[Milsurplus] Goverment Liquidators

[Sheldon Daitch]

As you so correctly point out, it depends on what is found.  

I was wandering over at DRMO at Subic one day some years ago,
and found a pallet with some variable vacuum capacitors.  I checked 
with our TX guys and the capacitors matched a part number we used
in our transmitters.  I think we were buying these caps for about
$5K each from Jennings, so I got all of them, maybe 12 or so, on
a signature.  One was defective when we high-potted them, but 
all the others were added to our stock.  

Somehow, I can't imagine that pencils might be worth dealing 
with from surplus, so I think I might disagree with you on whether 
it is high or low dollar items that might make the better 
surplus redistribution.  I think one also have to take into account
transportation costs, the entire economic equation.

73
Sheldon
WA4MZZ

Don Davis wrote:
> 
> Good point.  Yes, if the item is REALLY usable, and replaces something that
> the other agency was scheduled to buy in the current year.  Maybe chairs,
> desks, pencils, paper, etc.  But I would argue here that having a
> "scavenger" spend $$ to dig through old junk to save a little on current
> needs probably makes only marginal sense.
> 
> Now, the big topic.  No, it makes no sense to offer real estate or high $$
> items from one agency to another, especially when the property was not in
> the acquisition budget.  Case in point is the old Navy housing in San Pedro.
> Navy pulled out 10 years ago, and the LA school district and LAPD (among
> others) got leases to the property.  LAUSD has had criminal complaints filed
> against members for performing criminal acts on this property - used for
> remote classrooms with no supervision or structural support.  LAPD also had
> officers disciplined for holding all-day BBQs on the site - supposedly a
> SWAT training center.  These agencies have never shown that the property was
> needed - witness the fact that they are not replacing the property since the
> recnt sell-off of the site.
> 
> All of this stuff while 200 housing units deterioated and are now being torn
> down.  The total loss to  US taxpayers goes as follows:  200 units @ $300K
> each, cost of ten years of maint and full-time security, and the loss to
> local community of property taxes for 10 years X 200 units X $3,000, loss of
> local txes and business revenue, loss of affordable housing on the market,
> etc etc.  Now, all of this housing is being torn down as it has not had
> proper maint for 10 years!  Was sold to a developer for new units.
> 
> This is the worst case.  But, consider a govt. vehicle that would bring
> $2,000 to $5,000.  How much effort, dollars, and distraction will the new
> agency have to spend to keep up an obsolete vehicle?  How about old radios
> and transmitters that will wind up"walking away" from an agency rather than
> being used (sorry - back to radio topic)?  Most of this old electronics is
> not in current inventory and is not compatible with current ops.  Better for
> US to get a few dollars and be rid of the stuff and let the new agancy
> justify why they need to spend real dollars on new equipment.
> 
> Again, I'm sure there are some cases where reclaiming surplus makes sense,
> but, only on low dollar items that the agency was going to buy anyhow.
> 
> Observations from doing quite a bit of original research on local LA
> property and schoold board operations - and having spent 9 years in USAF,
> and another 26 years in aerospace industry.
> 
> 73,
> 
> From: "Sheldon Daitch" <sdaitch at ibb.gov>
> 
> > But really, isn't it more efficient for the tax payer for a government
> > agency to recycle USG owened equipment, rather than to sell it as
> > surplus and have the second agency buy new equipment?
> >
> > 73
> > Sheldon
> > WA4MZZ
> 
> _