I called it here on GMD, two years ago, when we first learned of the potential F-35 location in Vermont.  I said that Burlington sounds like exactly the wrong place to locate such a facility.  

Playing off of a VPR quote from Lt. Col. Chris Caputo that was intended to downplay the potential sound impact of the jets on the region but mentioned the possibility of “variables,” I had this observation:

…That got me to thinking about the “variables.”  I’m no scientist, but it occurs to me that the topography, geology and other factors, which are specific to the region over which the F-35’s are to be deployed, might have a critical relationship to how the decibel level might play out in that region.  

So I had a look at the general land features of Edwards Air Force Base which yielded the more benign test results favored by Caputo.  That Air Force Base is located on the edge of a great salt desert; hardly similar to the land features surrounding Burlington.  Then, too, neither Airforce base is in the civilian center of the busiest city of the state.

Now, it seems that the recommendation of Burlington as a “preferred alternative” location for the siting may at last be destined for greater scrutiny.

Roseanne Greco of the South Burlington City Council, herself a retired Air Force Col., says it is as plain as the nose on your face.  She says it is obvious that “grave mistakes” were made somehow in the scoring process that identified the city as being environmentally suitable to host the jets.  The environmental suitability of the location was apparently the one scoring factor that put South Burlington at the top of the Air Force’s list of potential sites.

Ms. Greco, who bravely persists at spitting in the wind,  points out how obviously absurd that finding was.  Pointing to the fact that local opposition to the the F-35 siting is running fairly high, she suggests that it may be time to examine the scoring process more closely.

All we’re asking is ‘show us the data.’

‘Sounds like a pretty reasonable request.