# Vieques protesters, meet the law of unintended consequences **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 28, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444 "2003-07-28T15:26:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/1 "2003-07-28T15:26:02Z")
[Puerto Ricans Lament Loss of Vieques Dollars](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93029,00.html) > [@](#): > > The people of Puerto Rico are facing some unanticipated consequences from a victory they won in 2001. > > For several years, Puerto Rican protesters demanded that the U.S. Navy leave the island of Vieques (search). Groups staged violent protests outside the main gate of “Camp Garcia,” saying they were sick and tired of the live-fire bombing exercises. > > […] > > In response to the years of protest, former President Clinton agreed to stop Navy exercises there. Congress and President Bush ratified the deal and live-fire exercises were halted last May. But with its mission muzzled after 60 years, the Navy has decided to pull out of Puerto Rico completely. > > That means the largest employer on the island, the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station (search), is now slated for closure that could come as early as October. > > […] > > The 2004 defense-spending bill that is working its way through Congress has a provision in it to close the base down officially. With the loss of the base, Puerto Rico will also lose nearly $300 million the military pumped into it each year. I’d like to see Al Sharpton, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Edward James Olmos, and the rest of the celebrity-protest crew explain to those Puerto Ricans who depended on that base to put food on the table why silencing the Navy’s guns was a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/2 "2003-07-28T15:48:48Z")
Aw, heck, **Dewey**. Don’t worry about PR. As soon as the Navy is out of there Puerto Ricans will be able to make a mint [poaching green sea turtles](http://southeast.fws.gov/vieques/wildlife.html) for the Japanese. ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/3 "2003-07-28T17:05:32Z")
I can’t link to it right now, but the NY Times had an article in the Saturday edition focussing on the uses of the island in the future, each of which seems to be more environmentally and socially destructive than the other. Sometimes the demonstrators bugged me too, but I can’t believe that the future of the island didn’t come up during the demos. What did they want for it, in general? Can the Navy sell it back to the PR gummint or does it all have to be sold privately? Could wealthy Puerto Ricans or other private parties buy it? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/4 "2003-07-28T18:03:28Z")
This is the tension between economic growth and environmental responsibility that comes up repeatedly regarding the use of land, and that only a fool doesn’t have the foresight to anticipate. Where I’m from, it’s expressed as “You Can’t Eat The Scenery” – meaning, sure, it’s pretty and all, but if you keep it pristine (don’t build on it, don’t drill on it, don’t log on it, don’t allow the economic development of it), it may feed your soul but it’s not going to feed your family. I’m not saying environmental responsibility is a bad thing – far from it – but it almost always involves some economic trade off that should be planned for. If the Vieques protesters did not foresee the loss of this revenue and plan accordingly, then they are fools. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/5 "2003-07-28T18:33:51Z")
If the Navy is no longer conducting live fire operations, are there other compelling reasons for them to maintain a base on the island? Strategic, support, resupply? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/6 "2003-07-28T18:37:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lieu \* > \*\*If the Navy is no longer conducting live fire operations, are there other compelling reasons for them to maintain a base on the island? Strategic, support, resupply? \*\* Cheaper hookers? Late-night Porn stores? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/7 "2003-07-28T18:55:04Z")
P.R. should develop the island for high-stakes casino gambling. Bets could be taken on when the next tourist stumbles onto an unexploded round. Economic problem solved. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/8 "2003-07-28T19:01:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lieu \* > \*\*If the Navy is no longer conducting live fire operations, are there other compelling reasons for them to maintain a base on the island? Strategic, support, resupply? \*\* I seriously doubt it. The Caribbean isn’t strategic to anything except offshore banks. From a military standpoint, the only real reason to be there was for the live-fire exercises. Surely, surely, the government of Puerto Rico has a plan in place to mitigate the economic impact of the possible base-closing. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/9 "2003-07-28T19:03:23Z")
This reminds me very little of how the Philippines “successfully” kicked out the American military from Subic and Clark, which are, of course, basically ghost towns now. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/10 "2003-07-28T22:15:46Z")
Wasn’t Clark AFB destroyed by a volcano? I wonder if the closing of the base is really needed or if it is some sort punishment for the people asking not to be bombed any more. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/11 "2003-07-28T22:50:16Z")
If Clark hadn’t been on the ‘abandon’ list, it would have been rebuilt using the local economy to provide the resources, workers, and supporting infrastructure. Not terribly difficult, in reality, to dig out from even a heavy ash-fall. It just requires a lot of man-hours of willing labor. Labor that would have been paid-for by Unc’a Sam, and which pay would have gone into local residents pockets. Instead, Clark’s a future archaeological site. _shrug_ Shit happens. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/12 "2003-07-28T22:57:43Z")
But sometimes people _are_ able to “eat the scenery.” The scenery attracts tourists. > [@](#): > > If the Vieques protesters did not foresee the loss of this revenue and plan accordingly, then they are fools. I disagree. If the consequences were predictable and they did not plan accordingly, then they acted foolishly. Using your logic, it was foolish to fire bomb there because the navy should have foreseen that the citizens would rebel, complain and successfully end the fire bombing. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/13 "2003-07-28T23:02:41Z")
> [@](#): > > I wonder if the closing of the base is really needed or if it is some sort punishment for the people asking not to be bombed any more. The question is not whether the base “needs” to be closed but rather whether there’s any reason to keep it open. Even with all the pork in government, and the military in particular, we taxpayers are still supposed to be getting at least _some_ benefit from our bases – benefit other than propping up the local economy, that is. If the Navy can’t use the base for its intended use, why on earth would they keep it open? To me, it’s like telling a guy he can’t sell hotdogs on the street because he doesn’t have a business license, and then wondering whether he’s “punishing” you by closing his cart. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/14 "2003-07-28T23:11:07Z")
