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!
Relentlessly ad hominem.
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.
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
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.
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?
Wait — drones????
Let’s have that debate before they arrive.
If that’s what you think I meant,
you don’t understand colonialism.
Local supporters are among the colonized,
in this obviously metaphorical construction.
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.
You’re the one who called F-35 supporters colonialists!!! When challenged on your over-the-top rhetoric, you scream “ad hominem!”
Ah, yes. The age old argument: people who don’t support my position are just too stupid to know what’s good for them.