About three dozen Onion City residents made a big stink Thursday evening at the Winooski Welcome Center about the possible basing of F-35 war planes at Burlington International Airport. The Winooski contingent was part of a fired-up and mainly middle-aged audience that also included anti-F-35 activists from Burlington, Colchester and South Burlington.
One woman at the meeting called for the formation of “flash mobs at farmers’ markets” to alert shoppers to the fighter jets’ potentially ruinous impact on local property values. Another gray-haired woman suggested “chaining ourselves to where the planes take off” at BTV.
Attendees were exhorted to post comments on the Air Force’s F-35 environmental-impact statement before its June 20 deadline. The group is organizing an evening rush-hour rally at the Winooski roundabout on June 14 and is planning to lobby both the Winooski and Burlington city councils. South Burlington councilors recently voted 4-1 against basing the supersonic plane in that community.
The most prevalent and vociferous objection brought up at the freewheeling, 90-minute meeting was the F-35s’ potentially intolerable noise. Speakers posed the possibility that owners of homes within the war planes’ 65-decibel contours will be unable to sell and move away because banks will decline to give mortgages to prospective buyers.
Attorney Jimmy Leas (pictured at right) told the crowd that if the F-35 starts flying from the Burlington Air Guard station, half the houses in Winooski would experience noise in excess of federal health standards. A noise contour map included in the environmental-impact statement indicates that homes along several streets in Burlington near Shemanski Park would also be subjected to roars and booms above the 65-decibel level. More than 100 South Burlington homes are already being purchased and destroyed through a federal program because they stand in a zone where airport noise already reaches 65 decibels and higher.
“Supporters are using scare tactics about losing jobs” if the F-35 doesn’t come to Vermont, warned one Winooski resident. “We should use the scare tactic about losing our homes” if the F-35 does arrive, she added.
The planes would cause substantial collateral damage in all of Winooski, Andreoli predicted. “Think about our beautiful downtown — $175 million and 10 years in the making,” she said. “This is our renaissance. This is our home; we have to fight for it.”
Meeting attendees criticized Vermont’s congressional delegates, along with Gov. Peter Shumlin, for favoring the “bed-down” at BTV of up to two dozen of the planes, described by some opponents as weapons of mass destruction. Michael Mahoney of Winooski urged listeners to “make these politicians feel uncomfortable.” Mahoney conjured a scenario whereby “instead of saying ‘God bless Patrick Leahy’ when one of these planes flies over, people will say ‘God damn Patrick Leahy.'”
The F-35’s environmental impact is only one of five criteria the Air Force is assessing as it decides whether to base the plane at the Burlington Air Guard station or at a second “preferred” site in Utah. Planners will weigh the candidate bases’ suitability for the plane’s mission, as well as the cost and capacity of the respective options. “Military judgement” is listed as an additional standard, which, one speaker suggested Thursday night, “might mean ‘we’ll put it wherever we feel like.'”
But, Attorney Leas declared, “the Air Force lied” in saying there are only five criteria. “There’s actually a sixth the Air Force hasn’t told us about yet — and that’s public opposition,” he said, urging opponents to make clear that the F-35 is unwelcome in Vermont.
Correction: An earlier version of this post inaccurately attributed the quote about “scare tactics” to Winooski resident Eileen Andreoli.
Photos by Kevin J. Kelley; Top: Roger Bourassa, a Winooski-born retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, speaks against the F-35.
This article appears in Jun 6-12, 2012.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Good for the people of Winooski for showing up to defend their homes and lives from the ever encroaching US military. The US is declaring eternal war and turning the whole of this country into part of its plan for “full spectrum dominance”. Far more jobs would be created by spending our tax dollars in the health, education or infrastructure industries. The AirForce told us, last year, that one reason for basing the F-35 here is that our air is relatively clean therefore it is cheaper for them to pollute it to the Air Force standard. So Vermont’s reward for ecological vigilance is dirty air and these deafening planes. And I mean deafening. The Dutch government canceled its order for F-35’s when they found they would deafen people, especially the young and the elderly.
Our Congressional delegation all pretend to liberalism or more in Bernie’s case but do the bidding of the Military Industrial Energy Complex at every turn. Time for real direct democracy, we cannot hope for anything from our current system of corporate kleptocracy.
Tell it like it is Peggy!
Winooski and Burlington Mayors and City Councils: stand up and get some backbone like South Burlington has. The F-35s are no good for the VT Brand, the Burlington Brand or the Winooski Rennaisance. Why has practically everyone lined up in favor of this terrible weapon of war when the Environmetal Impact Statement is so flawed and appears to make half of Winooski “incompatible with residential use”. Good luck selling your house or getting a mortgage.
Winooski City Council members: how can this be good for the future of The Onion City? Everyone I heard speak at the City Council meeting Monday night was opposed to the F35s.
