It looks like the time to comment on F-35 deployment in Burlington has been extended to June 20.
In light of the fact that today’s Free Press article seems to suggest that F-35 proponents are stacking the public opinion deck, I thought it would be a good idea to restate a couple of the arguments against that were mentioned when we first visited this topic a couple of years ago.
1) Unlike the majority of airfields across America, Burlington has an entirely urban airport, located in an area of high density living and commerce. In fact, it could be argued that it is in close proximity to downtown Burlington. That would seem to make it one of the least appropriate places to locate the program.
2) The F-35 fighter program is not without its detractors, quite apart from nuisance noise and ethical considerations.
____________________________________________________________________
Opponents of the proposed F-35 fighter jet deployment in South Burlington have only until June 1 to make their concerns known to the Air Force. Public opportunities have already been held in Vermont, New York and New Hampshire, reflecting the broad spectrum of affected communities.
The results of the Air Command’s “Center for Sustainable Installations” environmental study on deployment of the jets are available for the public to read, should they be so inclined; but most people will probably just resort to the talking points in order to frame their opinions because the actual study takes eons even to download.
GMD looked at this issue, much earlier in the process, without drawing a conclusion.
The economic benefits are significant, but so is the risk of environmental degradation. Then there are the ancillary arguments: “patriotism” vs. a community with a strong peace ethic; development vs. maintenance of sustainable living environments. It’s never easy to turn down what is seen to be a huge economic windfall, even when your ears may be under daily assault.
The point is that no amount of analysis or conjecture on the part of an interested party such as the Air Command… or opponents of the project… is any substitute for an actual experience of take-off and fly-over sound. If this is not physically possible until after the area around the airport has been leveled, removing any opportunity for a claw-back, I guess the good folks of South Burlington are truly between a rock and a hard place.
For what it’s worth, I want to urge everyone who has any perspective to contribute, to weigh-in on this community changing decision. I didn’t find an easy e-mail link in my reading, but here is the mailing address for written comments:
Written comments can be submitted… via U.S. Postal Service to HQ ACC/A7PS, 129 Andrews Street, Suite 337, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia 23665-2769, ATTN: Mr. Nick Germanos.
Vermont has just one shot to get this right. You don’t want to find yourself on the other side of the decision, holding your ears and wondering why you didn’t speak up.
If this goes through, the soundscape of Vermont will be altered dramatically. Holding your ears is an appropriate phrase, for it is a very noisy plane. And why, folks should ask, does Vermont need the very latest high-tech fighter? Do the folks in the Second Vermont Republic have the F-22? Maybe they think we need the F-35 to subdue Godzilla when he emerges from the Connecticut River downstream from Vt. Yankee?
And economic considerations should be that the noise from the F-35 will lower property values and the environmental value of northern Vermont. Lowering our environmental value is like cleaning out our savings to go shopping. Again and again the government and the military-industrial complex have talked up the economic benefits of their projects to communities all over the nation, and again and again, the opposite has been the case.
Ask someone who works for the Air National Guard where they live. Ask if they want to live in Winooski.
As someone who does, it’s unpleasant. You literally have to wait 2 minutes for the deafening silence to end before you can continue a conversation. I can sleep through fighter jets landing at midnight, but I’m sure there are others who can’t. It’s the reason Winooski is a tough town to live in.
This plane, still in the initial phases of development, is already wildly over budget. Like the FB-111 before, the multi-mission fighter jet will always be outperformed (with regard to a single mission) by a single mission plane designed for that particular purpose.
The F-35 is too fast and too fragile to fly close ground support missions, yet it will replace the A-10, which is a vastly superior close ground support airplane.
The plane is a dog and the country cannot afford it. How much did the good old U.S.A. waste on the F-22, which has ongoing problems with its oxygen supply system. ? The last great “next generation” fighter plane.
I call bullshit!
It degrades our quality of life while bankrupting the country.
It keeps a few hundred jobs here and the military pork rollin’. Some would think that’s a benefit. Given that our base was created to defend the Eastern Seaboard from Russian Bomber attack, I say it’s time to close the base.
The real beneficiaries of this horrible defense program are Lockheed Martin shareholders, no one else.