249 16 6.48 Weierhof Family Hsg Worms 26 housing 3 14 77 94 25 10.125 De La Police Kaserne Worms 26 barracks 100 10 34 144 4 1.62 Hardenburg Comm Sta HL516 Worms 26 commo 0 0 0 0 5 2.025 Taukkunen Barracks Worms 26 barracks 958 521 382 1861 31 12.555 Thomas Jefferson Family Hsg* Worms 26 housing 1 32 39 72 35 14.175 Worms Athletic Field Worms 26 rec 0 0 0 0 11 4.455 Worms Community Park Worms 26 other 0 0 0 0 41 16.605 Worms QM Area Worms 26 supply 20 0 10 30 7 2.835 Worms R&U Area Worms 26 other 1 3 108 112 7 2.835 Worms Training Area Worms 26 training 0 0 0 0 8 3.24 Quirnheim Missile Station* Worms 26 air def 0 0 0 0 31 12.555 Schönborn Missile Station Worms 26 air def 129 0 0 129 41 16.605 Worms Closed Totals 1212 580 899 2691 262 106.11 Percentage Closed 68% 67% 38%

Dänner Kaserne Kaiserslautern 29 barracks 44 110 192 346 20 8.1 Dänner Post Chapel Kaiserslautern 29 other 6 1 0 7 2 0.81 Eselfürth QM Fac Kaiserslautern 29 supply 14 1 81 96 35 14.175 Hill 365 Radio Relay Fac Kaiserslautern 29 commo 0 0 0 0 19 7.695 Kaiserslautern Equip Spt Ctr Kaiserslautern 29 other 22 15 67 104 80 32.4 Kleber Kaserne Kaiserslautern 29 barracks 1162 302 663 965 77 31.185 Panzer kaserne Kaiserslautern 29 barracks 323 299 193 815 0 0 Bann Comm Sta Kaiserslautern 29 commo 0 0 0 0 8 3.24 Pulaski Barracks Kaiserslautern 29 barracks 65 141 228 434 145 58.725 Sambach AFN Fac Kaiserslautern 29 commo 2 0 3 5 17 6.885 Breitenwald Tng Area Kaiserslautern 29 training 0 0 0 0 246 99.63 Landstuhl Heliport Kaiserslautern 29 airfield 246 7 0 253 2 0.81 Landstuhl Hospital Kaiserslautern 29 hospital 992 387 373 1752 225 91.125 Miesau Ammo Depot Kaiserslautern 29 arsenal 654 82 397 1133 2269 918.945 Greater Vogelweh Facilities Kaiserslautern 29 misc 71 99 48 218 0 0 Community Fac Kaiserslautern East* Kaiserslautern 29 other 0 4 8 12 53 21.465 Kaiserslautern Arm Depot* Kaiserslautern 29 depot 164 121 1225 1510 1279 517.995 Rhine Ordnance Barracks* Kaiserslautern 29 barracks 1327 108 212 1647 3689 1494.045 Kaiserslautern Open Totals 5092 1677 3690 9297 8166 3307.23

Kaiserslautern Reduced Totals** 2033 0 2838 4871 0 0 Percentage Reduced 0% 34% 0%

Dietrichengen Recreation Area Zweibrücken 29 rec 724 24 208 956 4 1.62 Kreuzberg Kaserne Zweibrücken 29 barracks 442 1008 920 2370 65 26.325 Oberaürbach Missile Station* Zweibrücken 29 air def 0 0 0 0 32 12.96 Zweibrücken Fam Hsg Area Zweibrücken 29 housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zweibrücken Airfield Zweibrücken 29 airfield 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zweibrücken Closed Totals 1166 1032 1128 3326 101 40.905 Percentage Reduced 100% 100% 100%

Ruppertsweiler Wharehouse 7608 Pirmasens 29 other 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 Pirmasens Open Totals 0 0 0 0 2 0.81

** Kaiserslautern experienced a major restructuring. Many of its units were transferred to the US, but Kaiserslautern also became a consolidation point for other smaller units. The following figures represent the permanent employment lost due to the transition.

86 B.I.C.C statistical annex

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Böllenborn Comm Fac Pirmasens 29 commo 0 0 0 0 1 0.405 Ammo Area Pirmasens 29 arsenal 19 0 421 440 979 396.495 Höhmühlback Railhead Fac Pirmasens 29 other 0 0 0 0 12 4.86 Husterhöh Kaserne* Pirmasens 29 barracks 1914 752 2270 4936 724 293.22 Ammo Area 67 Pirmasens 29 arsenal 0 0 0 0 43 17.415 Missile & Tng Area* Pirmasens 29 training 0 6 2 8 930 376.65 UG Wharehouse Pirmasens 29 other 92 1736 55 1883 25 10.125 Münchweiler Hospital Pirmasens 29 hospital 631 21 49 701 116 46.98 Münchweiler UG Whse 7602 Pirmasens 29 other 0 0 0 0 18 7.29 Pirmasens QM Fac Pirmasens 29 supply 8 77 238 323 7 2.835 Admin Area Pirmasens 29 barracks 0 0 0 0 62 25.11 UG Whse 7600 Pirmasens 29 other 0 0 0 0 19 7.695 Storage Facility Pirmasens 29 arsenal 0 0 0 0 4 1.62 Storage Facility Pirmasens 29 arsenal 0 0 0 0 16 6.48 Whse 7610 Pirmasens 29 other 0 0 0 0 3 1.215 Fischbach Ord Depot Pirmasens 29 arsenal 515 18 57 590 1670 676.35 Pirmasens Closed Totals 3179 2610 3092 8881 4629 1874.745 Percentage Reduced 95% 100% 100%

George C. Marshall Kaserne Bad Kreuznach 53 barracks 72 258 597 927 52 21.06 Mörsfeld Storage Pt Bad Kreuznach 53 arsenal 0 0 24 24 128 51.84 Rheingrafenstein Tng & Stor Area Bad Kreuznach 53 training 0 0 0 0 201 81.405 Rose Barracks Bad Kreuznach 53 barracks 1303 57 103 1463 46 18.63 Anderson Barracks Bad Kreuznach 53 barracks 1366 4 39 1409 124 50.22 Camp Tng Area Bad Kreuznach 53 training 0 0 0 0 161 65.205 Dexheim Fam Hsg Bad Kreuznach 53 housing 0 8 2 10 20 8.1 Dexheim Missile Fac Bad Kreuznach 53 air def 0 0 0 0 41 16.605 Kreuznach Open Totals 2741 327 765 3833 773 313.065

Bad Kreuznach Airfield Bad Kreuznach 53 airfield 6 0 0 6 29 11.745 Bad Kreuznach Family Hsg Bad Kreuznach 53 housing 0 39 78 117 75 30.375 Bad Kreuznach Hospital Bad Kreuznach 53 hospital 420 38 202 660 20 8.1 Fürfeld Class III & V Pt Bad Kreuznach 53 arsenal 0 0 0 0 109 44.145 Minick Kaserne Bad Kreuznach 53 barracks 329 5 3 337 9 3.645 Bad Kreuznach Closed Totals 755 82 283 1120 242 98.01 Percentage Reduced 40% 23% 24%

McCully Barracks Mainz 53 barracks 1162 0 2 1164 77 31.185 Wackernheim-Schwabenwaeldchen TA Mainz 53 training 0 0 0 0 23 9.315 Mainz Open Totals 1162 0 2 1164 100 40.5

Azbill Barracks Mainz 53 barracks 217 0 0 217 6 2.43 Dr. MLK Village Mainz 53 housing 1 19 19 39 62 25.11 Dragoner Kaserne Mainz 53 barracks 64 285 580 929 6 2.43 Finthen Airfield Mainz 53 airfield 132 0 0 132 455 184.275 Finthen Fam Hsg Mainz 53 housing 0 0 0 0 8 3.24 Fintherlands Fam Hsg Mainz 53 housing 0 0 0 0 9 3.645 Lee Barracks Mainz 53 barracks 366 8 36 410 272 110.16 Mainz Army Depot Mainz 53 depot 47 109 3762 3918 59 23.895 Mainz R&U Area Mainz 53 other 0 0 0 0 13 5.265 Mombach Maintenance Plant Mainz 53 depot 0 0 0 0 50 20.25 Oberolmerwald Cl III Store Mainz 53 arsenal 0 0 17 17 160 64.8 Sandflora Family Hsg Mainz 53 housing 0 0 0 0 13 5.265 Uhlerborn Housing Area Mainz 53 housing 0 0 0 0 57 23.085 Wackernheim Maintenance Fac Mainz 53 other 0 0 0 0 22 8.91 Mainz Closed Totals 827 421 4414 5662 1192 482.76 Percentage Reduced 88% 83% 93%

