There is a ton of BullShit circling the bowl on the subject of this helicopter brigade, coming to Fort Carson. To start with, this is a done deal, so the pretense by the military and local government that this is a decision yet to be made is all bullshit too.

First, this study which everyone is using to justify this addiction  to the federal tit is biased and flawed. I've read it in it's  entirety and you should too:
http://tinyurl.com/3y87y22

When the BBC estimates the economic impact of Fort Carson here they  conclude (because the Fort told them so) that "disposable income from  Soldiers reflects assumptions that 90% of disposable income of deployed Soldiers with family in the region is available for spending in the region."

That's absurd.

No one has 90% of the their income available for spending in thelocal economy and we're talking about the military that this report admits COSTS the city an 11% REDUCTION in sales taxes because of the  purchases made on the post in the PX, the Commissary and other on post facilities. These are horribly underpaid military families and they pinch every penny until Lincoln has no beard.

In the on-base housing, of course, they pay no property taxes, and  add to that vehicles registered where ever they were stationed before here, and in their home towns. The PPACG study by BBC says that the loss of revenue is between 0$ and $22 million.
Is that a competent spread of an estimate by any mathematics of  statistics?
NO.
There is no way there is a $0 loss, so that's BS from the post and  the real figure is documented in this study to be far beyond $22  million.

Second the study list the services needed by 98% of the soldiers include "Domestic/Family Violence, Child
Abuse, and Sexual Assault Services, Food and Other Emergency Aid,  Outpatient Counseling, Behavioral Health, Financial Counseling, Legal  Aid, Medical Health, Eldercare and Handicapped Accessibility Services".
The study makes the obvious statement that "Grant funding can be of  critical importance in allowing community-based providers to meet  growing service needs."
Well, we can't do too much for the soldier's families, but this local, state and federal grant money ALSO goes in the COST column, NOT the revenue column.

Third, The main "benefit" to the area is with developers, which is just what our city council wants, since the developers control their campaign slush funds.

Homebuilders, especially those who have traditionally served the Fort  Carson community, have experienced much lower demand than they  expected to in 2009, according to several studies, including this  one. Surveys of Soldiers conducted for this study demonstrated a shift in buying preferences. Although they had plans to buy before moving into the region, once they relocated, Soldiers were much more likely to rent. This is  attributed to changing deployment schedules,  increasing uncertainly about their future and the downturn in the  housing market.

Apartment vacancy in Security, Widefield and Fountain in Q1 of 2009  was 28%, compared with 12% in the springs, so the "benefit" to the  housing market is overstated as well.

Fifth:
The BBC estimates that in 2009, Fort Carson supported about 31,500  jobs in the region, representing ONLY about 7% of total regional  employment compared to retail at 12%, Health Care and Social  Assistance at 12%, accommodation and food services at 10%, and  Educational Services at 10%.

Sixth:
The study estimates: "In total, about $704 million in Soldier  disposable income was available for spending in the region in FY09  Q4", BUT they arrived at these numbers by excluding income taxes AND  they estimated that disposable income was 94% of gross wages, which  is absurd. Who has overhead and living expenses of only 6% of their  gross income?
NO one.

Seventh:
The study concludes Fort Carson directly and indirectly produced  between $23 million and $45 million in state income tax revenues in  FY09.
So .003 -.006 percent of the state budget of $7 Billion? Now we're  talking a more realistic perspective on the economic impact, BUT  again the statistical margin of 100% ($23 million and $45 million) is  a useless GUESS, padded to include the truth somewhere in the spread,  which I don't think it does.
Income tax revenue from the military in this state is a figure that  needs no guessing.

Eighth:
"The BBC team estimates that about $50 million in retail trade  activity occurred at the Post PX, commissary and other on-Post retail  operations not subject to sales taxes" which "reflects an 11%  reduction in sales tax revenues" leaving ONLY "almost 6% of all sales  and use tax revenue in the City of Colorado Springs". Remember that  "the preceding sales tax calculations do not reflect the fact that  City and/or other local sales taxes are not collected for some motor  vehicle transactions involving Soldiers who may declare residency at  a location". They then admit that: "Therefore, the positive sales tax  impacts may be overstated." Then they remove their entire "benefit"  by admitting that " the absolute magnitude of this potential error is  estimated to be significantly less than 5 percent of total sales and  use tax receipts".

Out of "almost 6%"??

Ninth:
18.7% of TESSA's domestic violence advocacy services, and 15.4  percent of their sexual assault services, are associated with  military populations. With the additional soldiers the "total new  demand for TESSA advocacy services" is "182 cases or 12% increase".

This makes the point of my conclusion, which is that the dependence  on military base moneys, however overstated and inflated is NOT good  for any town. The reason is that the town then depends on WAR for  some portion of it's income.
The cost of WAR is too high.
Too high to the victims on both sides of the gun.
Too high for the families at home, which are destroyed by the process.
Too high for any community fooling itself into thinking that the war  machine in town is a positive economic "benefit" which makes it  worthwhile to wage WAR as a means to a balanced budget.

We need to say NO to this helicopter brigade, to the war machine  which grinds up families for some dubious financial "benefit" and NO to the pork of massive federal military spending to support  invasions, occupations and military bases in 737 towns around the world.