Three Vermont Air National Guard officers (including Col. Joel Clark, right) sat silently at a Burlington City Council public hearing last night as speaker after speaker after speaker denounced the proposed basing here of the F-35 supersonic fighter jet.
Afterward, however, the local military brass expressed satisfaction with the council’s decision to neither support nor oppose the bed-down at Burlington International Airport. Councilors instead voted unanimously, after a 90-minute debate and 90 minutes of public comments, to put questions to the U.S. Air Force regarding the F-35’s potential impact on public health, real-estate values and the regional economy.
Mayor Miro Weinberger backed the successful resolution, which also calls for an F-35 to be brought to Burlington to demonstrate the degree of noise the plane produces.
Opponents turned out in force for a session some said might be of pivotal importance in influencing the Air Force’s choice of where to base up to two dozen of the war planes. More than 30 speakers urged council members to take action against what a few described as a “weapon of mass destruction.” Only three supporters of the F-35 made their views known during the hearing.
Arguments in opposition centered on the noise the plane would make (Liza Cowan, right). Several speakers warned that F-35 decibel levels would damage the area’s housing market, making it difficult for potential buyers in the worst-affected zones, including about a dozen streets in Burlington, to get mortgages. Current home owners in those areas might likewise be unable to sell their properties, speakers said. The impact would be most severe in neighborhoods with relatively affordable homes, including most of Winooski and parts of Burlington and South Burlington, opponents maintained.
Some speakers focused on larger policy issues, such as the size and purposes of the Pentagon budget and the threat of “militarization” in a state with a large peace movement. Veteran antiwar activist Peggy Luhrs observed that the F-35 is an embodiment of “boyhood comic-book fantasies.”
But Councilor Vince Brennan, a Ward 3 Progressive, agreed later in the meeting to remove from his resolution opposing the F-35 a series of critical references to U.S. military spending. That concession was not enough to persuade skeptics and opponents of Brennan’s proposal. The council voted it down 8-5, with one member absent. One Democrat, Ward 5’s Bram Kranichfeld, and one Independent, Sharon Bushor of Ward 1, joined the council’s three Progressives — Brennan, Max Tracy (Ward 2) and Rachel Siegel (Ward 3) — on the affirmative side.
A resolution expressing support for the F-35 was rejected by a 9-4 margin. It had been sponsored by council Republican Vince Dober of Ward 7, a former member of the Vermont Air National Guard. Contending that the Burlington base lacks any future alternative to the F-35, Dober suggested that putting the plane elsewhere could cause the local Air Guard station to suffer the fate of the Plattsburgh Air Force base. It was shut down in 1995. And the economic effects of that closure are such that the city across the lake now “can’t afford to buy rock salt,” Dober said.
Realtor Ernie Pomerleau (pictured at table, right) and Chittenden County economic development official Frank Cioffi had earlier urged the council to endorse the bed-down of the F-35. They said it is essential to retain the 1100 jobs and $350 million payroll associated with the F-16 fighters currently stationed at the Vermont Air Guard base. Burlington also stands to lose $2.5 million worth of fire and rescue services that the Air Guard now provides for commercial as well as military aviation at the airport, Pomerleau said.
It was also noted that the entire Vermont political establishment — including the governor, the legislature and the three-member congressional delegation — has voiced support for the F-35. But the overwhelming opposition expressed at last night’s public hearing pointed to a possible disconnect between representatives and a sizable portion of the represented.
Council President Joan Shannon, a Ward 5 Democrat and author of the successful resolution calling for further study of the F-35, wondered aloud, however, whether impassioned opposition “is necessarily the sentiment of a majority of Burlingtonians.” A few other councilors also alluded to a possible silent majority in favor of the loud aircraft. Only a few residents of some wards have expressed any sort of opinion on the F-35, three councilors pointed out, and one of them — Ward 4 Democrat Bryan Aubin — suggested that localized opposition might reflect a “not in my backyard” perspective.