B.I.C.C 87 report 4 june 95

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Baumholder Airfield Baumholder 53 airfield 0 0 0 0 47 19.035 Baumholder Family Hsg Baumholder 53 housing 0 23 27 50 94 38.07 Baumholder Hospital Baumholder 53 hospital 24 5 32 61 13 5.265 Baumholder QM Area Baumholder 53 supply 0 0 3 3 53 21.465 Waterworks Baumholder 53 other 0 0 0 0 55 22.275 Smith Barracks Baumholder 53 barracks 5536 447 1543 7526 1050 425.25 Wetzel Family Hsg Baumholder 53 housing 0 58 2 60 131 53.055 Wetzel Kaserne Baumholder 53 barracks 259 0 51 310 268 108.54 Birkenfeld Housing Facility Baumholder 53 housing 0 0 0 0 6 2.43 Hoppstädten Sewage Treat Plt Baumholder 53 other 0 0 0 0 5 2.025 Hoppstädten Waterworks Baumholder 53 other 0 0 0 0 18 7.29 Baumholder Open Totals 5819 533 1658 8010 1740 704.7

Baumholder Tac Def Missile Fac Baumholder 53 air def 0 0 0 0 80 32.4 Hoppstädten Airfield Baumholder 53 airfield 0 0 0 0 105 42.525 Neubrücke Hospital* Baumholder 53 hospital 1183 60 78 1321 109 44.145 Idar Oberstein Family Hsg* Baumholder 53 housing 0 0 0 0 31 12.555 Nahbollenbach Storage Area* Baumholder 53 arsenal 23 4 614 641 90 36.45 Strassburg Kaserne* Baumholder 53 barracks 239 27 110 376 40 16.2 Winterhauch Storage Area Baumholder 53 arsenal 0 0 0 0 182 73.71 Missle Station Baumholder 53 air def 591 0 0 591 80 32.4 Baumholder Closed Totals 2036 91 802 2929 717 290.385 Percentage Reduced 42% 27% 30%

Herongen Storage Area Rheinberg 54 arsenal 21 0 259 280 531 215.055 Hinsbeck Comm Facility Rheinberg 54 commo 111 51 231 393 0 0 Twisteden Ammo Area Rheinberg 54 arsenal 19 0 168 187 747 302.535 Rheinberg Open Totals 151 51 658 860 1278 517.59

Hamminkeln Comm Facility Rheinberg 54 commo 8 0 0 8 0 0 South Park Storage Area Rheinberg 54 arsenal 98 1 366 465 239 96.795 Dülmen Comm Facility Rheinberg 54 commo 46 0 0 46 0 0 Kalkar Housing Area Rheinberg 54 housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Münster Comm Facility Rheinberg 54 commo 119 15 15 149 1 0.405 Simpson Barracks Rheinberg 54 other 0 0 0 0 3 1.215 Windberg Barracks Rheinberg 54 barracks 6 2 23 31 3 1.215 Rheinberg Closed Totals 277 18 404 699 246 99.63 Percentage Reduced 70% 45% 16%

Breitsol Comm Station Aschaffenburg 98 coom 15 0 3 18 8 3.24 Aschaffenburg Open Totals 15 0 3 18 8 3.24

Aschaffenburg Fam Hsg Aschaffenburg 98 housing 0 0 0 0 78 31.59 Aschaffenburg Tng Areas Aschaffenburg 98 training 0 0 0 0 3226 1306.53 Fiori Barracks Aschaffenburg 98 barracks 206 2 28 236 37 14.985 Graves Barracks Aschaffenburg 98 barracks 26 1 11 38 47 19.035 Jäger Barracks Aschaffenburg 98 barracks 91 77 8 176 16 6.48 Ready Barracks Aschaffenburg 98 barracks 11 0 2 13 28 11.34 Smith Barracks, Ascha. Aschaffenburg 98 barracks 436 0 1 437 15 6.075 Vielbrunn Ammo Area Aschaffenburg 98 arsenal 0 0 0 0 184 74.52 Mönchberg Comm Facility Aschaffenburg 98 commo 15 0 0 15 4 1.62 Aschaffenburg Closed Totals 785 80 50 915 3635 1472.175 Percentage Reduced 90% 98% 100%

88 B.I.C.C statistical annex

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Faulenberg Kaserne* Würzburg 98 barracks 142 145 1029 1316 63 25.515 Giebelstadt Army Airfield Würzburg 98 airfield 1611 31 253 1895 0 0 Giebelstadt Dya Camp Würzburg 98 rec 0 0 0 0 32 12.96 Giebelstadt Tac Def Site Würzburg 98 air def 0 0 0 0 26 10.53 Harvey Barracks Würzburg 98 barracks 386 33 425 844 630 255.15 Kitzingen Family Hsg Würzburg 98 housing 0 0 0 0 80 32.4 Kitzingen Training Areas Würzburg 98 training 0 0 0 0 2769 1121.445 Larson Barracks Würzburg 98 barracks 1888 84 344 2316 656 265.68 Schwnberg Ammo Area Würzburg 98 commo 0 0 0 0 0 0 Leighton Barracks Würzburg 98 barracks 1170 341 743 2254 339 137.295 Steinbachtal Ammo Area Würzburg 98 arsenal 0 0 0 0 131 53.055 Würzburg Hospital Würzburg 98 hospital 312 197 95 604 14 5.67 Würzburg Open Totals 5509 686 1860 8055 4677 1894.185

Peden Barracks Würzburg 98 barracks 619 135 340 1094 520 210.6 Emery Barracks Würzburg 98 barracks 956 22 38 1016 53 21.465 Hindenburg Barracks Würzburg 98 barracks 769 20 96 885 17 6.885 Würzburg Training Areas Würzburg 98 training 0 0 0 0 1584 641.52 Fwd Storage Site Würzburg 98 arsenal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Würzburg Closed Totals 2344 177 474 2995 2174 880.47 Percentage Reduced 30% 27% 32%

Askren Manor Family Hsg Schweinfurt 98 housing 1 1 28 30 71 28.755 Conn Barracks Schweinfurt 98 barracks 3698 2 7 3707 410 166.05 Leward Barracks Schweinfurt 98 barracks 2628 219 466 3313 127 51.435 Massbach Qrs Site Schweinfurt 98 arsenal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rottershausen Ammo Storage Area Schweinfurt 98 arsenal 0 0 0 0 186 75.33 Sulzheim Tng Area Schweinfurt 98 training 0 0 0 0 145 58.725 Schweinfurt Open Totals 6327 222 501 7050 939 380.295

Schweinfurt Training Areas Schweinfurt 98 training 0 0 0 0 12010 4864.05 Schweinfurt Closed Totals 0 0 0 0 12010 4864.05 14% 0% 92%

Rheinwarzhofen Rad Rel Fac Nürnberg 99 commo 0 0 2 2 2 0.81 Nürnberg Open Totals 0 0 2 2 2 0.81