Don’t throw Winooski under the bus.
stopthef35.com
The majority of Vermonters support the F35s and are ready for them to come to BTV. These same NIMBY’s oppose wind power, solar arrays, higher housing buildings, and anything else that effects them and their back yards. Bring on the F35’s, vermonters are ready.
@epicvermont:disqus Got any data to back up your claim that the majority of Vermonters back this attrocious plan? Not the 500 people who signed our online petition: http://www.petitionbuzz.com/pe…. Not the folks who showed up at the Winooski City Council last week. More people need to understand what the F-35s will do to their home values and their peace and quiet, then they should make up their minds.Shumlin, Sanders, Leahy and Welch are not the majority of Vermonters.
No we are not ready or willing for the F-35’s, just the jingos, the boys who say deafening noise is the sound of freedom. I suspect there is no weapon big enough to assuage the fears of these guys who listen to the military and Wall Street masters whose major production these days is fear. Fear so well generated that a one time democracy has torn up the Constitution and become a locked down security state. Freedom in the USA is limited to rich who may fleece us with impunity. And nobody does it better than the military industrial energy complex with its cost overrun boondoggles like the F-25 and a coupe of trillion dollars the Pentagon can’t account for. But they have found a solution; stop accounting.
Peggy: The articles I’ve found online say the Dutch canceled their order of F-35s in 2010 because of money, not noise. And from other articles I’ve found, it seems that they’re going ahead with their purchase this year, but that they’re not purchasing as many because of cost, not noise (http://www.reuters.com/article…. I even found a link to a story about a Dutch study of F-35 noise that says there was barely any difference between the F-16 and the F-35 and that the F-35 would have fewer take-offs and landings because of its “improved operational radius” (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum…. As someone who has yet to make up his mind on this issue, I can tell you that misinformation and lies really don’t help your case.
Bungalow, thanks for the links. Your first link (Reuters article) states “The Netherlands has not finally agreed to buy the F-35 planes but is participating in the development programme and has ordered two F-35 test planes, of which the first has been constructed.” If that’s what you mean by “going ahead with their purchase” then you’re absolutely right. Sounds to me like the Dutch are being smart: buy a couple and test them out. I suggest we get one up here to test it out too, then send it home! Your second link (f16.net) has a wide ranging discussion and at one point states of the F-35 that “the average person would find the new fighter jet to be two to three times louder than the F-16. ” It also states “We had a briefing from a pilot here at Kjeller and he said unofficially that the F-35 is as noisy in mil as the F-16 is in AB. Bigger engine = more noise. Then again it is the sound of freedom.” Sounds like Peggy’s got it right to me. Please stop the namecalling and provide more “facts” that back up your case. Thanks for some links. Save Winooski: Stop the F35.
Teddy, you missed my point. Peggy said the Dutch canceled their order because of noise when there doesn’t appear to be any such evidence, but there does seem to be documentation that their decision was purely based on cost, which again, is not what Peggy said. So no, it doesn’t sound like Peggy’s got it right. It sounds like she fibbed about the Dutch to help prove her case. And again, as someone who hasn’t made up his mind on the issue, I can tell you that misinformation and lies like that really don’t help one’s case. As for name calling, you know I did no such thing. Tisk tisk for that accusation.
A woman at the Winooski Farmer’s Market this morning told me that the US government has said that with the F-35s, 50% of Winooski would be “incompatible with residential use.” Since you’re on that side of the debate, if you know what she’s talking about, I’d love to hear more about this and to see documentation of that. I’m not interested in blogs that quote this; I’m interested in a link to the actual government document that says this. I’m also curious how much of Winooski is currently “incompatible with residential use.”
Good question re “incompatible with residential use.” We’ve got a crew of folks looking into this. My general understanding: people are concerned with this becuse it affects their ability to get HUD approved mortgages or sell their homes. I’m not making hard statements here, because I don’t have the facts.
Article in the Freeps said the noise would be for a total of 3 minutes in the morning and 3 in the afternoon… 6 minutes. Not sure that’s going to hurt property values…
I’m not sure either, so we’re looking into it and not making assumptions.
Broad bigot brush. Not true.
You’re not making assumptions? You’ve already made all kinds of wild assumptions on here that this is going to hurt property values.
You talk first, think second, and then say you didn’t actually talk.
Using “lies” that way IS name-calling.
“incompatible with residential use” is a term from the Air Force environmental impact statement — it refers to the high-decibel zone.
Then so is the term “broad bigot brush.” You called someone a bigot. So, call the kettle black much? And, BTW, it was an erroneous use of the term bigot.
It’s easy to support the F35 when it doesn’t affect your neighborhood, property values, or quality of life.
I live in Chamberlin. You should see how many houses are for sale here, and none of them are selling. I’m a renter, trying to buy my first home. I like my neighborhood, but I won’t be buying a house here.
Why can’t the ANG base get drones?