The advisory question, which must be approved by the city council to be on the ballot, asks voters to “advise the city council” to cancel the planned basing of F-35s, which are scheduled to arrive at the airport’s Air National Guard base in 2019. The ballot item asks if voters will “request instead low-noise-level equipment … appropriate for a densely populated area.”
Charles Simpson, a Ward 6 candidate for city council, said the successful petition drive marked “a glorious day for democracy.” Simpson said there is a need to halt the home buyouts in the Chamberlin neighborhood in South Burlington, prevent “intolerable aircraft noise” and the “wholesale degradation of our vital housing stock.”
Behind him, supporters carried handwritten signs decrying the jets as “toxic for the environment” and responsible for “climate destruction.”
“When there are situations that threaten us, and put our safety at risk, put our children at risk, put our lake at risk, we take action,” said Rachel Siegel, executive director of the Peace & Justice Center.
The fight against the F-35s has been a longtime battle. Some of the same opponents, along with the city of Winooski, unsuccessfully sued in 2016, arguing that the U.S. Air Force had not conducted a thorough environmental review of the basing decision.
Even if voters support the measure, the question is nonbinding and can force no change. An affirmative vote could urge the Burlington City Council to vote to halt the arrival of the jets, or it could pressure Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) or Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to intervene, said Rosanne Greco, a longtime F-35 opponent.
Greco contended Friday that the City of Burlington does have the authority to stop the jets. “Because Burlington owns the airport, they have the right to say what comes and goes from that airport,” she told reporters.
Burlington city attorney Eileen Blackwood did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The council is scheduled to decide on January 29 whether to put the F-35s question to voters. If the council votes against it, the group will take the city to court, said Jimmy Leas, a group organizer.
“The public wants to vote on it,” Leas said. “Voters are what provide legitimacy to the process.”
Here’s the wording of the question:
Shall we, the voters of the City of Burlington, as part of our strong support for the men and women of the Vermont National Guard, and especially their mission to ‘protect the citizens of Vermont,’ advise the City Council to:1) request the cancellation of the planned basing of the F-35 at Burlington International Airport, and
2) request instead low-noise-level equipment with a proven high safety record appropriate for a densely populated area?
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“Even if voters support the measure, the question is nonbinding and can force no change.”
’nuff said. Thank goodness Burlington is a nuclear harbor and refugee free zone .
(I may have that backwards) .
Wheres option #3, i.e., Support implementation and transition of the F-35 exactly as currently proposed?
There are many reasons why the F-35s are indisputably NOT suitable for our residential neighborhoods. The expected negative effects of the basing were laid out cold by the United States Air Force. But pro-F-35 factions waged a highly-financed misinformation campaign, using massive amounts of disinformation and outright lies.
According to comments at the press conference, “Here are three of the biggest lies:
-The VTANG needs the F-35 in order to have a mission
-The F-35 would bring jobs and would be good for our economy
-The F-35 would cause no harm to the people or the environment
All of these are false.
The AF has written at least four times that the F-35 is NOT needed for the VTANG to continue to have a flying mission, and the AF even provided examples of alternative aircraft the VTANG could fly if the F-35 were not based here.
The AF stated the F-35 would bring NO new jobs to our area, would have NO effect on our economy.
And the AF stated that the F-35 could negatively impact our area in numerous ways; e.g., decreased property values, health impacts, increased pollution, increased risk of crashes, reduced quality of life, and more. “
(continued in next posting)
(Comments from press conference continued)
“I hope people are not bullied into believing that supporting the F-35 basing is a patriotic duty. Blindly and unquestionably agreeing with military proposals is not patriotism. True patriotism means having the courage to question, challenge, and to oppose bad and dangerous plans, such as the F-35.
And lastly, don’t be taken in by the false catch-phrases and platitudes, such as the one calling the F-35 noise the sound of freedom. The noise of a fighter-bomber is literally the sound of war. Our voices are the real sound of freedom. Let’s exercise our democratic rights and use our voices and our votes at the polls on March 6th.”
(These comments are from a statement by Colonel Rosanne Greco, USAF Ret.)
THANK YOU to the petition organizers for giving Burlington voters a VOICE on perhaps the most significant single issue that will affect its citizens health, safety, and property values for decades to come. And thank you for giving them the opportunity to bring real democracy to Burlington on this F-35 decision.
Can not wait to see the first ones over my house. Hope it pisses off all the NIMBYs and drowns them out ( of town)
Sorry folks. It’s an airport and jets make noise. What kind of “low noise” equipment do you think we should request? Piper cubs, sailplanes, hang gliders or maybe hot air balloons? What an ignorant suggestion.
What these protesters want is the total removal of any and all military personnel from the republic of Vermont.
Eileen Andreoli has it right. Those are the facts. Military jets can be replaced by quieter planes such as C-130 or C-17 cargo planes which are far quieter ttan the F-16, let along the F-35. Or even better, an Air Force decision could be made to eliminate fighter/bomber jets from BTV and replace them with cyber-security or drones. I am sure this does not exhaust the list of possible other missions for the Air Guard.