Erlangen Family Hsg Nürnberg 99 housing 0 0 0 0 21 8.505 Ferris Barracks Nürnberg 99 barracks 2800 139 108 3047 317 128.385 Tennenlohe Training Area Nürnberg 99 training 0 0 0 0 7996 3238.38 Herzo Base Nürnberg 99 barracks 448 35 46 529 318 128.79 Herzogenaurach Family Hsg Nürnberg 99 housing 0 0 0 0 8 3.24 Feucht Pol Storage Fac Nürnberg 99 arsenal 0 0 0 0 41 16.605 Merrell Barracks Nürnberg 99 barracks 65 93 51 209 46 18.63 Nürnberg Athletic Field Nürnberg 99 rec 26 0 0 26 30 12.15 Pastoriusstr Family Hsg Nürnberg 99 housing 0 0 0 0 24 9.72 Dambach Family Hsg Nürnberg 99 housing 0 0 0 0 26 10.53 Darby Kaserne Nürnberg 99 barracks 1769 1186 296 3251 101 40.905 Fürth Shopping Center Nürnberg 99 other 2 38 1210 1250 14 5.67 Johnson Barracks Nürnberg 99 barracks 486 73 30 589 131 53.055 Kalb Family Hsg Nürnberg 99 housing 0 0 0 0 111 44.955 Monteith Barracks Nürnberg 99 barracks 1122 66 18 1206 311 125.955 Nürnberg Coal Yard Nürnberg 99 other 0 0 0 0 8 3.24 Nürnberg Hospital Nürnberg 99 hospital 489 341 46 876 29 11.745 Nürnberg Transient Billets Nürnberg 99 housing 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 Family Hsg Nürnberg 99 housing 0 0 0 0 9 3.645 Schwabach Range Nürnberg 99 training 0 0 0 0 16 6.48 Schwabach Training Area Nürnberg 99 training 0 0 0 0 225 91.125 Berbach Range Nürnberg 99 training 0 0 0 0 26 10.53 Pinder Barracks Nürnberg 99 barracks 226 35 15 276 61 24.705 Nürnberg Closed Totals 7433 2006 1820 11259 9871 3997.755 Percentage Reduced 92% 100% 100%

B.I.C.C 89 report 4 june 95

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Barton Barracks Ansbach 99 barracks 205 6 45 256 35 14.175 Katterbach Kaserne Ansbach 99 barracks 1342 12 137 1491 409 165.645 Urlas Tng Area Ansbach 99 training 591 3 3 597 382 154.71 Family Hsg Ansbach 99 housing 0 0 0 0 10 4.05 Oberdachstetten Training Area Ansbach 99 training 0 0 0 0 799 323.595 Storck Barracks Ansbach 99 barracks 1408 110 156 1674 447 181.035 Ansbach Open Totals 3546 131 341 4018 2082 843.21

Bleidorn Family Hsg Ansbach 99 housing 0 0 0 0 35 14.175 Bleidorn Kaserne Ansbach 99 barracks 51 5 25 81 16 6.48 Feuchtlach Training Area Ansbach 99 training 0 0 0 0 305 123.525 Hindenburg Kaserne Ansbach 99 barracks 382 275 424 1081 30 12.15 Crailsheim Family Hsg Ansbach 99 housing 0 0 0 0 29 11.745 Crailsheim Training Area Ansbach 99 training 0 0 0 0 1297 525.285 McKee Barracks Ansbach 99 barracks 172 16 183 371 190 76.95 Gerhardshofen Fwd Strge Site Ansbach 99 arsenal 0 0 31 31 27 10.935 Ansbach Closed Totals 605 296 663 1564 1929 781.245 Percentage Reduced 57% 30% 48%

Hohenstadt Rad Rel Sta Göppingen 99 commo 19 0 2 21 6 2.43 Göppingen Open Totals 19 0 2 21 6 2.43

Kennedy Vill Family Hsg Heilbronn 26 housing 2 2 30 34 58 23.49 Wharton Barracks Heilbronn 26 barracks 483 163 326 972 58 23.49 Siegelsbach Ammo Facility Heilbronn 26 arsenal 450 0 0 450 413 167.265 Dolan Barracks Heilbronn 99 barracks 0 0 0 0 399 161.595 Einkorn AFN Facility Heilbronn 99 commo 0 0 0 0 136 55.08 Hessental Family Hsg Heilbronn 99 housing 0 0 0 0 5 2.025 Matheshörlebach Range Heilbronn 99 training 0 0 0 0 18 7.29 Lassbach Fwd Storage Site Heilbronn 99 arsenal 0 0 0 0 78 31.59 Heilbronn Closed Totals 935 165 356 1456 1165 471.825 Percentage Reduced 100% 100% 100%

Fryar Circle Family Hsg Augsburg 99 housing 0 0 0 0 40 16.2 Gablingen Kaserne Augsburg 99 barracks 0 0 0 0 359 145.395 Bonstetten Radio Relay Facility Augsburg 99 commo 0 0 3 3 1 0.405 Sheridan Kaserne Augsburg 99 barracks 2372 254 964 3590 189 76.545 Sullivan Heights Family Hsg Augsburg 99 housing 0 0 0 0 19 7.695 Augsburg Open Totals 2372 254 967 3593 608 246.24

Augsburg QM Supply Ctr Augsburg 99 supply 6 0 0 6 37 14.985 Centerville Family Hsg Augsburg 99 housing 0 0 0 0 63 25.515 Cramerton Family Hsg Augsburg 99 housing 0 0 0 0 55 22.275 Flak Kaserne Augsburg 99 barracks 900 194 64 1158 76 30.78 Lechfeld Training Area Augsburg 99 training 0 0 0 0 2613 1058.27 Marxheim River Training Area Augsburg 99 training 0 0 0 0 29 11.745 Reese Barracks Augsburg 99 barracks 316 7 91 414 106 42.93 Asgsburg Closed Totals 1222 201 155 1578 2979 1206.495 Percentage Reduced 60% 30% 83%

Bad Aibling Kaserne Garmisch 99 barracks 322 1 4 327 318 128.79 Hinterbrand Outdoor Educ Area Garmisch 99 other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Artillery Kaserne Garmisch 99 barracks 13 8 2 23 22 8.91 Garmisch Family Hsg Garmisch 99 housing 2 121 339 462 83 33.615 Garmisch Shopping Center Garmisch 99 other 1 19 54 74 3 1.215 Günzberg Comm Facility Garmisch 99 commo 208 1 1 210 1 0.405 Breitenau Skeet Range Garmisch 99 rec 0 0 0 0 49 19.845 Garmisch Golf Course Garmisch 99 rec 0 0 0 0 73 29.565 Gen Abrams Hotel & Disp Garmisch 99 rec 16 0 0 16 11 4.455 Gen Patton Hotel Garmisch 99 rec 0 0 0 0 1 0.405 Gen Von Steuben Hotel Garmisch 99 rec 0 0 0 0 1 0.405 Hausberg Ski Area Garmisch 99 rec 0 0 0 0 36 14.58 Sheridan Barracks Garmisch 99 barracks 77 125 243 445 26 10.53 Garmisch Open Totals 639 275 643 1557 624 252.72

90 B.I.C.C statistical annex

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Frasdorf Operations Area Garmisch 99 training 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 Berchtesgaden Accom Building Garmisch 99 barracks 0 0 0 0 0 0 Berchtesgaden Community Ctr Garmisch 99 rec 0 0 0 0 1 0.405 Berchtesgadener Hof Facility Garmisch 99 rec 0 0 0 0 4 1.62 Stanggass Camp Area Garmisch 99 barracks 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strub Kaserne Garmisch 99 barracks 2 0 5 7 0 0 Chiemsee Recreation Area Garmisch 99 rec 0 0 0 0 42 17.01 Gen Walker Hotel Garmisch 99 rec 0 0 0 0 316 127.98 Garmisch Supply Area Garmisch rec 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Garmisch Closed Totals 2 0 5 7 365 147.825 Percentage Reduced 40% 0% 35%

Bamberg Airfield Bamberg 99 airfield 0 0 0 0 236 95.58 Flynn Family Hsg & Training Areas Bamberg 99 housing 0 0 0 0 2613 1058.265 Warner Barracks* Bamberg 99 barracks 2099 285 818 3202 227 91.935 Warner Bks Family Hsg Bamberg 99 housing 0 0 0 0 13 5.265 Bamberg Open Totals 2099 285 818 3202 3089 1251.045

Bamberg Storage & Range Area Bamberg 99 arsenal 260 0 0 260 432 174.96 Rothensand Fwd Storage Site Bamberg 99 arsenal 0 0 0 0 24 9.72 Bamberg Closed Totals 260 0 0 260 456 184.68 Percentage Reduced 33% 8% 13%

Amberg Family Hsg Grafenwöhr 100 housing 0 0 0 0 9 3.645 Frechetsfeld Radio Site Grafenwöhr 100 commo 11 0 0 11 3 1.215 Freihölser Training Area Grafenwöhr 100 training 0 0 0 0 340 137.7 Hirschau Training Area Grafenwöhr 100 training 0 0 0 0 0 0 East Camp Grafenwöhr Grafenwöhr 100 barracks 1262 452 2200 3914 2699 1093.095 Grafenwöhr Training Area Grafenwöhr 100 training 0 0 0 0 51685 20932.425 Grafenwöhr Open Totals 1273 452 2200 3925 54736 22168.08

