Jump to content

Search for New Jambo Site


Recommended Posts

Ran across a link to a form from National on the Inland Empire Council site in Riverside/San Bernardino area of California. They are asking for suggestions for possible new permanent location that would be owned by National. Got the impression from the site info that this was a National search and suspect it has to do with the PC climate that continues to hound them. They did indicate that the 2010 event was not in any danger. The form gives very specific items to answer in relation to access, size, logistics and so on.

 

Anyone else seen this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at this document. I am not sure if its a real document.

 

It has a lot of questionable things about it. Symbols wrong, wrong address, and it has a phone number. National never publishes its numbers like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard that National is searching for a new Jambo site for post 2010 Jambo's. It appears that Fort AP Hill will host the 2010 Jambo, however, plans for the base include development of some of the land that is currently used to host the Jambo. Consequently there will not be enough land for the Jambo.

 

Of course this is only a rumor that I've heard, heaven forbid National should keep the membership informed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone interested, here is the link to CIEC site where the information is found. Seems legit to me, and that National actually is reaching out for input nationwide through local councils. Unfortuneately, it also appears that the info is not filtering down to the people in the councils; it certainly is not to mine.

 

Yes,local properties could be considered if they were large enough and met the criteria.

 

http://www.bsa-ciec.org/openrosters/vieworgpagelink.asp?orgkey=21&linkkey=13181

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I have heard that National is searching for a new Jambo site for post 2010 Jambo's. It appears that Fort AP Hill will host the 2010 Jambo, however, plans for the base include development of some of the land that is currently used to host the Jambo. Consequently there will not be enough land for the Jambo."

 

From several conversations with other BSAers at the WSJ, this is true. My understanding is that purpose of FT AP Hill is changing. Currently its a training base, and thus the Jamboree fits well into its purpose and the space is available. However, that will be changing, making it impossible to use after 2010. Thus the 2014 Jamboree (yes, I was told that is when the following one will be) will NOT be at AP Hill.

 

Wonder if they can use Farragut State Park in Idaho again (site of 2 NSJ and the only WSJ we've ever hosted)?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This continues an old discussion. I still like South Dakota for the new site. I suggested Sturgis but Rapid City is also a good alternative. Someone else mentioned Mitchell and, having visited it a few times now, I really like Mitchell. Space will never be an obstacle there! For that matter Gillette, WY or Cody, WY would also be great places. Or almost anywhere in Montana.

 

There's probably a few places in Nebraska or Kansas that would work as well. How about the Frank Philips ranch, 'Woolaroc' in OK?

I don't see what's so great about some military base on the East Coast when there are so many other great options in the wide open spaces of the midwest. And I haven't even started on the Southwest. So many possibilities...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh...have you ever seeeeen South Dakota? Well...yeah! I90 goes right through all of that and you can fly into Sioux Falls or Rapid City and all it takes is some trucks and the funding to get the infrastructure. All I was thinking about was the space itself. I mean every unit could have its own square mile to camp in. All the rest is just a matter of money. If I wanted to put it really in the boondocks I would have suggested Abilene, TX or Bismark, ND or something. That would pretty much kill the movement.

 

Seriously, I like the central location because it does offer fairly equal access to most everyone. The east coast location is really convenient for, well, the east coast. Kind of tough stuff for the Mormons though, and a few others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with any of these places, is cost. You need large warehouse facilities, Medical facilities, water, sanitation, and on and on. They have invest millions at this point. The cost of 2011 will probably double, thereby causing a lot to not beable to go

Link to post
Share on other sites

O Wa Si PPee...

 

Use a large, established camp, basic infrastructure is there, use the ground for summer camping and "high adventure" in off years...

 

Give CAC a chance to recover. National owns it, CAC doesn't, local county people keep their zoning and get tourist dollars, everybody's happy (except the resort developer). Cool weather rather than hot dry/humid. Where's the problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we say "Segway"? I haven't been to Owasippee either, but troll the past posts about it...

 

Level walking is nice, but APH isn't perfectly flat either, and the whole complex is spread over almost 3 x 4 miles...Walking, biking, bus transit, all useful...

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of sites out there who have experience with handing the logistics of large camp crowds. EAA in Oshkosh have been doing this for years. The equipment and know-how is in the area. Surely this is but one site with similar capabilities out there. Sturgis has been handing the cycle crowd, and there are many others as well. Pick a site, research local resources and go for it.

 

Stosh

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...