Your Thoughts On Basing F-35 Jets In South Burlington (Essex Junction: how much, attorney)

[URob]

Logs and Dogs, my understanding is the Air Force is not considering other places in the northeast. I believe South Carolina and Utah are the other contenders. Unlike Vermont, both basing locations there are far from the main population centers.

[Logs and Dogs]

Originally Posted by URob

Logs and Dogs, my understanding is the Air Force is not considering other places in the northeast. I believe South Carolina and Utah are the other contenders. Unlike Vermont, both basing locations there are far from the main population centers.

So from one perspective someone could make an argument that the response time to the northeast population centers would be increased if they were based in SC vs. VT; granted, in the time of emergency I'm sure the sound barrier rules would be ignored or nullified and they would get to NYC pretty quickly from SC, UT not so much.

Personally, I'm torn on this issue but lean towards it being a price of freedom. It also makes me ask the question of, "how many international airports have ever reduced their footprint as the years and decades have gone on?".

[MRVphotog]

Three SAC bases have closed in the northeast, Plattsburgh, Limestone and most recently Brunswick, Maine so there are not alot of options left. The part I don't get about the opposition is that these folks knew, or should have known they were moving to a place that was already next door to an airport which had the VANG. BIA did not just spring up last week, it's been there for decades.

[Logs and Dogs]

Originally Posted by MRVphotog

Three SAC bases have closed in the northeast, Plattsburgh, Limestone and most recently Brunswick, Maine so there are not alot of options left. The part I don't get about the opposition is that these folks knew, or should have known they were moving to a place that was already next door to an airport which had the VANG. BIA did not just spring up last week, it's been there for decades.

I was thinking the same thing.....

[URob]

You guys are completely missing the point. The "not suitable for residential use" designation that prevents people from being able to sell their homes is ONLY because of the recent changes to the F-16 and because of the pending F-35. Everybody knows there's an airport there and did when they bought their house. They can't complain about the commercial air traffic (and nobody does, because it's not an issue). The commercial air traffic is exponentially more quiet. Fed-Ex planes and US Airways are not creating "not suitable for residential use" designation, destroying people's home values.

People knew full well about the Air Guard also, and everybody was proud of them. Nobody was complaining about noise. Then, beginning around 2004, the Air Force changed the fuel tank location and weight of the F-16's, requiring full after-burner use all the time. This, after promising that things would actually get QUIETER! Instead, they were so much louder it caused the first round of "not suitable for residential use" and the buy-out of hundreds of homes (funded by you and I, the taxpayer). Now, there's no $$ left, but the F-35 is going to expand the "not suitable for residential use" zone to 1,000's of homes. This gigantic expansion of neighborhood destruction is based on the F-35 NOT USING AFTER-BURNERS. It will be even worse if they have to use after-burners.

I agree with you that anyone who bought a house in South Burlington or Winooski AFTER 2004 cannot complain. At that point, everyone was on full notice. But most of the people living there have lived there for decades.

[Logs and Dogs]

Originally Posted by URob

You guys are completely missing the point. The "not suitable for residential use" designation that prevents people from being able to sell their homes is ONLY because of the recent changes to the F-16 and because of the pending F-35. Everybody knows there's an airport there and did when they bought their house. They can't complain about the commercial air traffic (and nobody does, because it's not an issue). The commercial air traffic is exponentially more quiet. Fed-Ex planes and US Airways are not creating "not suitable for residential use" designation, destroying people's home values.

People knew full well about the Air Guard also, and everybody was proud of them. Nobody was complaining about noise. Then, beginning around 2004, the Air Force changed the fuel tank location and weight of the F-16's, requiring full after-burner use all the time. This, after promising that things would actually get QUIETER! Instead, they were so much louder it caused the first round of "not suitable for residential use" and the buy-out of hundreds of homes (funded by you and I, the taxpayer). Now, there's no $$ left, but the F-35 is going to expand the "not suitable for residential use" zone to 1,000's of homes. This gigantic expansion of neighborhood destruction is based on the F-35 NOT USING AFTER-BURNERS. It will be even worse if they have to use after-burners.

I agree with you that anyone who bought a house in South Burlington or Winooski AFTER 2004 cannot complain. At that point, everyone was on full notice. But most of the people living there have lived there for decades.

I wouldn't say we are completely missing the point necessarily, I think you are getting to the nuances of the argument that you are making. Your point is that the BIA commercial traffic and VANG F-16's pre-2004 were all fine with everyone in the surrounding areas. Then the government changed the weight of the F-16s causing them to require full AB to take off which is loud as heck, and the new F-35 is supposed to be even louder. Correct? That is the new salt in the existing wound right?