Amberg Airfield Grafenwöhr 100 airfield 0 0 0 0 41 16.605 Fuchstein Storage Area Grafenwöhr 100 arsena 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pond Barracks* Grafenwöhr 100 barracks 35 64 203 302 43 17.415 Röhrensee Kaserne Grafenwöhr 100 barracks 20 1 4 25 7 2.835 Grafenwöhr Closed Totals 55 65 207 327 91 36.855 Percentage Reduced 40% 8% 0%

South Camp Vilseck Vilseck 100 arsenal 1262 452 2200 3914 2193 888.165

Hohenfels Training Area Hohenfels 100 training 5920 313 984 7217 39170 15863.85 Pioneer Kaserne Hohenfels 100 barracks 221 2 2 225 3 1.215 Family Housing Hohenfels 100 housing 0 0 0 0 7 2.835 Hohenfels Open Totals 6141 315 986 7442 39180 15867.9 Percentage Reduced 0% 0% 0%

Camp Wildflecken Wildflecken 100 barracks 2220 386 826 3432 786 318.33 Reussendorf Ammo Storage Area Wildflecken 100 barracks 0 0 0 0 216 87.48 Wildflecken Family Hsg Wildflecken 100 housing 0 0 0 0 48 19.44 Wildflecken QM Sup Pt Wildflecken 100 supply 0 0 0 0 50 20.25 Wildflecken Tac Def Site Wildflecken 100 air def 0 0 0 0 34 13.77 Wildflecken Training Range Wildflecken 100 training 4 0 0 4 16889 6840.05 Sterbfritz Fwd Storage Site Wildflecken 100 arsenal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wildflecken Closed Totals 2224 386 826 3436 18023 7299.315 Percentage Reduced 100% 100% 100%

Weisskirchen AFN Frans Fac Frankfurt 103 commo 0 0 0 0 18 7.29 AM Fischstein Family Hsg Frankfurt 103 housing 0 0 0 0 4 1.62 AG Pub & Tng Aids Ctr Frankfurt 103 barracks 11 47 195 253 10 4.05 Frankfurt Open Totals 11 47 195 253 32 12.96

B.I.C.C 91 report 4 june 95

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Bad Vilbel Family Hsg Frankfurt 103 housing 0 0 0 0 29 11.745 Bad Vilbel Training Area Frankfurt 103 training 0 0 0 0 30 12.15 Camp King Frankfurt 103 barracks 174 36 52 262 39 15.795 Drake Barracks Frankfurt 103 barracks 605 3 8 616 35 14.175 Edwards Family Hsg Frankfurt 103 housing 0 0 0 0 68 27.54 Rose Airfield Frankfurt 103 airfield 35 0 0 35 50 20.25 Atterberry Family Hsg Frankfurt 103 housing 10 9 206 225 31 12.555 Betts Housing Frankfurt 103 housing 791 487 108 1386 21 8.505 Frankfurt Consolidated Mtr Pl Frankfurt 103 other 0 0 0 0 6 2.43 Frankfurt Hospital Frankfurt 103 hospital 0 0 0 0 24 9.72 Frankfurt Mortuary Frankfurt 103 other 25 7 4 36 1 0.405 Gibbs Barracks Frankfurt 103 barracks 1123 458 1085 2666 24 9.72 Gibbs Family Hsg Frankfurt 103 housing 0 0 0 0 17 6.885 Barracks Frankfurt 103 barracks 0 0 0 0 1 0.405 Offenbach Spt Fac Frankfurt 103 other 0 0 0 0 15 6.075 Frankfurt Autobahn Svc Fac Frankfurt 103 other 0 0 0 0 11 4.455 Frankfurt Community Area Frankfurt 103 rec 19 0 0 19 4 1.62 Frankfurt Grünhof Area Frankfurt 103 barracks 0 410 0 410 14 5.67 Frankfurt HQs Area Frankfurt 103 barracks 642 1724 478 2844 85 34.425 Frankfurt Shopping Area Frankfurt 103 other 7 489 0 496 19 7.695 Grüneburg Park Admin Fac Frankfurt 103 barracks 0 0 0 0 1 0.405 Hansa Allee Family Hsg Frankfurt 103 housing 275 138 326 739 11 4.455 Hausen Equip Maint Ctr Frankfurt 103 other 67 68 27 162 10 4.05 Storage Fac Frankfurt 103 arsenal 0 0 0 0 3 1.215 Hügelstr Family Hsg Frankfurt 103 housing 0 0 0 0 17 6.885 Kennedy Kaserne Frankfurt 103 barracks 309 96 174 579 1 0.405 Platenstr Family Hsg Frankfurt 103 housing 0 0 0 0 63 25.515 Siegel BOQ Area Frankfurt 103 housing 0 0 0 0 4 1.62 Von Steuben Family Hsg Frankfurt 103 housing 0 0 0 0 18 7.29 Storage Area Frankfurt 103 arsenal 0 0 0 0 38 15.39 Höscht Family Hsg Frankfurt 103 housing 0 0 0 0 10 4.05 Schwanheim Calibration Lab Frankfurt 103 other 27 0 3 30 14 5.67 Frankfurt Closed Totals 4109 3925 2471 10505 714 289.17 Percentage Reduced 91% 98% 96%

Amelia Earhart Hotel Wiesbaden 103 housing 0 0 0 0 6 2.43 American Arms Hotel Wiesbaden 103 housing 0 0 0 0 5 2.025 Hainerberg Hsg & Shop Ctr Wiesbaden 103 housing 3 308 133 444 167 67.635 Kastel Hsg Area Wiesbaden 103 housing 0 0 15 15 28 11.34 Kastel Storage Fac Wiesbaden 103 arsenal 89 68 279 536 58 23.49 Rheinblick Rec Annex Wiesbaden 103 rec 0 0 0 0 172 69.66 Wiesbaden Air Base Wiesbaden 103 airfield 2726 700 1212 4638 638 258.39 Wiesbaden Small Arms Range Wiesbaden 103 training 0 0 0 0 26 10.53 Wiesbaden Svc Annex Wiesbaden 103 other 0 0 0 0 3 1.215 Wiesbaden Open Totals 2818 1176 1639 5633 1103 446.715

Aukamm Hsg Area Wiesbaden 103 housing 0 45 0 45 93 37.665 Camp Pieri Wiesbaden 103 barracks 992 7 42 1041 38 15.39 Crestview Hsg Area Wiesbaden 103 housing 0 0 0 0 32 12.96 Hsg Area Wiesbaden 103 housing 45 0 0 45 1 0.405 Wiesbaden Closed Totals 1037 52 42 1131 164 66.42 Percentage Reduced 30% 17% 13%

92 B.I.C.C statistical annex

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Babenhausen Family Hsg Darmstadt 103 housing 1 0 6 7 0 0 Babenhausen Kaserne Darmstadt 103 barracks 1997 0 4 2001 365 147.825 Maint & Supply Fac Darmstadt 103 other 0 0 0 0 7 2.835 Fritsch Kaserne Darmstadt 103 barracks 1399 400 693 2492 64 25.92 Darmstadt Carreer Ctr Darmstadt 103 barracks 0 0 0 0 220 89.1 Egelsbach Trnsmtr Facility Darmstadt 103 commo 0 0 0 0 122 49.41 Jefferson Village Family Hsg Darmstadt 103 housing 0 0 0 0 26 10.53 Darmstadt 103 barracks 860 7 22 889 121 49.005 Lincoln Village Family Hsg Darmstadt 103 housing 0 118 0 118 67 27.135 Messel Small Arms Range Darmstadt 103 training 0 0 0 0 44 17.82 Nathan Hale QM Area Darmstadt 103 supply 0 0 8 8 39 15.795 St Barbara Village Family Hsg Darmstadt 103 housing 0 0 0 0 13 5.265 Ammo Area Darmstadt 103 arsenal 0 0 0 0 258 104.49 Melibokus Radio Relay Station Darmstadt 103 commo 18 0 0 18 5 2.025 Darmstadt Open Totals 4275 525 733 5533 1351 547.155

