UPDATED BELOW with comments from Burlington City Attorney Eileen Blackwood.
The Vermont National Guard announced last night that the Air Force will delay for several months its decision on basing F-35 fighter planes at Burlington International Airport so it can consider newer census data on the number of people that would be impacted by jet noise.
In a press release issued Wednesday evening, the Guard said the final decision on basing F-35s would be delayed until “spring 2013” so the Air Force can update the environmental impact statements (EIS) to include 2010 census data for all six locations under consideration to host the world’s most expensive weapons system.
“At the time the Air Force began the EIS process, 2010 census data were not available for all six locations,” read the Guard statement. “The Air Force is committed to producing the most accurate EIS possible, so decision makers have the best information available to make an informed decision.”
Meanwhile, a lawyer representing F-35 opponents said he’s preparing a petition to block the potential basing by forcing a voter referendum in Burlington that would effectively starve the airport of needed funding. Bristol attorney James DuMont said a rarely invoked section of the Burlington city charter requires voter approval for the airport’s construction and maintenance budget. He wants to put a ballot question to voters some time this spring that says, “so long as F-35 jets are regularly based” at BTV, money for construction, equipment and improvement shall not exceed $1 — effectively depriving the airport, and the Guard, of the funds they need to operate.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Yes, please do starve VT’s only commercial airport of funds and further fuck up our already piss-poor infrastructure. Genius.
This is a good move as there are two unfortunate economic sides to this coin. Whichever side it lands on – Chittenden County will suffer a loss. On one side – the millions of income in direct jobs at the airport, plus indirect ‘support’ jobs ( everything from gas stations to restaurants and hair stylists) in the community.
On the other side of the coin – thousands of properties affected by the FCC label of ‘not suitable for residential use’, meaning a reduction of 18-42% in in property values (ie, potentially billions of dollars) & home owners being ‘upside down’ on a mortgage, drop in tax revenue from devalued property values and no buyback program for the increased noise areas as Air Force is not a participating agency in the FAA NCP buy-back program.
Glossed over by the reports on the F-35 (from http://www.vermontf35.com/faqs… is “The actual noise a resident in Winooski will hear during an F-35 takeoff… will be very similar to the noise they experience now with the F-16 taking off in afterburner.” Here’s where facts are important. While 10 dB is ‘similar’ in numbers – it is 2x louder to the ear. Afterburners are only needed for the first 300 feet of takeoff with an F-16. the F-35 makes the ‘similar’ (but 2x louder) noise for another 700 feet until the noise level begins to dissipated above 1000 feet. This is part why the area and people affected by sound is so much larger with the F-35 than it is by the F-16 currently.
I think if an Air Force retired Colonel is so against the F35, she should immediately tell the Air Force to stop sending her the $5000 + – retirement check she gets every month.
I find it strange that she is biting the hand that feeds her.
I don’t see the problem here. Base the F35’s elsewhere and there’s no starving the airport of funds. In addition local communities like Winooski and South Burlington would be spared the economic devastation of the local basing of the F35. Looks like win-win to me.
Hello, can you please tell me where you got the information that those homes’ property values could be reduced by 18%-42%? I think we might live in this radius, and would like to have official data to go by. Thank you!
Just like any other landlord in Burlington, the City of Burlington, as
owner of the airport, could be held liable for damages its tenant
creates if the landlord does not act to prevent the tenant from creating
those damages. In this case, the Air Force draft Environmental Impact
Statement indicates that the damages to homeowners in Burlington,
Winooski, Williston, and South Burlington from the F-35 flown by the
City’s tenant are likely to be in the range of hundreds of millions of
dollars.
Right now the City of Burlington is shelling out $40
million to buy and demolish 200 homes in South Burlington because of
F-16 noise. The EIS says nearly 3000 homes will be in the identical
noise zone if the City of Burlington permits its tenant to base the F-35
here. Having admitted–by purchasing those 200 homes–that houses in the noise
zone are so impacted that buyout is the solution, how will Burlington
argue that it is not liable for those 3000 homes? At the same average
cost of $200,000 per home, those 3000 homes will make the city liable
for $600 million to buy and demolish. Coincidentally, bringing the F-35
causes a city liability that is almost exactly 35 times the $17 million
Burlington Telecom liability.
The purpose of the petition, the
referendum, and the other legal actions, is to help the Burlington City
Council, the Mayor, our Senators, our Congressman, and our Governor
realize that the City faces a huge liability if the City does not meet
its ordinary landlord responsibility by telling its tenant to find a
mission that puts no homes in the “unsuitable for residential use” noise
zone.
The delay in issuing its final decision announced by the
Air Force gives our elected representatives more time to review
the facts, meet with affected citizens–something they have so far
refused to do–and use their very substantial influence to preserve our
most affordable housing and the families that live in those thousands of
homes. And to save those homeowners from a crushing loss and Burlington
from a crushing liability.
It’s in the F-35 Operational Draft EIS documents at http://www.accplanning.org/ sections BR-4-18 and C-47. Look at the increase in the sound zones in the map as well. It’s at least a half mile farther out than the current map – pretty large change for something making ‘similar’ sound.
If the airport funding question gets on the ballot, I will organize a permanent Boycott Burlington Businesses web site, to be followed by a lengthy campaign to remind people why they should not spend a single penny in Burlington.
Mr. Dumont,
If this were a necessary step and petition why does it take a non-Burlingtonian to do it? Maybe you should circulate it in Bristol.
The Hinesburg anti-Hannaford crowd also hired Dumont to try to stop that development, even though there are many attorneys who live or work in Hinesburg
Just because she is a retired Air Force Col. doesn’t mean she has to agree with the proposed F-35’s coming to our neighborhoods…your reasoning doesn’t make sense. You must be a Guard member….