I said “If the Vieques protesters did not foresee the loss of this revenue and plan accordingly, then they are fools.” ZOE replies: > [@](#): > > I disagree. If the consequences were predictable and they did not plan accordingly, then they acted foolishly. First, I’m having trouble parsing out how your statement differs from mine, unless you are saying that we should only expect people to foresee that which is predictable – which strikes me as being obvious. But, of course, the closing of this Naval Base was totally predictable, and therefor foreseeable – the only reason the Navy was out there in the first place was to practice bombing. > [@](#): > > Using your logic, it was foolish to fire bomb there because the navy should have foreseen that the citizens would rebel, complain and successfully end the fire bombing. Um, no. See, “take away reason base exists=base closes” is totally foreseeable, even axiomatic. “Do exercises here=citizens rebel” is not foreseeable, because the second part is not an almost inevitable consequence of the first part. (Heck, the citizens could just have easily kissed the Navy on its collective lips while chanting “Thanks for all the money!”) So I’m not sure what logic you’re using, but it sure isn’t mine. ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/15 "2003-07-29T00:29:29Z")
Hey, thanks for waiting, everybody! 😃 Home now with my Times registered-computer. **Hamlet** was right about some of the proposals for Vieques, according to this [Op-Ed by John Todd](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/26/opinion/26TODD.html) in the Saturday Times. > [@](#): > > The immediate issue that Vieques has to confront is two proposed projects, both promoted by the Puerto Rican government, that would threaten the bay and the commonwealth’s 1,200-acre Bio-Bay Nature Reserve that surrounds it. The first is a recreational village, the second is a fisherman’s wharf…The first project, a “Village in the Park” to be built directly on the beach, would prevent turtles from nesting, disrupt bird sanctuaries and sacrifice acres of mangrove to new roads and parking places. Similar “villages” on the main island of Puerto Rico have been ecological and social disasters, and are known as havens for noisy parties and drug dealing… > The second project, the wharf, would use nature reserve land for an industrial fish-processing complex with a pier and a gas station. Gasoline spills and the remains of fish cleaning would pollute the waters of a beautiful bay nearby and attract sharks and barracuda to a shallow swimming area that is now a paradise for children. I’m surprised Gov. Calderon didn’t have a clear policy in place BEFORE the scheduled abandonment; as it is, I fear the (human) barracudas will slip in before the Commonwealth gets it act together. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/16 "2003-07-29T00:38:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mehitabel \* > \*\* I’m surprised Gov. Calderon didn’t have a clear policy in place BEFORE the scheduled abandonment… \*\* Politician! [/Jack Sparrow] ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/17 "2003-07-29T06:04:57Z")
> [@](#): > > …unless you are saying that we should only expect people to foresee that which is predictable – which strikes me as being obvious. Me too. That’s why I was puzzled by what you said. > [@](#): > > But, of course, the closing of this Naval Base was totally predictable, and therefor foreseeable – the only reason the Navy was out there in the first place was to practice bombing. Now we’re getting down to it. Can you provide a cite that indicates that the closing of the naval base was totally predictable – anything written before the bombing stopped? Why could it not have simply shifted function? Could they have predicted that the base might be closed out of spite, for example? I absolutely cannot imagine the people you mentioned intentionally and knowingly promoting anything that would wipe out the economy. But I will concede if you can provide evidence from reliable sources that everyone knew ahead of time. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/18 "2003-07-29T07:37:25Z")
I think I know what the proposed project is: applying for statehood. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/19 "2003-07-29T13:21:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zoe \* > \*\*Can you provide a cite that indicates that the closing of the naval base was totally predictable – anything written before the bombing stopped? \*\* From a [1999 Defense Department Press Briefing](http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1999/t12031999_t1203asd.html): > [@](#): > > Q: If you do not get the approval from Puerto Rico to have any more live-fire exercises, does that mean you’ll retreat from the entire area of Roosevelt Road, the whole thing? Would it make it then not practical to use that whole Puerto Rican operation for your East Coast Navy? > > SEC. DANZIG: Well, I think you used the right word, “practical,” which is the question, what as a matter of practicality makes sense in that circumstance. I think if we cannot use Vieques in a vibrantly useful way, that will force us to reassess in general the utility of the basing in Puerto Rico. Roosevelt Roads very substantially functions to serve the Vieques Range, and a significant part of its functions would go away. What the longer-term consequence would be of that, in terms of its continued existence, is something that I don’t know. We’d have to assess. So yeah, base closure was widely known as a real possibility two years before live-fire exercises actually stopped. At least it’ll be quiet on the unemployment line. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/20 "2003-07-29T14:19:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zoe \* > \*\*…Now we’re getting down to it. Can you provide a cite that indicates that the closing of the naval base was totally predictable – anything written before the bombing stopped? Why could it not have simply shifted function? Could they have predicted that the base might be closed out of spite, for example?.. \*\* Other than **Dewey’s** cite, there is always common sense. What reason do we have for a ‘generic’ base in the Caribbean? There are not very many pirates there these days, the threat of Dominican militaristic expansion is low, the long-planned invasion of St.Kitts has been indefintely delayed, and oh ya, Florida is nearby. It sounds like you are really stretching here, trying to pin something on The Man. The protesters got what they wanted; The problem is, they didn’t fully consider what that was. How utterly not-suprising. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444.md?page=2)