Ernst Ludwig Kaserne Darmstadt 103 barracks 283 1 0 284 54 21.87 Griesheim Airfield* Darmstadt 103 airfield 170 0 819 989 246 99.63 Griesheim Missile Facility Darmstadt 103 air def 0 0 0 0 0 0 Leeheim Bridge Training Area Darmstadt 103 training 0 0 0 0 362 146.61 Ober-Ramstadt Maint Plt Darmstadt 103 other 4 2 9 15 21 8.505 Münster Ammo Depot Darmstadt 103 arsenal 743 1 0 744 706 285.93 Darmstadt Closed Totals 1200 4 828 2032 1389 562.545 Percentage Reduced 30% 27% 50%

Armstrong Barracks Hanau 104 barracks 864 14 8 886 59 23.895 Armstrong Village Family Hsg Hanau 104 housing 0 0 0 0 17 6.885 Büdingen Ammo Area Hanau 104 arsenal 0 0 0 0 10 4.05 Büdingen Army Heliport Hanau 104 airfield 0 0 3 3 29 11.745 Tiergarten Training Area Hanau 104 training 0 0 0 0 246 99.63 Argonner Kaserne Hanau 104 barracks 0 0 0 0 51 20.655 Campo Pond Training Area Hanau 104 training 0 0 0 0 257 104.085 Cardwell Village Family Hsg Hanau 104 housing 0 0 0 0 10 4.05 Fliegerhorst Airfield Kaserne Hanau 104 airfield 1626 23 4 1653 625 253.125 Hutier Kaserne* Hanau 104 barracks 852 0 0 852 33 13.365 Lamboy Training Area* Hanau 104 training 0 0 0 0 224 90.72 New Argonner Family Hsg Hanau 104 housing 0 0 0 0 83 33.615 Pioneer Kaserne Hanau 104 barracks 1142 0 0 1142 95 38.475 Pioneer Village Family Hsg Hanau 104 housing 0 0 0 0 61 24.705 Wolfgang Kaserne Hanau 104 barracks 0 370 54 424 99 40.095 Yorkhof Kaserne Hanau 104 commo 0 951 636 1587 4 1.62 Hanau Open Totals 4484 1358 705 6547 1903 770.715

Lorbach Ammo Area Hanau 104 arsenal 0 0 0 0 12 4.86 Alsberg Fwd Storage Site Hanau 104 arsenal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bernbach Tng & Strg Areas* Hanau 104 training 0 0 0 0 317 128.385 Coleman Village Family Hsg Hanau 104 housing 2 85 10 97 28 11.34 Fwd Storage Site Hanau 104 arsenal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Training Area Hanau 104 training 249 0 0 249 126 51.03 Benz Facility Hanau 104 barracks 0 1 8 9 0 0 Forage Depot Hanau 104 other 0 10 48 58 9 3.645 Francois Kaserne Hanau 104 barracks 130 15 36 181 21 8.505 Grossauheim Kaserne Hanau 104 barracks 915 19 328 1262 215 87.075 Hessen-Homburg Kaserne Hanau 104 barracks 0 0 9 9 18 7.29 Add. Reductions Various Locations 2769 0 752 3521 Hanau Closed Totals 4065 130 1191 5386 746 302.13 Percentage Reduced 40% 45% 28%

Bad Hersfeld Class III Dump Fulda 104 other 0 0 0 0 3 1.215 Daley Village Family Hsg Fulda 104 housing 20 0 0 20 17 6.885 Fulda Open Totals 20 0 0 20 20 8.1

B.I.C.C 93 report 4 june 95

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Bad Hersfeld Engineer Area Fulda 104 other 38 0 138 176 11 4.455 Bad Hersfeld Training Area Fulda 104 training 0 0 0 0 272 110.16 Friedewald Training Area Fulda 104 training 0 0 0 0 4145 1678.73 McPheeters Barracks Fulda 104 barracks 1164 1 91 1256 49 19.845 McPheeters Village Family Hsg Fulda 104 housing 0 0 0 0 21 8.505 Fwd Storage Site Fulda 104 other 0 0 0 0 27 10.935 Bad Kissingen Ammo Facility Fulda 104 arsenal 0 0 0 0 6 2.43 Bad Kissingen Training Areas Fulda 104 training 0 0 0 0 515 208.575 Reiterswiesen Airfield Fulda 104 airfield 0 0 0 0 20 8.1 Reiterseiesen Ammo Storage Fulda 104 arsenal 0 0 0 0 3 1.215 Reiterswiesen Qrs Site Fulda 104 arsenal 0 0 0 0 98 39.69 Reiterswiesen Training Area Fulda 104 training 0 0 0 0 738 298.89 Bimbach Cl V Storage Area Fulda 104 arsenal 0 0 0 0 21 8.505 Downs Barracks Fulda 104 barracks 2190 107 538 2835 147 59.535 Downs Family Hsg Fulda 104 housing 0 0 0 0 26 10.53 Fulda Engineer Area Fulda 104 barracks 0 0 0 0 9 3.645 Gerlos Ammo Storage Site Fulda 104 arsenal 0 0 0 0 21 8.505 Giesel Fwd Storage Site Fulda 104 arsenal 0 29 0 29 27 10.935 Lehnerz Range Fulda 104 training 0 0 0 0 16 6.48 Sickels Airfield Fulda 104 airfield 765 8 28 801 182 73.71 Billeting Area Fulda 104 housing 0 0 0 0 7 2.835 Fulda Closed Totals 4157 145 795 5097 6361 2576.205 Percentage Reduced 91% 100% 100%

Alvin York Village Family Hsg Gießen 104 housing 2 40 23 65 23 9.315 McArthur Place Family Hsg Gießen 104 housing 0 0 0 0 10 4.05 Ray Barracks Gießen 104 barracks 1502 327 163 1992 188 76.14 George C Marshall Village Fam Hsg Gießen 104 housing 0 0 0 0 42 17.01 Hommertshausen Girl Scout Camp Gießen 104 rec 0 0 0 0 84 34.02 John F Dulles Village Family Hsg Gießen 104 housing 0 33 1 34 22 8.91 Ayers Kaserne Gießen 104 barracks 3119 293 281 3693 927 375.435 Roman Way Village Family Hsg Gießen 104 housing 10 71 13 94 63 25.515 Gießen Open Totals 4633 764 481 5878 1359 550.395

Friedberg Tng & Storage Site Gießen 104 training 6 0 2 8 9509 3851.15 Flensungen Fwd Storage Site Gießen 104 arsenal 0 0 28 28 42 17.01 Gießen Ammo Area Gießen 104 arsenal 0 0 0 0 17 6.885 Gießen Cl I Pt Gießen 104 other 11 12 4 27 7 2.835 Gießen Cl II &IV Depot Gießen 104 training 0 0 0 0 12 4.86 Gießen Comm Facility Gießen 104 commo 45 0 0 45 0 0 Gießen Community Center Gießen 104 rec 0 0 00 18 7.29 294.435 Gießen General Depot* Gießen 104 depot 3633 306 838 4777 541 219.105 Gießen Training Areas Gießen 104 training 0 0 0 0 727 294.435 Marburg Gen Storage Fac Gießen 104 arsenal 0 0 0 0 9 3.645 Pendleton Barracks Gießen 104 barracks 607 363 98 1068 38 15.39 Rivers Barracks Gießen 104 barracks 594 15 10 619 45 18.225 Rothwestern Tech Ops Facility Gießen 104 other 17 4 22 43 11 4.455 Schwarzenborn Radio Relay Site Gießen 104 commo 0 0 0 0 1 0.405 Kransberg Facilities Gießen 104 other 0 0 0 0 4 1.62 Schloss Kaserne Gießen 104 barracks 275 0 31 306 33 13.365 Büren Comm Facility Gießen 104 commo 134 4 2 140 0 0 Camp Paul Bloomquist Gießen 104 other 23 0 0 23 4 1.62 Herbornseelbach Comm Facility Gießen 104 commo 213 1 1 215 0 0 Köterberg Radio Relay Site Gießen 104 commo 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 Lindrhofe Comm Station Gießen 104 commo 0 1 1 2 15 6.075 Mt Meissner Radio Relay Station Gießen 104 commo 12 0 0 12 11 4.455 Gießen Closed Totals 5570 706 1037 7313 11046 4473.63 Percentage Reduced 73% 55% 90%

