After Heated Public Debate, Winooski City Council Still Undecided on F-35s

1. Just as no one outside of Lowell had a say over the wind tower construction, I’m not sure why Winooski gets a say over a Burlington Property.
   I understand why they want a say, I also understand why the folks in towns surrounding Lowell wanted a say as well. But the reality is the Air Force really doesn’t care what Burlington residents want, let alone what surrounding towns want.
   However, voicing ones opinion doesn’t hurt, even if it is futile. Just seems there might be other issues Winooski and South Burlington would prefer to focus on.

2. In response to jcarter1:
   If the actions and activities of the airport affect anything other than the airport, then those who are effected have a say in the matter.
   To your point that this may be futile so why bother I say SHAME ON YOU. That kind of spineless rhetoric is what empowers the few to rule the many. If you love something enough then you fight to preserve it.

3. Right. We love the Air National Guard so we fight to preserve it.

4. Why is this argument not a defense of
   a form of colonialism.
   Burlington “owns” an airport located elsewhere,
   therefore the natives have no rights?
   Why focus on other issues, when there’s
   a threat you perceive as existential.
   Oh, right, it’s futile, the mother country decides.

5. A) even Brig. Gen. Cray says the Guard isn’t threatened
   by not having the F-35
   and
   B) your fight to “preserve” the Guard is more accurately
   described as a fight to destroy Vermont neighborhoods
   Perhaps the more apt expression would be
   the F-35 has to destroy the towns in order to save them….

6. Vermont Government
   Rots from the Top

   A Weapon of Mass
   Destruction, F-35 Also Destroys the Democratic Process

   By William Boardman

   F-35, At $400 Billion
   And Counting, Is a Symptom of Much Greater Disease

   When the city council in a city of just 18,000 people reverses
   a vote it took a year earlier, it’s not usually off national significance, but
   if the South Burlington City Council votes as expected on July 8, in support of
   basing the F-35 strike fighter in Vermont, it will illustrate how deep the tentacles
   of national power reach into local government in this country.

   The F-35 nuclear-capable bomber, designed for aggressive
   war, is one of the more obvious tumors of the military-industrial-political
   cancer that has metastasized throughout the American system, from Congress and
   the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., all the way, now, to the five member city
   council in South Burlington.
   In 2012, the city council was led by a retired Air Force colonel who at first supported having the F-35 as a noisy
   neighbor — until she researched it carefully. After Col. Rosanne Greco, a former Pentagon planner,
   presented her findings to the council (and the public), the council voted on
   two separate occasions – 4-1 and 4-0 – that the F-35 should be based
   elsewhere.

   F-35 Boosters Bought
   the Government They Wanted in South Burlington

   And then there was an election in March 2013 in which councilor
   Pam Mackenzie – who had been the lone vote in favor of the F-35 – helped
   bankroll perhaps the most expense local election ever, supporting two
   candidates who are now poised to vote with her and in favor of basing the
   world’s most expensive weapons system in a city where it will have
   significantly destructive effects on the civilian population. If it happens, this will be a deliberate
   and callous vote in favor of inevitable collateral damage, without redeeming
   social importance.

   According to the Air Force’s own study, the F-35 is much
   louder than the F-16s presently based at Burlington International Airport, and
   those quieter planes have already made more than 200 homes uninhabitable. The
   F-35 would render another 1,300 or more homes uninhabitable because of noise –
   a wholesale destruction of affordable housing in a market where affordable
   housing is already scarce enough.

   None of the public officials who support basing the F-35 in
   Vermont’s most densely populated area – not the Air Force, not Vermont’s
   Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy or independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, nor Democratic
   Rep. Peter Welch nor Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin, nor Democratic Mayor of
   Burlington Miro Weinberger, nor any other statewide elected official – not one
   of them has even expressed serious concern over the destruction of housing for
   lower income Vermonters, much less put forward a serious plan to mitigate the
   destruction.

   It’s Military Pork,
   It’s a Career Boost, Why Should We Talk About It?

   Most Vermont political office holders duck the issue
   entirely, or, like Democratic Speaker of the House Shap Smith, hide behind the
   fiction that the decision is up to the feds – at the same time the feds are
   inviting public comment. Smith and his allies have been able to block those House
   members who oppose the F-35 from getting a serious vote on the issue.

   And now the city council of South Burlington includes people
   who, like Sen. Leahy’s relatives, stand to gain personally from an Air Force
   decision in their favor.

