Previously published on Marc Estrin’s blog http://marcestrin.blogspot.com/ on THURSDAY, JULY 4, 2013

This letter serves as as a good introdudtion to the facts driving the F-35 controversy.

Stever Allen is a real estate professional who did  statistical work demonstrating lower property values near the airport and a slower rise in values than elsewhere.

STEVE ALLEN’S ANALYSIS OF F-35 IMPACT

————————————————

Dear Mr Germanos,

The South Burlington and Winooski City Councils are to be commended for arranging public forums on the proposed F-35 basing.  The opportunity for public process and the Council’s willingness to listen to resident concerns and opinions on the basing is most welcome.

The Air Force recently released a revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement, relating to proposed basing. After reviewing the revised DEIS, and other relevant information, I want state my strong and complete opposition to the basing of the F-35 jets at the Burlington Air Guard base, because of the damaging impact it will have on our communities. The reasons for my opposition are as follows:

Reliability of the Data

The revised DEIS includes estimates of housing and population impact based on 2010 Census data. The estimates are significantly higher than the figures presented in the initial Draft EIS. However, the estimates are still incorrect and significantly understate the number of housing units and people that are located in the high noise zone. Using the reliable data source of municipal assessments / tax parcel data, the properties have been identified by property owner, address and indicate the number of housing units affected is substantially greater than reported in the revised DIES. This irrefutable data indicates that the Revised DEIS understates the number of housing units, located within the 65 db DNL zone (Scenario 2), by 505 units and understates the population affected by approximately 900. The EIS must be revised to accurately reflect the impact of the high noise on our homes and residents.  

Safety  

A huge land area, encompassing thousands of homes and families is located within the designated accident potential zone area. The DEIS states that the F-35’s will have a significantly higher risk of crash, as compared with the F-16’s.  The very recent crash of an F-16 in Arizona at Luke AFB illustrates the risk.  Fortunately, this crash was in a rural area and not a populated area, and there were no casualties. The high crash zone near the Burlington Air Guard space is the most densely populated region of our entire state.  In other communities, the Air Force has gone to court to prevent residential development from occurring in Accident Potential Zones. This same standard of safety should be applied in this case.

Health  

There is credible evidence that children are at much higher risk of negative health impacts due to high noise levels. The DEIS does not adequately address the impact on the health of children and should be amended to include recent studies, including the study completed by the World Health Organization. Over one thousand children will be impacted.

Education  

Several schools are located within the 65 db DNL zone and would be negatively impacted by high noise levels. The South Burlington and Winooski school boards both oppose the basing because of the negative impact on their hundreds of students. The DEIS did not even consider the presence of the recently developed Community College of Vermont, located in downtown Winooski. This multi million dollar facility, serving hundreds of students, would also be impacted by the high noise.

Property Values

There is an abundance of evidence confirming that airport noise has a detrimental / negative impact on property values. The DEIS only briefly examined this issue; on one hand, recognizing the impact on property values, but neglecting to quantity the impact. There are many academic studies, as well as local market evidence, that should be reviewed in order to assess the impact of the basing on property values. There are thousands of housing units in the proposed 65 db DNL zone. The loss of equity for these mostly modestly priced homes could be financially devastating for the owners. The potential loss in home values must be considered as a cost of this basing and examined more closely in the EIS. The analysis should identify the value of the residential property which is located within the high noise zone, and estimate the potential loss in value of this property, as well as the potential cost to mitigate the noise damages, if mitigation is possible.

Municipal and State Tax Revenues

Related to potential property value loss, is the potential loss of municipal tax revenues. The DEIS did not address this issue.  The EIS should quantify the potential loss of state and municipal tax revenues as a significant impact of the proposed basing.

Quality of Life  

Because of the high noise levels, the quality of life will be significantly diminished for over 8,000 residents, including many disadvantaged families, elderly residents and children. The repeated exposure to excessive jet noise, up to 28 times a day, will greatly diminish the quality of living for these communities.

Stigma  

If the F-35’s are based in Vermont, the 65 db DNL noise zone in Winooski will be expanded to include nearly 80% of all housing units in the City.  Large sections of South Burlington, Burlington and Williston are also impacted.  Aside from the very real negative impacts of high noise on property values, health and quality of life, the high noise levels will also bring the collateral Federal label to our communities and homes as being “incompatible with residential use” and “incompatible with educational use”. The FAA and Department of Defense both have policies which explicitly define this.  I believe that this will stigmatize these communities and homes through the perception that they are a less attractive and safe place to live. The affected neighborhoods and communities will be burdened by the negative reputation imposed by this Federal “label”.  Who would want to live in a community or home which has been labeled as “incompatible with residential use”?  Who would want to send their children to school in a community which carries this label?

