Seated before a raucous, city-hall crowd of 400 that didn’t always obey rules limiting the debate, city councilors last night voted down two resolutions opposing plans to base the F-35s at Burlington International Airport.
The first resolution, calling for the city to actively oppose locating F-35s at the Burlington-owned airport, was rejected 10-4. Councilors Max Tracy (P-Ward 2), Kevin Worden (D-Ward 1), Vince Brennan (P-Ward 3) and Rachel Siegel (P-Ward 3) voted for the resolution.
The council seemed swayed by an opinion issued in recent days by City Attorney Eileen Blackwood, who said Burlington does not have the legal right to ban the military from using any specific aircraft, and could be held financially liable for violating leases with the federal government if it tried to restrict the Air National Guard’s operations.
“There is no way I am willing to put the city at risk for that liability,” said Councilor William “Chip” Mason (D-Ward 5).
The second resolution, which would have banned planes that are louder than 65 decibels or have crash rates higher those of the F-16 — standards the F-35 is expected to exceed — was rejected 11-3. Brennan, Tracy and Siegel voted in support.
BTV Aviation Director Gene Richards told the council the anti-noise resolution could jeopardize future efforts to lure other commercial airlines to the airport.
Concern for the future of BTV swayed Councilor Karen Paul (I-Ward 6) to vote against both resolutions.
“It’s possible that without the F-35 coming to Vermont, at some point the Vermont Air National Guard’s mission will become uncertain,” Paul said. “They are an integral partner of our airport, and the airport’s impact on the local community cannot be overstated…I must keep in mind my fiduciary responsibility to the city.”
Councilor Tom Ayres (D-Ward 7) said he was “appalled” by the F-35 and believed the next-generation fighter should be sent to the “scrapheap.” But he said he did not believe the council had the authority to make decisions about whether or not to host them — and voted against both resolutions.
“Military basing decisions … are simply not the purview of a city council. They are the purview of the U.S. government and elected officials in Washington,” he said. “I am adamantly opposed to any future deployment of the F-35 in any form. It’s not a weapon that should be based in Burlington or anywhere else in the United States. It’s time we took the battle back to the federal government and Congress.”
Related Stories
Can Max Tracy Ride the City’s Progressive Wave to Become Burlington’s Next Mayor?
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Well I’m glad that is finally settled. Now we can await the letter from DOD informing us that the fighters are on their way.
“Save our skies. No F-35s,†they chanted, and then, “Hey hey, ho ho, the F-35 has got to go.â€
Meanwhile, F-35 supporters, many of them wearing “F-35 for Vermont†T-shirts, sat quietly on the main floor below.
this says it all, Come to Burlington F35, we love you, some people are just never happy
Very strong opinions from BOTH sides…I happen to be an anti-F-35er, residing in Winooski. I think the business minds of Burlington were made up a long time ago to base these high powered, expensive and dangerous low flying jets over heavily populated neighborhoods, regardless of the genuine concerns of families, stats and even an audio representative of the high decibel noise, environmental impact, declining property values, potential crashes, etc. I support our military but still don’t think this military jet belongs in our Vermont skies….1,000 VTNG jobs preserved vs. the voices and legitimate concerns and health of thousands of Vermonters who still don’t think it is a good idea….
jcarter, don’t hold your breath!
I’m against the F35. I used to live on Hanover St, walking distance from the airport. how many of the “F35 for Vermont” crowd live anywhere near the airport? It’s easy to support a project like this when it won’t affect your home values or war of life.
It’s impossible to know. How many anti-F35’s were from Burlington? Who knows. Maybe you could start a petition to have it put on the ballot so you could see exactly how many supporters and opposers there truly are. I bet it would actually surprise you.
Consider this, Historically opposition to an issue turns out in higher numbers then supporters. In this case supporters aren’t all that engaged because the fact is they really have no say. The opposition is fired up and is hoping enough noise will sway DOD. Those factors considered along with equal numbers of yeas/nays showing up at the meeting and I would predict that the opposition is in the minority here.
It wasn’t the business mind of Burlington or anywhere else. It in fact has zero to do with anyone in Burlington… for or against. This is a DOD decision and theirs alone.
To your points, price is irrelevent to basing. Power is too. An audio representation of noise is a scare tactic, especially when considering these planes will not use their afterburners the vast majority of the time, and if / when they do need to use them, you are going to care less about the noise….
Property values, health, and concerns of families has been shown to be dismissed and of no relevance on the state level (see wind farms in Lowell and Georgia), why would you think the feds would care if our own state does not. Likely a reason for the consideration for basing…
Don’t like it, vote out Leahy, Sanders,Welch, Shumlin, then Weinberger and the Council…Despite the concerns of “thousands” they have ignored those concerns. Take it up with them, especially Leahy, because ultimately he is THE reason VT is considered and chosen. All the residents of this state yield less influence then Leahy. Vote for him and you have supported this basing.
I think it is a bit naïve to assume that the “business minds of Burlington” had nothing to do with bringing the F-35’s to Burlington…of course they did! What makes you think they did not influence the welcome arms displayed by Leahy, Welch, Shumlin, Weinberger and Pomerleau, during all their meetings to discuss the economic future of Vermont. Who do you think runs our gov’t anyways? Unfortunately it is the deep pockets of a few. What makes you think that the only thing that can “save” Vermont is bringing these high military, massive fueled planes to our skies, regardless of their negative impact on our neighborhoods, environment, noise, health and property values, which are NOT scare tactics, but proven facts? How does keeping 1,000 VTNG jobs, even with a trickle down effect, account for the thousands of other Vermonters who are not associated with the military aspects of this fighter jet,…how does that benefit them except negatively? Also, what makes you think I and thousands of others that are not in favor of the F-35’s and live in the flight path or the surrounding areas, would care less about the noise? I think you rather contradicted yourself with your statements saying it is a DOD decision and THEIRS ALONE and in another sentence, state that if I don’t like it, take it up with Leahy because “ultimately he is the reason VT is considered and CHOSEN…” No need to dart off a snarky response to me as I think you just talk to talk….P.S. I did not vote for the re-election of Leahy and Welch….