The city council’s contentious debate over basing the F-35s at Burlington International Airport has been temporarily grounded. The reason: lack of insurance in case the city gets sued.

On Thursday afternoon, Burlington City Council President Joan Shannon announced that she’s postponed the debate and vote on a resolution that was scheduled for the council’s October 7 meeting, next Monday. That resolution would have clarified the council’s position on whether the next-generation fighter jets should be based at BTV — and possibly recommend that decision’s delay. 

Also postponed was the scheduled public hearing, which was expected to draw a large crowd of both F-35 supporters and opponents.

“Our purpose is not in any way to avoid the vote,” Shannon emphasized. “There still will be a vote.”

Staff Writer Ken Picard is a senior staff writer at Seven Days. A Long Island, N.Y., native who moved to Vermont from Missoula, Mont., he was hired in 2002 as Seven Days’ first staff writer, to help create a news department. Ken has since won numerous regional and national awards for his features, profiles and investigative stories and had his work picked up by international news outlets. He was the first journalist to shine a light on the thousands of undocumented workers in Vermont’s dairy...

21 replies on “Burlington Council Grounds F-35 Vote Due to “Gap” in Insurance Coverage”

  1. The need for liability insurance to postpone the meeting is basically a crock. These are stall tactics desperately needed by the pro F-35 people. Moveon.org and other organizations have been circulating this meeting nationally and getting thousands of signatures. The anti-f-35 heat is extreme and proponents are hoping that a postponment wil cool things off. They hope people will lose interest and go home. That ain’t gonna happen. The City of Burlington will be in deep doo doo when distressed homeowners start suing the city. The Air Farce basically doesn’t care. They will claim eminent domain since they already have a presence at the airport. Burlington will have to fork over money to displaced homeowners and the Air Farce will keep on flying the F-35. Thank you Senator Leahy for absolutely nothing. You have proved that you are a tool of the military/industrial/government complex. You have permanently lost this family’s vote and respect. Say hello to your relative, Ernie Pomerleau, and please wish him luck in developing the abandoned properties.

  3. I understand that they haven’t been chosen as of yet. I also understand that burlington owns the airport. What I’m saying is that I’m pretty sure the feds own the portion that VTANG sits on and as such can do whatever they want with it. I don’t think that, in the end, the city has the power to actually do anything about it.

  4. The Air Force has promised VTANG a mission (drones, maybe), but no one knows the future.
    Burlington airport is not yet “chosen” — it is in the hunt with significant political bias (Leahy/Sanders/Welch) and initially fixed facts in the EIS.
    Need a fact check on who owns the airport.
    I don’t think it’s the feds.
    They own Camp Ethan Allen which is why they think they can put an anti-missile missile base there with impunity.
    And they’re probably right.

  5. do you honestly think they’re going to keep funneling money into a place that refuses if chosen?
    don’t get me wrong, I agree with the liability issue as the feds could sue the city and I’m not opposed to a vote on the issue, but I’m gonna say the vote is mostly symbolic as I’m fairly sure that the air guard portion of the airport is federal property and they’re going to do what they want with it.

  6. “to vote the military out of the airport”
    is a fundamentally dishonest framing
    of the issue.
    The F-35 is NOT the whole military,
    and if it was we’d have a ton more
    to worry about.
    The issue is F-35 basing —
    and one of the sub-issues is whether Burlington
    has any right to impose harm and suffering
    on people outside of Burlington.

  8. That’s the word on the street – and people (including lawyers) have been warning residents of Burlington and the City Councilors that they were liable. The issue is that the comments are often dismissed with the same ‘Sound of Freedom’ expression that the Pro F-35 community seems to use – regardless of the facts or figures people are discussing.
    One lawyer who address the council last year quoted potential liability of $100 Million dollars. People dismissed it because the property owners around the airport in South Burlington, previously and currently affect by the 65 db DNL, were bought out at full residential value by special program. However, the program is normally funded a total of between $2 – $3 million per year (nationwide) for that purpose.
    Why the liability? In part because the airport (and therefore City of Burlington) is not currently compliant with FAA regulations to ensure potential home buyers receive and sign a disclaimer stating a home is in zone that is now, or is destined to be, labeled ‘unsuitable for residential use’ by the FAA. This disclaimer is also required to be sent to the mortgage lender. Where Airports are compliant – home values have dropped up to 42% (as mentioned in the EIS). This is due, in large part, to FHA, HUD and VA loan program regulations not allowing a mortgage on a a house labeled ‘unsuitable for residential use’.

Comments are closed.