Available Alternatives

As the DEIS informs us, there are several potential sites that are better suited to the F-35 basing. I fear that the decision is being controlled by politics.  I understand that “mission” is a controlling element in the basing decision and I am afraid that this somewhat vague term will be used to make Burlington the top choice, despite it being the worst choice from an environmental standpoint. If the Air Force and Air Guard are serious about transparency, there should be an investigation in the selection process, specifically focusing on the glaring “mistakes” in the application, which led to Burlington being erroneously selected as the preliminary top choice for the basing.

Support for Guard

The Air National Guard has a commendable record of service to our country and state. As a community, we can support the Air Guard without supporting the F-35’s. The DEIS indicates that only a small number of jobs will result from the basing, even under the most expansive plan. Air Guard leadership has publicly stated that it is unlikely that the base would ever close, while recognizing that the mission could change. The host of economic benefits associated with the ANG will continue, even if the mission is changed.  Most importantly, the marginal benefits of the F-35 basing should be weighed against the costs. For the affected communities, the costs are enormous and the benefits are minimal.

Steve Allen

87 East Spring Street

Winooski, VT  

November 10, 2013                                                                                                                                                

South Burlington, Vermont

To:       Secretary Eric K. Fanning – Acting Secretary of the Air Force      

and     General Mark A. Welsh III – Chief of Staff of the Air Force  

Re:  Request to withdraw the F-35 from bed-down consideration at the Burlington, VT airport.

Dear Secretary Fanning and General Welsh,

As a U.S. Army veteran of the Vietnam War era, I am writing to urge you to remove Burlington from consideration for bed-down of the F-35 during this basing round.   I do not oppose the building of the F-35 but I do oppose the intended quantities due to national domestic fiscal and budgetary problems and cost overruns as well as the plane’s myriad developmental problems.

My family has a proud tradition of serving in our nation’s military.  I will reveal that tradition to avoid being considered anti-military – because, in fact, I am quite the opposite. My father fought in the U.S. Army Expeditionary Force in WWI all the way from Paris to the Meuse River in some of the worst battles of that war. He was confined to a British hospital with his face and head totally bandaged for seven weeks from mustard gas exposure – then returned to the battlefield in the Argonne Forest. My brother John flew a total of 31 missions as a navigator of B-17 bombers as part of the U.S. Army Air Corps’ Bloody 100th, which sustained the largest percentage of casualties of all B17 bomber groups over Germany. His plane once crash-landed in France. My brother Leonard was en-route to Japan for an invasion as part of the Army’s 82nd Airborne when the atomic bombs were dropped, ending the war. He served as an occupation troop and developed serious mental problems, partly as a result of his military service. His life ended in a mental institution. My brother Ed served in the Korean War as a military policeman. He returned with a just single kidney, the other having required surgery, acquired tuberculosis after a year and a half stay in a Colorado sanatorium, and had frost-bitten toes. He could never get a job in civilian life after discharge.

So I ask you, just how much does one family have to give for their country to be considered patriotic?  Yet I and others like me have been so labeled because of our opposition to the F-35 bed-down proposal for Burlington. And how much does one have to give to their country without being expected to also endure the result of the basing of extremely loud military jets in a densely populated civilian metropolitan area – with all the negative effects resulting from that. I had believed the military existed to protect us – not damage our health and lower our quality of life.

My wife and I live within the 65 dB DNL noise zone of the current F-16s here and within the projected 65 dB DNL perimeter of the F-35s. We have experienced the extreme effects of the noise from these aircraft. When children in the vicinity at times scream and cry and hold their ears when these planes take off, one does not have to revert to health studies showing harm to humans to understand that something is wrong with having these warplanes based in a populated area.

There is a large and growing body of residents in Vermont that is very angry about the politically- rigged and flawed process of selecting Burlington for the top choice among other qualified locations and because of the EIS process in ignored critical substantive data.

http://vtdigger.org/2013/05/21…

I believe there are so many deficiencies and omissions in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) of such magnitude as to render it illegal. If the FEIS remains as it is, litigation will be warranted.  (See attachment for comments to Nick Germanos project manager for EIS.)

