As noted, the dislocation of jobs from actions announced April 17, 1973, is unevenly distributed across the country. The following areas suffer 67% of the dislocations: Almost half of the total jobs dislocated are in New England, primarily in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The states experiencing the greatest total (military and civilian) job dislocations are: Rhode Island, 21, 366; Massachusetts, 13, 120; California, 9, 445; Georgia, 5, 399; Texas, 4, 631; Kansas, 3,910; Pennsylvania, 3, 155. The above states (Georgia and Kansas excepted) will also incur the greatest dislocation of civilian jobs (20, 378): Massachusetts, 7, 154; California, 4, 438; Rhode Island, 3, 987; Texas, 2, 415; Pennsylvania, 2, 184. The civilian jobs dislocated in the States listed above represent 75.6% of the total civilian jobs dislocated in the nation. On the other hand, several states stand to gain jobs from the realignment. These states and their respective gains (totaling 18,228) are: Virginia, 8, 729; South Carolina, 2, 374; Florida, 5, 349; Washington, 1, 776. In sum, the impact of the realignments is geographically uneven. The major impacts fall on New England and the Pacific Coast. Since each impact is relative, based on the specific economic and social character of the impacted area, the real magnitude of the impact can only be measured when placed in the context of the overall economic development environment prevailing in each impacted area. Table 2 summarizes the major impacts by community and includes indirect impacts as measured through a multiplier effect. Includes Pasadena, California b/ Includes reduced military personnel multiplier for personnel on ships or at training installations. TABLE 2/ * Includes Chelsea, Mass. Includes Phoenixville, Pennsylvania Includes 650 contractor personnel Community in which EAC was active prior to April 17, 1973 already witnessing major economic downturns. Some of these downturns were associated with prior Defense actions. For example, the Committee was already involved in six assistance projects in California and six in New England before the April 17th announcement some from decreased in Defense contracting and some from prior base realignments. (The map on the following page shows the locations of the Committee's current projects and includes those existing prior to April 1973.) In other cases, long-term unemployment (not attributable to Defense actions) compounded the problems associated with the April 17th announcement. Finally, the April 17th changes focused to a large extent on urban areas where re-employment opportunities are limited for unskilled workers. Some of the April shifts are taking place in communities that are stagnant economically. The economic conditions in these communities present a significant challenge to local officials and the EAC. Specifically, major assistance is foreseen in: 1. Aquidneck Island, Rhode Island (Newport, Middletown, Portsmouth.) 2. Quonset Point Area, Rhode Island (North Kingston, 3. Boston, Massachusetts 4. Springfield, Massachusetts 5. San Francisco, California 6. Laredo, Texas 7. Mineral Wells, Texas 8. Brunswick, Georgia 9. Aquadilla, Puerto Rico development efforts will be tied closely to the utilization of excess DoD properties. The current status of excessing of such properties is depicted in Table 3. That table lists 33 installations. Installations located in or near the 28 communities affected by the April 17 announcements are included. The table indicates the status of the property at these locations as of July 17, 1973. It has been determined that there will be no excess property at four installations. Reports required by 10 U.S. C. 2662 have been submitted by the owning services to the Armed Services Committees on the proposed disposal of six entire installations and on the partial disposal of seven installations. Proposals for the disposal of all or parts of seven installations have been received from the three military departments and are under consideration. Proposals for the disposal, or retention, of all or parts of the remaining nine installations are not firm enough at this time to indicate the amount of property that may be involved. Final determination on all of these proposals will be made shortly. The. procedure followed in handling property is discussed in the next chapter. |