94 B.I.C.C statistical annex

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Blink Family Hsg Norddeutschl. 543 housing 0 48 23 71 40 16.2 Bremerhaven Dock Area Norddeutschl. 543 other 5 65 63 133 28 11.34 Bremerhaven Hospital Norddeutschl. 543 hospital 267 100 66 433 9 3.645 Bremerhaven Rto Norddeutschl. 543 barracks 0 0 0 0 3 1.215 Carl Schurz Kaserne Norddeutschl. 543 barracks 1474 357 1268 3099 372 150.66 Engemoor Family Hsg Norddeutschl. 543 housing 0 0 0 0 15 6.075 Lucius D Clay Kaserne Norddeutschl. 543 barracks 1922 132 832 2886 348 140.94 Osternholz-Scharmbeck Centrum Norddeutschl. 543 barracks 19 4 141 164 38 15.39 Dörverden Comm Facility Norddeutschl. 543 commo 0 0 0 0 1 0.405 Dünsen Comm Facility Norddeutschl. 543 commo 6 0 2 8 1 0.405 Comm Facility Norddeutschl. 543 commo 186 44 56 286 5 2.025 Kellinghusen Comm Facility Norddeutschl. 543 commo 62 0 2 64 2 0.81 Langendamm Comm Facility Norddeutschl. 543 commo 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 Sögel Comm Facility Norddeutschl. 543 barracks 246 12 29 287 13 5.265 Wobeck Electronic Test Facility Norddeutschl. 543 other 7 0 2 9 29 11.745 Norddeutschland Closed Totals 4194 762 2484 7440 906 366.93 Percentage Reduced 100% 100% 100%

AAFES Whse & 4 Season Store Berlin 54other 0 0 0 0 5 2.025 AFN Station & APO Berlin 54commo 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 AM Dreipfuhl Family Hsg Berlin 54housing 0 0 0 0 16 6.48 Andrews Barracks Berlin 54barracks 6 0 2 8 109 44.145 Berlin AAFES Garages Berlin 54other 0 0 0 0 1 0.405 Berlin American High School Berlin 54other 0 0 0 0 12 4.86 Berlin Brigade Family Hsg Berlin 54housing 0 0 0 0 83 33.615 Berlin Brigade Sports Ctr Berlin 54rec00000 0 Berlin BOQ Berlin 54housing 237 0 0 237 13 5.265 Berlin DEH Compound Berlin 54barracks 0 0 0 0 0 0 Berlin Documents Center Berlin 54barracks 0 0 0 0 3 1.215 Berlin Golf & Country Club Berlin 54rec 0 0 0 0 97 39.285 Berlin Hospital Berlin 54hospital 0 0 0 0 12 4.86 Berlin RTO Berlin 54barracks 0 0 0 0 0 0 Berlin Signal Station Berlin 54commo 0 0 0 0 0 0 Berlin Sup & Svc Div Compound Berlin 54bararcks 0 0 0 0 8 3.24 Berlin S&S Div Peri Subs Whse Berlin 54other 0 0 0 0 4 1.62 Dachsberg Ammo Area Berlin 54arsenal 0 0 0 0 31 12.555 Dahlem House Berlin 54baracks 0 0 0 0 1 0.405 Düppel Family Hsg Berlin 54housing 0 0 0 0 53 21.465 Gen Lucius D Clay Headquarters Berlin 54barracks 3028 3258 23 6309 19 7.695 Harnack House Berlin 54barracks 0 0 0 0 4 1.62 Infantry Motor Pool Berlin 54other 0 0 0 0 21 8.505 Jagen 87 Sig Facility Berlin 54commo 0 0 0 0 52 21.06 Jagen 92 Ammo Area Berlin 54arsenal 0 0 0 0 817 330.885 Jagen Training Area Berlin 54training 0 0 0 0 0 0 Keerans Range Berlin 54training 0 0 0 0 56 22.68 McNair Barracks Berlin 54barracks 0 0 0 0 70 28.35 NCO Club Checkpoint Berlin 54rec 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 Theater Berlin 54rec 0 0 0 0 4 1.62 Pacelliallee Transmitter Station Berlin 54commo 0 0 0 0 19 7.695 Parks Range Berlin 54training 0 0 0 0 177 71.685 Pückler Family Hsg Berlin 54housing 0 0 0 0 20 8.1 Residential Transient Billets Berlin 54housing 0 0 0 0 46 18.63 Rose Training Area Berlin 54training 0 0 0 0 256 103.68 Sundgaürstr Family Hsg Berlin 54housing 0 0 0 0 13 5.265 T A Roberts School Berlin 54other 0 0 0 0 8 3.24 Tegel Airport Berlin 54other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Teufelsberg Comm Facility Berlin 54commo 0 0 0 0 15 6.075 Truman Plaza Berlin 54barracks 0 0 0 0 14 5.67 Turner Barracks Berlin 54barracks 0 0 0 0 7 2.835 Wannsee Recreation Ctr Berlin 54rec 0 0 0 0 8 3.24 Berlin Closed Totals 3271 3258 25 6554 2078 841.59 Percentage Reduced 100% 100% 100%

B.I.C.C 95 report 4 june 95

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Chiemgaustr Bil & Admin Area Munich barracks 0 0 0 0 15 6.075 Grünthal Family Hsg Munich housing 0 0 0 0 4 1.62 Harlaching Admin Facility Munich barracks 0 0 0 0 1 0.405 McGraw Kaserne Munich barracks 817 1516 713 3046 116 46.98 Munich AFN Facility Munich commo 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perlacher Forest Family Hsg Munich housing 11 5 20 36 242 98.01 Munich Closed Totals 828 1521 733 3082 378 153.09 Percentage Reduced 100% 100% 100%

Notes: Closed bases are in blue.

* See Part II for details on status of these reduced sites.

96 B.I.C.C statistical annex

Status of US Air Force Bases in Germany

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Bitburg Air Base* Bitburg airfield 4584 817 1042 6443 1239 501.80 Comm Annex Bitburg commo 0 0 0 0 57 23.09 Mötsch Ammo Stg Annex Bitburg arsenal 0 0 0 0 18 7.29 Prüm Family Hsg Annex Bitburg housing 0 0 0 0 20 8.10 Rittersdorf Annex Bitburg storage 0 0 0 0 30 12.15 Röhl Annex Bitburg storage 0 0 0 0 1 0.41 Sülm Annex Bitburg storage 0 0 0 0 10 4.05

Bitburg Closed Totals 4.584 817 1042 6443 1375 55689 Air Force

Hahn Air Base* Hahn airfield 5311 868 678 6857 1251 506.66 Buchenbeuren Waste Annex Hahn sewage 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 Hahn Family Housing Hahn housing 0 0 0 0 135 54.68 Hahn Water Sys Annex 1 Hahn sewage 0 0 0 0 1 0.41 Hahn Water Sys Annex 2 Hahn sewage 0 0 0 0 1 0.41 Hahn Water Sys Annex 3 Hahn sewage 0 0 0 0 1 0.41 Hahn Water Sys Annex 4 Hahn sewage 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 Hahn Water Sys Annex 5 Hahn sewage 0 0 0 0 5 2.03 Hahn Water Sys Annex 6 Hahn sewage 0 0 0 0 20 8.10 Hudheim Annex Hahn storage 0 0 0 0 7 2.84. Family Housing Hahn housing 0 0 0 0 6 243 Morbach Ammo Stg Site Hahn arsenal 0 0 0 0 362 146.61 Family Hsg Annex Hahn housing 0 0 0 0 35 14.18 Wüscheim Air Base Hahn airfield 0 0 0 0 32 12.96 Wüscheim Ammo Stg Annex Hahn arsenal 0 0 0 0 62 25.11 Wüscheim Comm Annex Hahn commo 0 0 0 0 6 2.43 Wüscheim Comm Annex 2 Hahn commo 0 0 0 0 3 1.22 Hahn Closed Totals 5311 868 678 6857 1931 782.1

Lindsey Air Base Lindsey airfield 2113 453 366 2932 82 33.21 Schierstein Adm Annex Lindsey adm 0 0 0 0 4 1.62 Wiesbaden Hospital Lindsey hospital 0 0 0 0 19 7.70 Lindsey Closed Totals 2113 453 366 2932 105 42.53