Adding to those reasons is the very questionable behavior, distortion, lies, attempts at humiliation of basing opponents amid accusations of being unpatriotic, and near libel from supporters of the F-35. Such simply disgusting behavior is making me ashamed to have served in the military. I have never felt that way, even when raw eggs were thrown at me when I was in uniform in the U.S. during the war in Vietnam. The Vermont Air National Guard (VTANG) itself has led in distorting the arguments of opponents of the F-35 (which have been taken from or derived from the EIS itself) and clearly made an attempt at intimidation at the latest Burlington City Council meeting – all of that on the record. This represents an intrusion of the military into civilian life and decision-makers at the local level.  The Air Force is getting a larger black eye out of this than anyone else, and it will get worse. (See attachment – Burlington City Council meeting on Oct. 28.)

Given that the Burlington airport has a short runway, we can draw major lessons from the crash on June 26, 2013, an F-16 Class a Mishap at Luke Air Force Base – a crash very relevant to the F-35 bed-down proposal in Burlington.   About 80% of single engine fighter Class A Mishaps turn into crashes. The F-35 has a poorer glide performance than the F-16 due its undersized wing and heavy weight.  Burlington has scant unpopulated buffering at either end of the runway – as does Luke Air Force Base – but primarily a heavily-populated residential area, which presents extreme danger to residents. This is exacerbated by Burlington’s shorter runway which barely meets minimum length standards for a safe F-35 take-off. Placing this plane at Burlington would be consciously and unconscionably irresponsible.

To propose bringing this warplane to the Burlington airport, situated in the most populous city and neighborhoods in Vermont, is just plain insane – particularly so early in its cumulative fleet flight hours history. The cost and likely build schedule of these planes will almost certainly not allow the fleet to exceed some 100,000 hours of flight time before their intended deployment prior to 2020 – the time of intended full deployment in Burlington.

The majority of residents in the neighborhoods around the airport have been opposed to bringing the F-35 here for several years now. (If the VTANG members and their friend and families are subtracted out of those 180 persons whom I door-to-door interviewed in January, about 70% are opposed – a more than 2:1 ratio.)

http://vtdigger.org/2013/03/19…

This is a controversy that is dividing our communities in ways never before seen in Vermont. The last Burlington City Council meeting about the F-35 had the largest attendance in the city’s history. And this controversy is spreading across the state.

http://vtdigger.org/2013/10/24…

http://vtdigger.org/2013/10/28…

The opposition to this plane has grown and become increasingly organized with more people expressing opposition to the F-35 bed-down, who never dared before,  as well as more frequently to the F-35 itself and they are not being unpatriotic by doing so. That opposition includes many enlisted men and officers, alike, who have served their country honorably.

I, for one, will fight against this plane coming to the Burlington airport until that proposal is defeated or until all avenues of protest are completely exhausted, including multiple law suits, the first of which have already been filed. If we lose on all fronts I will move out of the area.

Sincerely,

Ray Gonda                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           31 Berkley Street                                                                                                                                                                                                                           South Burlington, VT 05403

(802) 264-4886

Cc:

General Mike Hostage – Commander, Air Combat Command  

Secretary Kathleen Ferguson – Acting Assistant Secretary of the AF for Installations, Environment, and Logistics

Secretary Timothy Bridges – Deputy Assistant Secretary of the AF for Installations

Mr. Gerald Pease – Deputy Assistant Secretary of the AF for Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health

Mr. Mark Pohlmeier – Chief Strategic Basing Division – Air Force Pentagon

Ms. Deborah Lee James – Secretary of the Air Force nominee – President, Technical and Engineering Sector

Published on Marc Estrin’s blog on MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2013

THE  SOUND OF FREEDOM

A common assertion among proponents of basing an F-35 squadron at our Burlington airport is that noise from military aircraft is perceived as “the sound of freedom.” This seems odd.

Freedom is complex. But for simplicity, let’s examine a most American summary — that of FDR’s “four freedoms”, a proposal for four fundamental feedoms everyone should enjoy: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

What do our military aircraft, noise aside, have to do with providing them?

Do these planes provide freedom of speech? No, the First Amendment gives us that.

Freedom of worship? Again, no. Again, the Constitution.

Freedom from want? Here, certainly not, and rather the opposite, as the enormous sums to develop, build, and support them drain the treasury for domestic needs.

Ah, fear. Surely they make us less afraid of “the enemy” — whoever that might be. But what enemy has the air or missile capability to attack us? None on the horizon. And our overseas attacks to pre-empt any capability seem to be creating more, not fewer, enemies, enemies whose tools are not targets such aircraft. Our fear, if anything, should be increased.

To me, freedom comes not from our warplanes, but from collaboration with nature and humans trying to be healed.

