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.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Does this mean the city has been vulnerable
all these years to litigation on the F-16?
Sure sounds like it!
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’.
I don’t think the city ever tried to vote the military out of the airport before.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
The city owns the land.
VTANG has a 35 year lease or longer
(end date unknown).
http://www.nrb.state.vt.us/lup…
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.
JR has it just about right. However, if the Burlington City Council votes to deny the Air Force use of the airport fro the F-35, that will to a great degree take Burlington off the hook. On-the-other-hand, if the Mayor vetoes the vote, presto Burlington is back on the hook.
I cant believe people like you would be spitting on us to rub in the the fact that most of the Base was furloughed this week. The military wants this jet because it is better than what we have. You want us to keep the F-16? those things are filled with toxic hydrazine .. You know how bad that stuff is? The F-35 doesn’t use such toxins, is faster, higher tech, and better at killing bad guys while keeping the pilots safe. What is wrong with you, mad men like you have no right to tell the military how to defend itself. If any guard base gets the jet VT will and there is nothing you and your progressive anti-american terrorist asses can do about it.
If we do not get the F-35 we are in fact at risk of being BRAC’d. That is the point. People like you want to prevent the Vermont air guard from getting a new mission because you know if you can stop a new mission you might be able to completely remove the Air Guard from VT and force all the airman to get fired or transferred out of the state we love.
The VT F-16s are the oldest in the fleet and every jet has an expiration date. They are not making anymore F-16s for the USAF which means once these aircraft cant fly anymore there will be no replacements… I get it now, the whole point of the opposition is to hurt airmen and their families to force them to either move or become jobless… I never agreed with most of the progressive agenda but now I understand it is solely designed to hurt the people who defend the country because you think people in the military are the problem.
You will be first in line to protest the drone mission as well. You don’t even want us here… That is the problem. More people will be affected by not getting the F-35 than getting it but you retread burnt out VT hippies will protest anything that involves the military because you hate what Airmen represent. Airmen pay taxes, buy things from local vendors, Eat meat, own guns, buy pick-up trucks and have Romney stickers on their vehicles. That is why you hate us and have dedicated your life to trying to F us over.
It’s funny. There’s no doubt that many of the same hippies who are opposed to the F35 ate also the ones who wanted VU shut down. And what was one of their arguments for shutting down VY? Because it was allegedly past its lifespan. But now they’re saying that the F16 can go on forever. As if they’re aeronautical engineers. Their positions ate contradictory but they don’t care, or even realize the contradiction. They’ll say anything.
action’s ad hominem comments lack
relevant content.
As for his paranoia, best left to therapy, and/or
remedial reading lessons.
The argument over the F-35 should proceed on
the merits, or lack of merits the plane presents.
The VTANG “mission” is a separate issue, but
if it really depends on an over-price,
under-performing boondoggle, then maybe it
doesn’t have a serious purpose.
Vituperation is not logical argument.
I wish I could see the top secret performance reports you are looking at that indicates that this Air-frame is in fact under-performing. Any question about the fighter jet’s performance is anecdotal at best, as there are components in the platform that will not be declassified in your lifetime. The dinosaur “specialist” that you people pulled out from retirement a few months ago that came out against the aircraft has been out of the game for over 30 years and I can guarantee doesn’t have a clue about the current generation of fighter design on a classified level. From the impression I got from the pilots that fly the bird it is far from the boondoggle you are claiming it is. I do not think that anyone would say the air-frame is not coming in massively over cost, but than again what was the last government project you heard of that came under priced? The failures in the DOD weapons procurement process do not negate the need to replace our aging air-frames and bring them into the 21st Century. If you can come up with a better way to provide us troops with the equipment we need go ahead and forward your ideas to your congressman, but until that happens leave us alone, let us do our jobs, and get get a hobby other than trolling my brothers and sisters that are sworn to defend you.
The ad hominem stuff is getting funny, with
attacks coming from someone sworn to defend me.
Reports of the F-35 shortcomings from the Pentagon
and elsewhere are easy to find for anyone with the
integrity to look for them. One example from a google list of more than half a million:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10…
As for governing by secrecy
(trust us, we know Saddam has wmds and the like),
well that has it’s own set of difficulties.
Free people need to do more than salute, say “yes, sir,”
and carry blindly on.
I guess the fix is in.