   As soon as Pam Mackenzie, daughter of an Air Force veteran,
   had funded the successful election of two allies, she enjoyed their support in
   replacing Greco as council chair, with herself. In May 2012, when Mackenzie was
   trying to block public discussion of the F-35, a reporter described her
   publicly stated reasoning this way:

   “Pam said that she supports the guard in anything they want
   to do because her dad was in the air force. That’s it. She voted against
   providing the public with a forum to question and discuss the impacts of the
   F-35 because of personal bias.”

   Conflicts of Interest
   Outweigh The Harm The Public Will Suffer

   Mackenzie is the CEO of the DeckerZinn management consulting
   firm. Although she has Air Force ties and spent lavishly to elect allies to the
   council, she has not apparently made any formal disclosure of conflicts of
   interest, nor has she apparently recused herself from involving her official
   duties with her personal interests.

   One of her new allies was an opponent when Mackenzie was
   first elected in 2012. But this
   time she supported Chris Shaw who describes himself on Twitter as a “husband,
   hockey dad, teacher, city councilor, justice of the peace, lax bro and
   responsible renegade — just your average brainy, brawny, balding badboy!”

   Shortly after his election, Shaw said: “I don’t have a
   specific policy change agenda. My agenda is to be a respectful listener.”

   What These People Say
   Has Little Relevance To What They Do

   Shaw ran as a supporter of local basing of the F-35, as did
   the other Mackenzie beneficiary, Pat Nowak, an investment advisor who refused
   to disclose her party affiliation during the campaign. But they ran as a team,
   with Mackenzie’s largesse and support of the F-35 in common.

   By all accounts, significant outside money also helped make
   this campaign roughly ten times more expensive than the usual city council
   races, but Vermont’s campaign reporting laws are such that demonstrating the
   exact dimensions of a candidate’s spending is difficult.

   According to
   Seven Days, “Shaw and Nowak are representative of a South Burlington ‘old guard’
   aligned closely with developers and other business interests.” The Burlington
   Free Press reported that Nowak and Mackenzie “agreed, for instance, that a new
   vote on the F-35 is not high on their agenda.

   During the
   campaign, Nowak said in an interview:
   “The single most pressing concern for our city is the degree of
   divisiveness that has entered the everyday processes of operation and decision
   making. It could be said that great issues are at stake and disagreement is
   normal and healthy. I don’t believe the atmosphere derives from the issues — they
   could be settled with research, analysis and civil discussion.”

   With An
   Opportunity to Hear New Health Information, Council Stonewalls

   At the July 1
   council meeting, four women, three of them elderly and living at a facility
   within the zone the F-35 will make uninhabitable, asked the council to delay
   its July 8 meeting for 48 hours. As reported in Vermont Commons:

   “All four of
   the women who addressed the South Burlington city council where soft spoken,
   polite and brief….
   “These women were petitioning for a delay because they wanted citizens to have
   the opportunity to attend another public meeting, this one regarding the
   effects of aircraft noise on the health of children, before making up their
   minds on the F-35 basing. This July 9th public meeting will feature doctors and
   researchers sharing their knowledge of the health effects of airplane noise on
   children’s physical and mental health and learning ability.”

   At that July
   1 meeting, Nowak was absent and unable to support any further “research,
   analysis and civil discussion.”

   Shaw showed
   little capacity for being “a respectful listener,” as he made personal attacks
   on his fellow council member, Greco.
   He adamantly opposed hearing any new information about the F-35 and
   refused to discuss it rationally, according to the transcript of the
   meeting.

   Mackenzie and
   Shaw refused to postpone the July 8 meeting. Their minds were apparently made
   up, their decision made, information of any sort would just waste their
   time.
   As Mackenzie
   put it, “I don’t have to justify my reasons.”

7. http://www.stopthef35.com/?utm…

8. According to the report – if the F-35 comes to town 75% of Winooski (which actually affects 80% of residents and residential units) will be in the zone the FAA declares ‘incompatible for residential use’. That means the Department of Housing and Urban Development will *exempt* those properties from mortgages. Only properties whose owners can spend the time and money to invest in sound proofing, apply for and then win special approvals can sell their home to someone who can obtain a mortgage. If they cannot – then they can only sell to a cash buyer. This is why the Air force report states that ~$700 Million in property values will be lost in Winooski, South Burlington and Williston – with about $500 Million of that expected in Winooski alone.

9. The point wasn’t it’s futile so why bother… the point was it’s futile so lets put time and resources elsewhere, somewhere a difference can be made. The USAF will put their jets where they want to. They don’t require an approval by Winooski or South Burlington. You can shame on me all you want, idealism is great but at some time you need to become practical. As for fighting to preserve something…. well pick and choose your battles, you can’t fight them all.