My point (I don't want to speak for others) is; why are people surprised that an international airport and especially one with a NG base on it would expand and steamroll the local residents for the sake of the "greater good"? I would have been more surprised if conditions around the airport improved over the decades vs. deteriorate.

Due to the relatively recent closures of other air bases in the northeast, this one has even more strategic significance which increases the leverage the government has in basing new technology there. Their options are now greatly reduced and leaving the populous Northeast exposed isn't an option in their mind.

What would happen if all other Nuclear power plants were to close in the northeast but one.....would people be surprised when they want to increase the capacity of that plant? I'd argue people should see this crap coming a mile away...

Of course that is just my opinion to each his own, I'm not the one living near an existing air base.

[URob]

Good point, I think I understand what you are saying. Given the corruption in Washington & Montpelier, it should have been obvious years ago. And given the endless lies from the government & military in the past, no one should have taken the Air Force at their word when they promised that things would actually get quieter or they would successfully mitigate things. I still feel for the people who bought there in the 60's, 70's, 80's, & 90's, since their home investment is down the tubes & they can't get fair monetary compensation but I do understand what you're saying, it should have been obvious. The credibility gap existed long before the latest flare-up over the F-35's.

Although South Burlington and Winooski existed before the airport, it's not clear why past leaders in South Burlington zoned this area for housing and let a huge neighborhood grow there from the farms in the 1950's, other than pressure to make $$$ from probably the same developer families that are now itching to buy the houses for pennies on the dollar and tear them down to put in commercial development. While it was nothing but a tiny airstrip then, it still does not make for good public policy. Downtown Winooski was already heavily developed long before the airport, including with housing, due to the successful woolen mill industry in the 1800's, so you can't blame that on the town forefathers.

Again, just to be clear, I live several miles in the other direction and am not in the threatened "zone" but I am a resident of South Burlington and know a lot of people there.

[MRVphotog]

Originally Posted by URob

I still feel for the people who bought there in the 60's, 70's, 80's, & 90's, since their home investment is down the tubes & they can't get fair monetary compensation but I do understand what you're saying, it should have been obvious. The credibility gap existed long before the latest flare-up over the F-35's.

The airport was opened in the early 1920's gaining the "international" designation in 1969. It conducted important fighter pilot training at the beginning of WW2 in the early 40's. Interestingly during that training the Burlington Airport recorded the most take-offs and landings in the world for two days. So, even 70 years ago it was a very busy military airport.

This is not a new problem for residential areas in airport flight paths. Many airports around the country have seen their cities grow around them as the planes got bigger and louder. Fly out of Kennedy and you see many homes and apartment building right next to the airport.

I hope a compromise can be worked out but as it's been since 2007 the economy and jobs are a top priority for not just our government leaders but for many others around the state. Both South Burlington and Williston have experienced explosive growth since 1970, sprawl was was the program, the suburbs came to Vermont with, in this particular case, little regard to the future growth of the nearby airport. Well, the future is now and it looks like it could abit more nosey.

[Logs and Dogs]

Looks like the Burlington AGS has been chosen officially as the preferred base for the F35 for the ANG.

Beat out he SC and FL locations.

[URob]

Looks like it's happening. Saw the same news reports. Real shame given the other alternatives. Right or wrong, I would expect a modern version of the "white flight" that took place in urban areas across America during the 1960's and 70's. Regardless of race, gender, etc., non-military (and even some military) people are not willing to put their kids in harm's way and raise children under the kind of extreme noise conditions that will be generated. I think the crash risk has been overplayed by the opponents recently given it will still be several more years of testing before the F-35's arrive but it's already hurting the local real estate market. Commercial development will still thrive in So. Burlington but the residential tax base and once-respected public schools will unfortunately continue their decline (the meth. clinic opening next door to the Middle School & High School has also certainly not helped matters)! It's interesting that neither rabid F-35 opponent Rosanne Greco; nor rabid proponent - City Council Chair Pam Mackenzie - have any kids. One is former military, Greco being a retired lieutenant colonel; and the other is a military brat, Mackenzie's father having served a long career in one of the branches.

Also interesting article in Seven Days recently about how Pam Mackenzie and other F-35 proponents violated several campaign finance laws during last spring's elections that introduced the biggest political spending we've ever seen. I was honestly very surprised to see Jim Knapp's name involved given that he is a lawyer. I respected his opinions & thinking when he was on the Council previously. Would have thought that he'd make sure anything he was involved in had complied with the law but maybe he was only lending his name & had trusted that the others were not playing fast and loose.