Jean Szilva, left, an F-35 opponent, in an animated discussion with supporter Tony Augostino. The Winooski residents were among the more than 50 who spoke before city council Monday.
After two hours of public discussion overwhelmingly opposed to basing F-35s in Vermont, it remained unclear how the Winooski City Council will vote on the issue — or whether it will submit additional comments to the Air Force before a July 15 deadline for public feedback.
The council delayed any action until Wednesday after hearing from more than 50 Winooski residents, only five of whom voiced explicit support for the basing. The vast majority said the warplanes, which would replace F-16s currently based at Vermont Air National Guard base at Burlington International Airport, threatens health and quality of life in the city.
Winooski resident and activist Eileen Andreoli spoke to the council alongside a sign she made using a quote from the Air Force’s most recen Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Even as Winooski residents testified, the South Burlington City Council was voting Monday evening to reverse a previous vote and officially support basing F-35s at BTV, over the objections of many city residents.
Arica Bronz, who co-owns a duplex in Winooski and has children in JFK Elementary School, told the council she was extremely happy to have her children in the school system, but wouldn’t accept the change.
“If the F-35s come to Winooski,” she said, “I will find a way to leave.”
Another resident, Dan Treinis, also said he would leave Winooski if the jets were based at BTV.
Many others were vehemently against the F-35s and encouraged the City Council to send a strong message to the Air Force on their behalf.
Resident Greg Premo said he worried the value of his home would fall with the increased noise from the new jets.
“I urge you not to be a laissez-faire city council,” he said to a panel of three city councilors and Mayor Michael O’Brien.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Again, your rhetoric is overly dramatic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Stating that the F-35’s will destroy towns and destroy neighborhoods…. Yes “overly dramatic” is the correct usage.
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.
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.