10. That’s a little overly dramatic.

11. Dramatic, yes, but overly?
    Much less dramatic than the constant, false
    wolf-crying about the Guard’s existence.
    The F-35 will likely bring local pain no matter what,
    but an honest debate might find that its presence
    will be more destructive than its absence.

12. There should be balance – and it’s not about saying ‘down with the Air Guard’. In fact, around the country Air Guard units are expanding as drone training and staff are replacing jet fighters. Drones here make even more sense than they do in many areas due to the lower noise footprint they would have on the area, and the highly skilled, technical jobs they would bring to the community (especially as employers like IBM are laying people off). The F-35 doesn’t belong in any residential area, much less the most densely populated area in VT, especially in their infancy of training. It’s shortsighted and doesn’t measure the long term success of the community or the Guard. We need both to be strong and not cripple one for the other. Preventing the F-35 from coming allows other programs to be here – it’s just that simple.

13. Stating that the F-35’s will destroy towns and destroy neighborhoods…. Yes “overly dramatic” is the correct usage.

14. copy of my other comment: “According to the report – if the F-35 comes to town 75% of Winooski (which actually affects 80% of residents and residential units) will be in the zone the FAA declares ‘incompatible for residential use’. That means the Department of Housing and Urban Development will *exempt* those properties from mortgages. Only properties whose owners can spend the time and money to invest in sound proofing, apply for and then win special approvals can sell their home to someone who can obtain a mortgage. If they cannot – then they can only sell to a cash buyer. This is why the Air force report states that ~$700 Million in property values will be lost in Winooski, South Burlington and Williston – with about $500 Million of that expected in Winooski alone.” That’s a good description of destruction

15. OK, so 1,300 or 2,400 or however many homes
    become “unsuitable for habitation”
    as the Air Force puts it, and that means
    they’re not destroyed, just overly dramatic?
    We all love a good euphemism,
    especially when it reinforces our denial.

16. I would disagree. You assume several things that I don’t believe to be true.
    First, because a property is in the zone it can’t be purchased through conventional means. Now I admit to ignorance here, but it would appear to me that a HUD exemption may hinder gov’t backed mortgages however conventional mortgages would still be fine.
    Secondly, that if a property can not be purchased with a mortgage it will be destroyed. Properties would still be bought, and sold. It may in fact change the nature of the property to a commerical building, rentals or some other use but it does not make the property worthless, not does it destroy the property.
    There are neighborhoods and properties in the “zone” now. They haven’t been destroyed.

17. These are facts stated in the Noise Reduction and Quiet Communities Acts, on HUDs page and in the Draft EIS report. Feel free to research them. Nowhere do I state that the properties would be destroyed – what I mentioned is the FAA buy back program. It doesn’t require that they be destroyed – that was a choice made by the Burlington International Airport. The mortgages affected are VA, FHA and HUD. However, conventional loan programs often do follow some HUD requirements to increase the possibility of selling the mortgage to another lender. However the potential buyer must also sign a ‘not compatible for residential use’ disclaimer. The property value drops as a result and when the market value drops, the tax value follows.

18. by the way – this property value decrease is proven at other Air Ports who have increased their noise footprint – and, again, is noted in the Air Force report.

19. Two of the most moronic comments I have heard in this recent discussion from the South Burlington and Winooski meetings.
    1) Councilor Chris Shaw in South Burlington stating that the noise effects from the F-35 should be separate from the basing plan…aren’t they one in the same? No F-35’s, no noise effects.
    2) Fred Cota’s comments to Winooski to refocus their efforts from the F-35’s noise problem to car stereos, “As far as the noise quality in town, if the people in this town spent as much time trying to get rid of the boom box cars, that might help”. No response is even worth that inane statement!
    The proposed F-35’s have no business flying over heavily populated residential neighborhoods or even being considered in this area with no surrounding “dead zones” and only surrounded by houses, churches, schools, families, etc. The F-35’s are not the “backbone” of Vermont’s economy. Our health, environment and consideration for the thousands of people that are opposed to having this LOUDER than the current F-16’s, heavy gas tankard military machine in our Vermont skies should be our priority…it’s suppose to be the people that matter, not the military favors. The Guard will survive….
    Also, Winooski Councilors…listen to Winooski residents, stop being wishy washy and vote NO to the F-35’s.

20. Again, your rhetoric is overly dramatic.

21. And yet, people keep moving to Winooski and South Burlington. Both are growing. Guess people are too foolish to know what’s good for them, huh?