Ramstein Air Base Ramstein airfield 9633 3112 2065 14810 3100 1255.50 Bann Comm Annex Ramstein commo 0 0 0 0 6 2.43 Börfink Admin Site Ramstein adm 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Copenhagen Family Hsg Site Ramstein housing 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Einseidlerhof Maint Annex Ramstein fuel/trans 0 0 0 0 13 5.27 Einseidlerhof Stg Annex Ramstein storage 0 0 0 0 27 10.94 Einseidlerköpfe Training Annex Ramstein training 0 0 0 0 311 125.96 Kaiserslautern Family Hsg Annex 3 Ramstein housing 0 0 0 0 12 4.86 Kaiserslautern Family Hsg Annex 4 Ramstein housing 0 0 0 0 3 1.22 Kaiserslautern Water Sys Annex Ramstein adm 0 0 0 0 4 1.62 Kapaun Adm Annex Ramstein adm 0 0 0 0 155 62.78 Stg Annex Ramstein storage 0 0 0 0 6 2.43 Landstuhl Family Hsg Annex 3 Ramstein housing 0 0 0 0 52 21.06 Landstuhl Maint Annex Ramstein fuel/trans 0 0 0 0 7 2.84 Landstuhl Maint Annex 2 Ramstein fuel/trans 0 0 0 0 7 2.84 Langerkopf Water Sys Annex Ramstein sewage 0 0 0 0 57 23.09 Ramstein Family Hsg Annex Ramstein housing 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Ramstein Stg Annex Ramstein storage 0 0 0 0 85 34.43 Siegenberg Ramstein misc 0 0 0 0 681 275.81 Vogelweh Family Hsg Annex Ramstein housing 0 0 0 0 678 274.59 Ramstein Open Totals 9633 3112 2065 14810 5204 2107.7

B.I.C.C 97 report 4 june 95

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Donauüschingen Cont Hop Annex Ramstein hospital 0 0 0 0 10 4.05 Ramstein Closed Totals 0 0 0 0 10 4.05

Gateway Gardens Family Hsg Annex Rhein-Main housing 0 0 0 0 87 35.24 Langen Terrace Family Hsg Annex Rhein-Main housing 0 0 0 0 19 7.70 Rhein-Main Totals 0 0 0 0 106 42.9

Rhein Main Air Base* Rhein-Main airfield 4679 1193 413 6285 794 321.57 Rhein Main Closed Totals 4679 1193 413 6285 794 321.57

Enkenbach Water Sys Annex Sembach sewage 0 0 0 0 5 2.03 Ammo Stg Annex Sembach arsenal 0 0 0 0 88 35.64 Kalkar Comm Site Sembach commo 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Neukirchen Water Sys Annex Sembach sewage 0 0 0 0 1 0.41 Niedermehlingerhof Water Sys Annex Sembach sewage 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 Sembach Base Support Annex Sembach misc 0 0 0 0 3 1.22 Mühl Züsch RRL Sembach (Hahn) commo 0 0 0 0 3 1.22 Sembach Open Totals 0 0 0 0 102 41.3

Sembach Air Base* Sembach airfield 3125 563 436 4124 584 236.52 Comm Annex Sembach commo 0 0 0 0 6 2.43 Comm Annex Sembach commo 0 0 0 0 68 27.54 Pol Retail Dist Annex Sembach supply 0 0 0 0 7 2.84 Reisenbach Comm Annex Sembach commo 0 0 0 0 3 1.22 Rohrrbach Waste Annex Sembach sewage 0 0 0 0 3 1.22 Sembach Closed Totals 3125 563 436 4124 671 271.8

Spangdahlem Air Base Spangdahlem airfield 4608 523 570 5701 1282 519.21 Grosslittgen Stg Annex Spangdahlem storage 0 0 0 0 5 2.03 Grosslittgen Water Sys Annex Spangdahlem sewage 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 Niederkail Water Sys Annex Spangdahlem sewage 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 Spangdahlem Waste Annex Spangdahlem sewage 0 0 0 0 3 1.22 Ahlbach Water Sys Annex Spangdahlem sewage 0 0 0 0 1 0.41 (Bitburg) Bon Ahin Radio Relay Site Spangdahlem commo 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 (Bitburg) Bitburg Family Hsg Annex Spangdahlem housing 0 0 0 0 149 60.35 (Bitburg) Bitburg Family Hsg Annex 2 Spangdahlem housing 0 0 0 0 15 6.08 (Bitburg) Mötsch Water Sys Annex Spangdahlem sewage 0 0 0 0 6 2.43 (Bitburg) Oberweis Annex Spangdahlem storage 0 0 0 0 105 42.53 (Bitburg) Prüm Air Stations Spangdahlem airfield 0 0 0 0 47 19.04 (Bitburg) Prüm Water Sys Annex Spangdahlem sewage 0 0 0 0 6 2.43 (Bitburg) Spangdahlem Open Totals 4608 523 570 5701 1623 657.4

Trier Family Hsg Annex Spangdahlem housing 0 0 0 0 20 8.10 Spangdahlem Closed Totals 0 0 0 0 20 8.10

Tempelhof Air Station Tempelhof airfield 1104 764 0 1868 506 204.93 Tegel Navigational Aid Annex Tempelhof misc 0 0 0 0 2 0.81 Templehof Closed Totals 1104 764 0 1868 508 205.7

98 B.I.C.C statistical annex

Personnel Acres Site Military ASG Type US Milit. US Civil. Ger. Civil. Total Acres Hectares Community

Air Bases Closed Before 1991** Zweibrücken Air Base Zweibrücken airfield 2431 436 275 3142 654 264.87 Zweibrücken Bach Hsg Zweibrücken housing 0 0 0 0 n/a Zweibrücken Family Hsg Zweibrücken housing 0 0 0 0 n/a Zweibrücken Family Hsg 2 Zweibrücken housing 0 0 0 0 n/a Zweibrücken Storage Annex Zweibrücken storage 0 0 0 0 n/a Zweibrücken Closed Totals 2431 436 275 3142 654 264.87

Hessisch Oldendorf Air Station Hessisch- airfield 592 56 0 648 27 10.94 Oldendorf Hessisch Oldendorf Rec Annex Hessisch- rec 0 0 0 0 n/a Oldendorf Hessisch Oldendorf Hessisch- storage 0 0 0 0 n/a Storage Annex Oldendorf Hessisch Oldendorf Hessisch- storage 0 0 0 0 n/a Storage Annex 2 Oldendorf Schwelentrup Com Annex Hessisch- commo 0 0 0 0 n/a Oldendorf Hessisch-Oldendorf Closed Totals 592 56 0 648 27 10.94

Notes: Closed bases are in blue. (Hahn) = Bases in parentheses are the bases of orginal command, i.e., those which have closed.

* See Part II for details on reduced sites. ** These facilities were not included in the site-type break-down because accurate area information was not available.

B.I.C.C 99 report 4 june 95

Part II

Officially Reduced Sites: Status and Sources

Location / Site Status

Verified through the 6th ASG Stuttgart Echterdingen Airfield 56 acres retained, 100 personnel Kornwesteim Airfield and Training Reduced to zero Robinson Barracks 27 acres of housing with 60 positions retained

Verified through the 415th BSB Pirmasens Lemberg Missile Station and Training Reduced to zero Husterhöh Kaserne 1000 personnel retained under command of Kaiserslautern

Zweibrücken Oberaürbach Missile Station 17 positions retained

Kaiserslautern Army Depot 1346 personnel retained (1225 Germans) Rhein Ordnance Barracks 1647 personnel retained (212 Germans) Community Facility, East 12 personnel retained (8 Germans)

Verified through the 293rd BSB Mannheim Lampertheim Training Area 3,894 acres retained, no associated personnel

Worms Thomas Jefferson Housing Housing retained, no authorized positions Quirnheim Missile Station 21 acres retained, no associated personnel

Verified through the 100th ASG Grafenwöhr Pond Barracks Some administrative offices retained. No authorized positions Verfied through the 53rd ASG Baumholder Neubrücke Hospital Some administration offices retained but no authorized positions Idar Oberstein Family Housing Reduced to zero Strassburg Kaserne Gym, sports field, and some housing retained but no authorized positions Nahbollenbach Storage Area Area retained, positions reduced to zero (US owned, contractor operated facility)

100 B.I.C.C statistical annex

Location / Site Status

Verified through th 104th ASG Gießen General Depot Reduced to 1000 mostly German positions

Hanau Bernbach Training and Storage Area Reduced to zero Lamboy Training Area Under continued operation. No authorized positions Hutier Kaserne Reduced to 852 US military authorized positons

