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!
The total population affected – just in Winooski – is 8,915 according to town records
OK, but not wrong, apparently….
More likely, there are people who have no idea
what’s going to be bad for them.
Nice non-answer answer,
with ad hominem sauce ;-)))
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.
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?
“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.
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.
“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.
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?