Ward 6 Independent Karen Paul said she found it odd that no one from the Vermont Air National Guard had offered comments during the hearing. Col. Joel Clark, vice-commander of the F-16 wing at the Burlington base, explained in an interview afterward that he had refrained from commenting out of reluctance to be seen as “lobbying” on the issue. Despite attending in dress uniform, Clark had sat inconspicuously throughout the session that attracted a standing-room crowd to Contois Auditorium.
Lt. Col. Dan Finnegan, an F-16 pilot wearing his flight suit, noted in the hallway following the meeting that he was “probably the only person in that room who has heard” the noise the F-35 makes on takeoff. Finnegan said he has flown a simulated version of the new plane and has also been present on the ground during actual flights.
The F-35 is “slightly louder” than the F-16, Finnegan reported, but, he added, “nowhere near” four times as noisy — a comparison cited by opponents based on an analysis of Air Force data.
This article appears in Jun 20-26, 2012.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
They should have named this thing the “FU-35”.
AIR FORCE BASE DECISION THREATENS 1,300 VERMONT HOMES
BY
William Boardman panthers007@comcast.net
SOUTH
BURLINGTON – If the Pentagon decides to base its new F-35 nuclear-capable
attack fighter at the Burlington International Airport here, that decision is
expected to put 1,366 nearby houses into a noise zone that the federal government
defines as “incompatible with residential use,” according to the Air Force’s
own draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released in April. http://www.accplanning.org/doc…
The
F-35 stealth fighter is ten years behind schedule, about 100 per cent over
budget, and won’t be deployed before 2019, but the prospect of having it in
Vermont has sparked growing public and local government resistance to the
plan. Among the most serious
concerns are noise, safety, lost housing, degraded air quality, limited job
creation, depressed property values, and negative economic impact. http://southburlingtonvt.govof… Already the South Burlington City
Council has voted 4-1 to reject the expansion of the military base and other
towns in the area have indicated doubts, without yet taking a formal position. http://www.wptz.com/news/vermo…
Support
for the Pentagon plan comes from establishment politicians in monolithic,
bi-partisan form from Vermont’s highest public officials. These include both U.S. Senators,
Democrat Patrick Leahy and independent Bernie Sanders; Vermont’s lone
Congressman, Democrat Peter Welch; Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin (Democrat) and
Lt. Gov. Phil Scott (Republican); Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger, Democrat,
as well as Republican gubernatorial candidate Randy Brock.
There
is no prominent Vermont office holder standing in opposition.
Retired
U.S. Air Force Colonel Rose Greco is a not-so-prominent office holder who
opposes the Pentagon plan in her role as chair of the South Burlington City
Council. On May 14, she voted with
the 4-1 majority of her council to reject basing F-35s in their town. Col. Greco explained that: “If you read the various categories in
the Environmental Impact Statement that the Air Force produced you will see
that in just about every category that there were significant negative effects
on South Burlington…. There are
far better basing [options] for the F-35 that in a small state in a small
community in a small town. We are
sacrificing our town, we are sacrificing our community. In my mind, the F-35s do not belong in
this area.” http://vtdigger.org/2012/05/30…
Another
town close to the airport, Winooski, has already seen one public demonstration
of about 100 people against the F-35
http://www.wcax.com/search?ven…
, but the city council has yet to take a position for or against the
basing. The city council’s
unofficial position is that it has a number of questions to which it needs
answers before deciding. The Air
Force has apologized for failing to provide the city with its impact statement
before the public hearing. The
Winooski school board, however, has voted against the warplanes.