Verified through the 279th BSB Bamberg Warner Barracks Stable at 3200 positions (increasing to 4,000 in August 1995). Reduced before 1991 from more than 10,000

Verified through the 98th ASG Würzburg Faulenberg Kasern Stable at 1991 levels. Significantly reduced in 1990

Verified through the 233rd BSB Darmstadt Griesheim Airfield Airfield closed. One administrative complex with a branch Stars and Stripes office retained

Verified through visual inspection Bitburg Air Base Reduced to a very small storage center. Command transferred to Spangdahlem Air Base (USEUCOM Press Release, 23 February 1995) Hahn Air Base Reduced to a small recreational site, zero authorized positions

Verified through USAFE letters, 23 January 1995 and 13 February 1995 Rhein-Main Air Base Reduced to 262 US and 413 German positions Sembach Air Base Reduced to 256 US an 307 German positions

B.I.C.C 101 report 4 june 95

Part III

Pre-1991 USAREUR Base Closures

Bad Tölz Military Community: 446 Authorized US Positions lost Bad Tölz Range Baker Army Airfield Benediktenwand Training Area Flint Kaserne Grotzerholz Training Area Heigel Training Area Jachenau Training Area Kesselkopf Training Area Sachsenkamerstraße Family Housing

Göppingen Military Community: 4250 Authorized US Positions lost Bismark Barracks Cooke Barracks Göppingen Family Housing Hardt Kaserne Mutlangen Training Area Schwäbisch Gmünd Military Family Housing Unterbettringen Training Area

Neu-Ulm Military Community: 4100 Authorized US Positions lost Bollingen Training Area Bubesheim Training Area Burlafingen Training Area Ford Family Housing Gerlenhofen Training Area Günzburg Communications Facility Günzburg Training Area Kleinkötz Training Area Leibi Training Area AAFES Gas Station Ludwigsfeld Training Area Mähringen Training Area Nelson Barracks Neu-Ulm Officers Club Neu-Ulm Supply Center Pfullendorf Communications Facility Reisenburg Training Area Schwaighofen Storage Area Strass Training Area Thalfingen Training Area Von Steuben Missile Training Station Vorfeld Family Housing Wiley Barracks

Sources: Duke, 1989 for employment; Vest, 1994 for sites

102 B.I.C.C BICC series such as report, brief and forthcoming: paper are published either in English (with a German summary) or in German report 5: (with an English summary). Michael Brzoska, Kees Kingma and Herbert Wulf (eds.), The BICC Panel on published: the World Social Summit

report 1: report 6: Edward J.Laurance and Herbert Wulf, Petra Opitz, Die Konversion der russi- with the assistance of Joseph DiChiaro III, schen Rüstungsindustrie- Krisen- Conversion and the Integration of management, Eine vergleichende Studie Economic and Security Dimensions, der Regionen St. Petersburg und January 1995. Novosibirsk (Conversion of the Russian Defense industry––Crisis report 2: Management––A comparative Study on Nicola Mögel, Thomas Sachse und the Regions of St. Petersburg and Hans-Henning Schröder, Chancen und Novosibirsk) Probleme der Rüstungskonversion in der Gemeinschaft Unabhängiger brief 4: Staaten: Konversionsprofile ausgewähl- Kees Kingma and Vanessa Sayers (eds.),

ter Regionen – Nizhnij Novgorod, Demobilization in the Horn of Africa, publications Republik Udmurtien, Ekaterinenburg, Workshop Proceedings (copublished Republik Belarus (Problems and with IRG) Prospects of Defense Conversion in the Commonwealth Of Independent States: brief 5: Conversion Profiles of Selected Mersie Ejigu, Transnational Regions–– Nizhnij Novgorod,Udmurtiya, Development Associates, Study on the Yekaterinburg, and Belarus), March 1995 Size, Structure and Demobilization of Armed Forces in Africa report 3: Joseph DiChiaro III, Conversion of the Defense Industry in and Eastern Europe, Proceedings of the BICC/CISAC Workshop on Conversion, 10-13 August 1994.

report 4: Keith Cunningham and Andreas Klemmer, Restructuring the U.S. Military Bases in Germany: Scope, Impacts, and Opportunities, June 1995.

brief 1: Ksenia Gonchar, Yevgeny Kuznetsov Photo Credits and Alexander Ozhegov, Conversion of the Post-Soviet Defense Industry: cover: Implications for Russian Economic Leynse Development, February 1995. pages 8-9: brief 2: Wolfgang Chodan, USAREUR, Berlin Anke Habich, Werner Voss and Peter Wilke, Abhängigkeit der Werften im page 18: Ostseeraum von der Rüstungsproduktion Pamela Blackshaw, USAREUR Public (Dependence of in the Baltic Affairs Sea Region on Defense Production), March 1995. page 39: Stuttgarter Luftbild Elsäßer GmbH brief 3: Edward J. Laurance and Herbert Wulf page 48-49: (eds.), Coping with Surplus Weapons: Farewell Blackhorse. Copies of Fulda’s A Priority for Conversion Research and publication commemorating the Fulda Policy, June 1995 Military Community can be purchased for DM 17 or US $ 10 by writing paper 1: “Farewell Blackhorse,“ Stadt Fulda, Michael Brzoska, Kees Kingma and Schloßstraße 1, 36037 Fulda, Germany. Herbert Wulf, Demilitarization and Conversion, World Social Summit, page 67 Copenhagen, March 1995 Brigitte Rabe, Hahn Holding Company paper 2: pages 26-27, 36, 57, 61, 69, 72-73: Andreas Klemmer, United Nations Andreas Klemmer, BICC Publications Related to the Subject of Conversion: An Annotated Bibliography, pages 37, 40-43, 53, 55, 62, 64, April 1995 69, 73: Keith Cunningham, BICC B.I.C.C 103 about BICC non-military employment. forces andtheirre-integrationinto personnel employedbythearmed of militarypersonnelandcivilian ■ production. reducing itsdependenceonarms sizing itsover-capacities andin BICC willassistindustryindown- industry. to conversionofthearms ■ purposes. ledge andcreativityfornon-military and provisionofthisR&Dknow- and development(R&D)facilities ■ non-military purposes. al resourcesofthemilitarysectorto methods ofreallocatingthefinanci- ■ the followingsixareasofconversion: BICC’s activitiesfocusprimarilyon in conversion. companies, andindividualsinvolved organizations,non-governmental and and facilitiesforgovernmental andconsultingservices information vides documentation,research, experiences andprojects,BICCpro- house onpracticalconversion Working asaworldwide clearing- Nations. and theassistanceofUnited state ofBrandenburg, Germany, gesellschaft (bothofNRW), the Bank andtheLandesentwicklungs- cooperation withtheInvestitions- North-Rhine Westphalia (NRW), in of stategovernment the German 1994 resultedfromtheinitiativeof The establishmentofBICCinApril civilianpurposes. alternative, military ordefensesectortowards resources areshiftedfromthe equipment, financialandeconomic by whichpeople,skills,technology, supports andpromotestheprocesses Center forConversion(BICC) organization, theBonnInternational As anindependentnon-profit Programs forthedemobilization Opportunities forandbarriers Reorientation ofmilitaryresearch Analysis ofthemeansand B All rightsreserved Printed inGermany Hansen WA, Cologne Design: ISSN 0947-7330 E-mail :[email protected] Fax +49-228-241215 Phone +49-228-911960 Germany D-53113 Bonn An derElisabethkirche25 Hauswedell Publishing management:Corinna Director: Dr. HerbertWulf CenterforConversion Bonn International ©BICC, Bonn1995 Published by http://bicc.uni-bonn.de WWW server‘ConverNet’: on-line activities canalsobeobtained onBICC’sworkand Information conversion processworldwide. discussion onalltopicsrelatedtothe factsand detailed information, ‘Conversion Atlas’thatprovides The BICC the variousfieldsofconversion. as wellpracticalknow-howin scientific experience, andoffer report onconversionprojectsand conversionprocess, the international paper as BICC BICC’s publicationseriessuch exports. purpose ofavoidingindiscriminate ping ofsurplusweaponrywiththe ■ closures). to non-militarypurposes(base and installationstheirconversion ■ Alternative use,disposalorscrap- Alternative Reallocation ofmilitaryfacilities . analyze thebackgroundof I via Internet throughBICC’s via Internet report yearbook . C , BICC . will bea C brief and BICC

Leynse/R.E.A.-laif