22. “That’s a good description of destruction”
    From above….
    In any event, I don’t question your facts, I merely pointed out that HUD’s “Exemption” wouldn’t mean the property couldn’t be sold and the decrease in value doesn’t mean the properties would be worthless as you comment implied. While I think there are legitamate concerns here, few ever see the light of day because for the most part people like to overly dramatize stuff. It makes it hard to keep ones eye on the ball.
    Regardless, my point was merely to illustrate the hypocrisy that exists, when it was about noise and “having a say” in Lowell everyone was all about the need for clean energy and the NIMBY whiners needed to get over it for the common good. Now that its a noise issue and “having a say” here in BTV it’s a different story.

23. Colonialism? Really? Get a grip. You completely undermine your side’s credibility when you start talking about “colonialism.”
    Hey, why stop at “colonialism”? Go for the gusto and call it genocide.

24. “As far as the noise quality in town, if the people in this town spent as much time trying to get rid of the boombox cars, that might help,” Cota said.
    I’d like to park a “boombox car” outside this guys house and play something fresh at the Db level the F-35 outputs. Maybe then he’d understand the difference.

25. Let me clarify the numbers I’m talking about and also say I don’t know enough about the Lowell project to comment. The one difference is the Lowell mountain project, as bad as it may be, doesn’t appear to have the capacity to bankrupt an entire city in the most populous are of the state. The $700 Million in lost property value is from an ‘average’ currently occupied residence no longer being able to be sold as such – thereby reducing it’s retail value. According to the Draft EIS statement – this could be as much as 42%. Reducing the value of the average Winooski residence from $217,640 to $126,231. Similarly – the tax rate on the property would drop from ~$4,600 to $2,668 (not exact – averaged a few numbers from a few current real estate postings). With $2,000 less in taxes on 80% of the residences in Winooski how can Police, Fire Departments Schools, and the general Infrastructure survive?

26. I think their numbers don’t really add up, something doesnt. $700 million on ~1200 properties would be an average value of $533K. That doesn’t seem to jive from what I have seen for property values in general, and that would be at a 100% totally unusable property. If it represented 42% of the value that would give an average property value of 1.3million.
    I’m not saying your statement isn’t correct, just that something here isn’t adding up. Those numbers would need to represent 7700+ houses to make sense. I don’t know how many are in the expanded affected area… Someone posted ~1200, Either way, it’s a moot point because the USAF and Leahy,Welch,Sanders,Shumlin really don’t care.
    Thanks for the discussion Ma.

27. Nice non-answer answer,
    with ad hominem sauce ;-)))

28. More likely, there are people who have no idea
    what’s going to be bad for them.

29. OK, but not wrong, apparently….

30. The total population affected – just in Winooski – is 8,915 according to town records

31. Ah, yes. The age old argument: people who don’t support my position are just too stupid to know what’s good for them.

32. You’re the one who called F-35 supporters colonialists!!! When challenged on your over-the-top rhetoric, you scream “ad hominem!”

33. OK so lets assume there are 4 people per property (which is probably a low estimate) 2200 properties which also includes those already in the “unihabitable zone.” The $700 million just doesn’t make sense. Anyways it will be what it will be.

34. If that’s what you think I meant,
    you don’t understand colonialism.
    Local supporters are among the colonized,
    in this obviously metaphorical construction.

35. Wait — drones????
    Let’s have that debate before they arrive.

36. Yes, drones. The Air Force is moving the drone units out of the Air Force and into the Air Guard. If jobs are the reason the Air Guard should stay – Drones would likely increase our unit’s size considerably while decreasing noise. Drones are here to stay – so why not have them training here?

37. Yes, drones are clearly a new plague
    that’s already upon us generally.
    But what do we actually know about drone noise.
    The jobs argument sounds reasonable so far….
    The argument we need to have is the role
    of drone surveillance in the U.S. generally,
    and in Vermont in particular.
    Along with the assurance that drones in Vermont
    will be unarmed….
    We have a congressional delegation that is
    effectively in thrall to military-industrial politics,
    and that’s not good for anyone but them
    and their beneficiaries.

38. The engine is about the same size as a Cessna (117 hp in a drone as opposed to 100 hp in a Cessna) though it’s designed to be much quieter

39. A dumb, inapt metaphor. But consistent with the over-the-top rhetoric being used by the anti-F-35 crowd. Now some are exploiting their own children as a political weapon. Sad, pathetic, and low. NIMBYists will apparently stop at nothing.

40. Relentlessly ad hominem.

41. No, just relentlessly true.

Comments are closed.