The South Burlington school
district, while stopping short of taking a position on F-35 basing, issued a
detailed critique of the plan as it affects the districts 5 schools, 500
teachers, and 2400 students. The
district letter discusses omissions in the Air Force environmental statement
relating to noise impact on the schools, cumulative impacts on the district,
and how the Air Force might mitigate the tax base losses caused by eliminated
housing. http://sbsd.schoolfusion.us/mo…
The
city of Burlington is far enough away from the airport that it is unaffected by
the jet noise that renders areas “incompatible with residential use.” Mayor Weinberger, a former airport
commissioner, skipped the public hearing on environmental impact and came out
in favor of the F-35 basing without offering any detailed analysis while
calling jet noise “a limited impact.” http://vtdigger.org/2012/05/22…
“Not
a single person will lose housing because of this,” Weinberger said, without
explaining the environmental reports conclusion that more than 1300 houses
would end up in a zone “incompatible with residential use.”
The
Burlington City Council meets Monday, June 18, to take up the F-35 issue and
opponents are organizing to appear in large numbers to make their views
known.
–
30 –
I spoke out against the F35s coming to BTV’s airport at last night’s Burlington city council meeting. Of course I always think of things to say after the fact. I thought of this on the way home last night & it bugged me all evening, but I had not formulated my thoughts until after I spoke: The mayor campaigned on calling for lower noise levels in student neighborhoods in the city and often the city council has thrown a hissy fit and put harsh restrictions on students because of complaints about party noise (students being students). And yet Burlington city councilors by its inaction against these satanic, instruments of death, are willing to allow unhealthy, deafening, ear-damaging, noise from F35s to terrorize and scare the bejeesuz out of infants, children, wild & domestic animals. Shameful, really.
Last year the proponents on the council of the Lockheed Martin deal with the city council lost their ethical compass. This year pretty much the same councilors are still lost. Also shameful.
Satanic?
sometimes those brilliant thoughts are as brilliant as we think….
Bring the F35s here. Down with the predictable, whiny, anti-everything, moved-here-from-elsewhere Burlington hippies.
Well that’s a thoughtful point of view.
If these things are “publically” stated to be here in 2019 that means they are already flying. Probably already taking off and landing at BTV. Anyone notice the increase in noise?
I live in Chamberlin. A lot of homes are for sale here. If the F35s are such a good thing, why aren’t F35 supporters buying homes in the neighborhood?
Yeah, my home has been for sale for three years. It must be because of the air traffic.
About as thoughtful as the knee-jerk bumper-sticker slogans that pass for thoughtful political debate by the ultra-Left in Burlington? Slogans that cannot be questioned, like the racism industry calling everyone at BHS guilty of racism and “white privilege”? The slogan, “Question Your Beliefs” only applies to conservatives and moderates in Burlington, not to Leftists, right?
I don’t think it is the air traffic by itself. It is the economy coupled with the uncertainty of what happens if the F-25s come here. We live on the other side of the airport (Country Club Dr E) and our house will just be inside the noise zone if (when?) the F-35s come. Only two other houses on the street will be within the buy-out limit. What happens then?
Right now we’re not sure whether it would pay to replace the roof and furnace if the place will be unlivable–and unsalable–in a few years.
Both of us come from AF families and have lived on bases, so we knew what we were getting into when we bought in 2003. However, we didn’t know about the F-35s and believe me, they are much, much louder.
What? Seriously. What?
It always amazes me how US citizens bow to authorities such as the military. In no other “Western” country would it be possible for military jets to fly that low over residential areas without major protest from its residents. I guess, as so often, propaganda slogans such as the infamous ‘Freedom isn’t free’ as well as the job creation argument help steer people’s opinions in whatever direction they want to ‘brainwash’ them to.
Paul Heintz’s Fair Game yesterday was a superlative example of responsible journalism. It highlights why our judicial system would never allow the information in question to see the light of day in a courtroom: it’s complete and total hearsay. The source is entirely unknown, so he/she cannot be examined on the statement and its veracity can never be determined. Heintz didn’t say it, but I will: it was totally irresponsible for Ms, Greco to publish the anonymous allegation, and, coming from someone who is already publicly known to be an opponent of the F-35s, her allegation that an anonymous source told her the scoring was rigged is, frankly, highly suspicious. And, moreover, it has now been shown to be wrong. Shame.