State Rep. Kurt Wright criticized ice-cream baron Ben Cohen, who in turn had indirectly accused Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger of lying.
And so it went at Monday night’s speak-out on the proposed basing of the F-35 warplane at Burlington International Airport. The Burlington City Council meeting drew a placard-holding, finger-wiggling, standing-room crowd that generated almost two hours of public comments — to which city officials listened but did not respond.
Ward 7 Democrat Tom Ayres had earlier withdrawn a resolution that would have postponed a council decision on stationing the fighter jet at Burlington’s city-owned airport. Ayres said private conversations had indicated that his proposal lacked support “across the spectrum.”
The council’s Progressives dissed the resolution because it did not explicitly oppose basing the F-35 at the airport. Democrats, who form the largest bloc on the council, had declined last year to oppose local basing, instead passing a resolution that amounted to a slightly weaker version of Ayres’ aborted proposal. Ayres said during a meeting recess that council Dems, including himself, remain unwilling to go on record against local bed-down of the stealth fighter.
Speaker after speaker sounded familiar themes Monday night as the two sides clashed in their third showdown at a local city council in the past six weeks. Winooski’s council voted 4-0 against the BTV basing option, while South Burlington’s council reversed its earlier opposition and passed a resolution on a 3-2 vote in support of the planes.
But the stakes are potentially higher in Burlington, which owns the airport.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The basing decision is not and will not be a popular vote contrary to the wishes of Ms Citro and others. In the revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Air Force counted the hundreds of signatures on identical petitions submitted during the initial comment period as one comment. One can conclude that the 10,428 identical postcards sent to the Air Force in this last comment period will be treated likewise, one comment. On-the-other-hand one can assume that the hundreds of thoughtful comments submitted by the opponents of the F-35 will each be considered on its own merits. The opponents are committed to the cause to the degree that they each decide for themselves what needs to be said. The supporters simply appear to parrot each other, Certainly, the Air Force will understand this difference in commitment.
If there is “parroting” going on, the “anti’s” are just as guilty of parroting what they hear others say in opposition. Noise! Parrot. Home values! Parrot. “It will kill our children!” Parrot, parrot, parrot.
Obviously, Mr. Hoo has failed to pay attention to the debate. Each time an opponent comments, he or she cites a source for the information. Most of the time the source is the USAF. Can Mr. Hoo explain one time when an F-35 supporter has cited a source for the data to support his or her comments/claims? Perhaps Mr. Hoo has little, if any interest, in sourcing data? Perhaps, Mr Hoo, simply wants to repeat the opinions of well-financed and ill-informed supporters? Perhaps, Mr. Hoo, has no skin in the game but just likes to keep the debate going?
As a young homeowner in Winooski, I have listened carefully to the arguments for and against the F-35s. My spouse is a member of the VT Guard, and I would describe our political leanings as moderate. We both fear for the health of any children we may have in the future, our own health, and the value of our home we worked so hard to buy and work hard everyday to pay for, should the F-35s come to Burlington. The idea that hundreds of homes, ours included, would become uninhabitable, and that fact is acceptable to those considering their placement here, is baffling and upsetting to me. I wrote and submitted my carefully thought out letter during the comment period, and I think that the 10,248 postcards submitted only show that those supporting the F-35s are better funded than the opposition, not that there are truly more of them. I think that the facts regarding the impact the F-35s will have on our community need to be weighed much heavier than some hastily sent postcards.
The F22 is a much better plane than the F35. It flies faster, higher, has a greater payload, and is the best air combat aircraft in the world. Why was it cancelled by then Secretary Gates and President Obama? Here’s the reason. By law, the F22 can only be built for American consumption. It can’t be exported. The F35, on the other hand can be sold to anyone who wants one. More than 2,400 aircraft are planned at a cost of 170 million dollars per plane. Do the math…..it’s the military/industrial/government complex at it’s very ugliest. Lockheed Martin has poured mega bucks into lobbying and has directly or indirectly bought our congressional delegation, governor, and Burlington’s mayor. Would we rejoice if a company making land mines and guided bombs decided to build a plant in Burlington. Wow, they’re adding jobs. This is a pact with the devil. We are forever condemning the U.S. to perpetual war or our economy will crumble. Noise is not the only issue. For the cost of one plane we could end hunger in Vermont and supply heat to those in need for the entire winter. As a U.S. Navy vet who has flown in jet aircraft I strongly voice my objection to this disgusting project.
Public Forum starts at 31 minutes in. http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/p… Joan Shannon starts off saying “I don’t think I’ve seen a stack like this before.”
Hi everyone please don’t turn it personal because that won’t fly, thankssssss!
Kurt Wright’s reaction to Ben Cohen is eactly right, and, if anything, unnecessarily understated. Someone who made his millions by peddling health-destroying frozen fat to the masses has no business lecturing anyone else about what’s right and wrong.
“State Sen. David Zuckerman, a
Progressive/Democrat, said in a written statement that he feared the
risk of the plane crashing in a densely populated area.”
Opponents fear noise… pollution… health effects… destroyed home values… uninhabitable neighborhoods… Zuckerman fears one might crash.
Oy vey… if there was ever an argument for competancy tests before allowing people to vote…
By that logic, bankers would have
no business opposing bank robbers.
then would you like a bunch of FA-18 hornets instead?
thom “goose” barney?
and anywayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
the F-35 is the absolute, with out a doubt
unequivicaly
[how ever the heck you spell it, I don’t ‘peck and guess, and yes
I never won the spelling beeeeeeee
10 years of college wasted
ANYWAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
there are the best leaf blowers in the world
trust me here
other than that
thom ‘goose again’ barney
Your analogy is flawed. Bankers are not peddling health-destroying frozen fat to children and then complaining that noise hurts us.
No one force-feeds that frozen fat to the masses, your logic is flawed.
Why are you so angry. This is a serious subject. For some, it may be a matter of life or death.
There are a variety of health and safety issues surrounding basing the F-35 at the Burlington Airport.
Safety: Aircraft are much more likely to crash in their first 5 years of operation. The population density around the airport is greater than any of the other air guard locations. No fighter should be based at an airport until it has been operationally deployed at airbases for several years. They usually aren’t. If the F-35 has to be, Burlington is the location likely to produce the greatest tragedy.
Health: The Air Force Environmental Impact Statement refers to a series of health issues. The most recent medical information in the EIS is from 2002. In the intervening years a number of studies have found stronger evidence of health effects including increased risk of heart attacks, increased incidence of high blood pressure, a statistically significant increase in low birth weight babies and an increased incidence of learning impairments in school children.over control groups. As these studies extend into longer time periods they are finding health effects occur with less exposure and lower noise levels than earlier studies.
In 10 minutes on Google anyone who cares to can find academic research demonstrating a relationship between home values and airport noise. There is a debate over the most accurate way to calculate the relationship, but academic studies don’t doubt that it exists.
The FAA assigns the label “Unsuitable for Residential Use.” All opponents have done is replaced invalid information about housing density in the zones with accurate information. The Air Force supplied the contours of the zones
Finally, if you want to hold a referendum on the issue, it seems reasonable to give special weight to the voices of people directly affected.
The subject is hypocrisy. Your reading comprehension is poor.