Boston Sunday Globe
NorthWest section
June 8, 2003

Some fear blurring of Hanscoms
Seek to distinguish airfield from base

By Davis Bushnell, Globe Correspondent

An emerging and disturbing issue, some local and state officials claim, is a
perception that Hanscom Air Force Base and Hanscom Field, a general aviation
airport, are one and the same.

While the base and the airfield are located cheek by jowl, their operations
are entirely separate. But confusion about their roles is building, these
officials say, at a crucial time, when efforts are under way to prevent the
base's closing. The Pentagon is expected to release by year's end a list of
military installations that could be closed or consolidated. A federal
commission will then decide which bases are to be shuttered or realigned in
2005.

The issue involving the two Hanscoms is likely to be discussed Thursday at a
5-to-7-p.m. event sponsored by the North Suburban Chamber of Commerce at the
Renaissance Bedford Hotel, officials said last week. Lieutenant General Bill
Looney, commander of the Electronics Systems Center at the base, will be the
keynote speaker. The base, which narrowly escaped being closed in 1995 and
received another reprieve two years ago when two base-closure bills stalled
in Congress, supports an estimated 26,000 jobs and funnels $3.2 billion a
year in contracts to small and large companies.

Officials such as Bedford Selectman Sheldon Moll, Lincoln Selectwoman Sara
Mattes, and Michael Hogan, chief executive of MassDevelopment, whose agency
is leading the charge to keep the base open, fear that a renewed battle by
activist groups against commercial and corporate jet activities at Hanscom
Field is helping distort the distinction between the Air Force base and the
airfield. But Anna Winter, of Concord, executive director of Save Our
Heritage, w! hose group has been campaigning to limit flights at Hanscom Field
said she and other activists have been careful to maintain the distinction
between the airfield and Air Force Base.

''There is simply no reason for any confusion,'' about Hanscom Field and
Hanscom Air Force Base, Winter said last Wednesday . ''We have always made
it clear that what we oppose is Massport's uncontrolled expansion of
corporate, commercial, and cargo operations'' at Hanscom Field.

Winter said that Save Our Heritage ''supports the Air Force base, which has
always been a good neighbor.

''We feel that protecting our national heritage and our national security
are complementary missions that go hand-in-hand.''

Still, the officials who expressed concern over the blurring of distinctions
between the airfield and the base pointed to a well-publicized May 29
ceremony in Concord as an example of how things can get confusing.

That day, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a Washington, D.C.,
nonprofit group, announced that it was placing the Minute Man National
Historical Park and the surrounding towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington,
and Lincoln on its list of ''America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places''
because of concerns about activity at Hanscom Field. Save Our Heritage had
nominated the park and the four towns for the designation. Earlier this
year, Scenic America, another Washington nonprofit, had issued a similar
designation, also at the request of Save Our Heritage.

In her remarks at the May 29 ceremony, Winter said that the base ''has
always been a valued neighbor and partner of the communities -- and we thank
them.''

And in the interview this week, she noted that Wendy Nicholas, director of
the National Trust's Northeast office in Boston and one of the speakers at
the May 29 ceremony, ''specifically identified Massport's expansion plans
for the Hanscom Field civilian airport as the reason for the designati! on.''

Moreover, a spokeswoman for the National Trust, Beth Newburger, said last
week that the group understands the distinction between the field and the
base. ''We want to be very clear that our issue is focused on Battle Road
and the civilian airport,'' she said. ''We're not talking about the military
base.''

Still, what concerns Moll, Mattes, and Hogan is the National Trust did not
mention the Air Force base in its statements. As a result, the three
officials suggested, some people in other parts of the country who read wire
service stories about the May 29 event may have inferred the base is the
target.

Richard Walsh, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Port Authority, which owns
and operates Hanscom Field, said, ''If you were to stop people on a Boston
street and ask what the word `Hanscom' means to them, they'd probably say
the Air Force base.'' To try to head off further confusion, Hogan said,
MassDevelopment will contact the National Trust to persuade the organization
to publicly acknowledge there is a big difference between Hanscom Field and
Hanscom Air Force Base.

''We don't want Defense [Department] planners to lump the two Hanscoms
together,'' Hogan said. ''And at the same time, we want the National Trust
to know that there isn't a plane based at Hanscom Air Force Base and that
the base is one of New England's largest economic engines.''

Newburger said the National Trust would be happy to release a statement
differentiating Hanscom Field from Hanscom Air Force Base.

This story ran on page 1 of the Boston Globe NorthWest on 6/8/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

==========
**NOTICE: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.** ==========