Tell it to the Russians, the Iranians, the Chinese, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban? They too don’t hear the roar in the air as the sound of freedom. Nor the buzzing.

This was written by mar Estrin and published on his blog 2 http://marcestrin.blogspot.com/

Most of the noise concerning the F35 issues is about NOISE — and rightly so, as many Vermonters will be hurt, their lives and homes devalued and in some cases destroyed.

But let’s not forget another aspect, at the moment relatively noiseless, but in the long run, equally worthy of note: the military’s push for the F-35 is intimately connected with Obama’s plan to upgrade the US’s nuclear strike capability. The current F-16 fleet is incapable of carrying and delivering the newly-designed “smart” nuclear bombs. The F-35 has been designed to do so.

By supporting the development of the F-35, in Burlington or not, Vermonters are willy-nilly upholding the US’s evasion of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — to which it is a signatory — which contains a pledge to slowly lower nuclear strike capacity to zero.

The anti-F-35 movement itself has bracketed this issue, in part because the local, clearly predictable effects will be so severe, but partly out of wariness about being seen as “unpatriotic”. What I think is unpatriotic is to allow one’s own country to be the linchpin and supplier of WMDs beyond any local nightmare.

Let this remain an undertone at least in the current symphony of noise.

I do not know how to make replies to comments under my original article so I am using this space to make that reply.

The entire Burlington City Council (B.C.C.) meeting was taped by opponents of the F-35 and handed to Channel 17.  That tape will corroborate many or most of the things I stated in my original article describing that meeting. However, the camera cannot catch what is not in its field of view.

I was a bit puzzled by the discussion (in the comments to my original article) about partisanship which makes it appear that this publication may be highly partisan. So I will state my case without regard for anyone else’s sore toes as a result.

First, the Republican party in the state would ideologically support the F-35 build and its coming to Vermont. That is prima facie to be expected. I am aware that one possible Republican candidate for governor in the last race expressed reservations about it. But he did not represent the party’s views and he soon dropped that position.

I have voted democratic all my life except for the exception of voting for and helping Republican US Senator Robert Stafford in a campaign for a re-run for office the early 80s when he was chair of the Senate Environment Committee.

My focus here is that the Democratic political machine from the top in Washington, starting with Senator Leahy all the way down through Governor Shumlin and on to the local democrats on the B.C.C. – all of whom held to the party line.  This made public testimony a token formality – a sham. There was no intention to really listen to opponents testimony – including our legal expert, real estate and housing expert  and EIS experts.

The political theater was orchestrated between the business community, Mayor Weinbergers office , the state Democratic Party, the VTANG,  and the green ribbons campaign – to support the F-35 basing in Vermont.

We figured on four Progressive and four Democrat votes a few days prior to the meeting. From personal contact with them, we know that some of the Democrats on the council were leaning toward voting against the F-35 a week before. They abruptly did an about face in the last couple of days prior to the meeting to vote against all the proposals – even amendments to them – scorched earth!

I was told prior to the meeting by one Democratic councilors in a telephone conversation that pressure from the top in D.C. was the cause (of the later cave-in). One of the concerns was that if Senator Leahy became incapacitated sufficiently to affect his performance as arguably the Senate’s most powerful Senator that a mission might not be found for VTANG if the F-35s were steered away from Burlington. However, VTANG is a federally mandated entity – we cannot rid ourselves of it in any way and a mission will be found for it.

I am sure you are all aware of a test balloon made public by the Pentagon that suggested they may choose an active duty Air Force base for this first round of basing of the F-35. Senator Leahy subsequently called the Pentagon’s General Welsh to express his desire to see the F-35 sited as soon as possible – and that obviously means at Burlington – reversing his earlier repeated public statements that he has nothing to do with the decision. (We have done an FOIA request to obtain in part the record of that call). Senator Leahy has been an unabashed supporter of VTANG in very active ways for years.

For those of you who have not followed this controversy, go to VTDigger and enter F-35 or Leas, Greco,Fleckenstein or Gonda in the search box.

The Burlington business community, most of the Vermont legislature, Governor Shumlin, Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger all supported the F-35 coming here. All took actions to solidify that support, including Shumlin’s junket to Florida to listen to the F-35 and F-16 paid for by business interests in Burlington to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. Even though the EIS indicates the F-35 is 4x louder than the F-16, sure enough Shumlin stated, in effect, that he was surprised the difference in loudness was hardly noticeable. (We have our own story about that one from witnesses at Eglin at the time: they said the F-35s flew especially quiet that day.)

So taken together with the actions of VTANG, the behavior of the B.C.C.’s chair Joan Shannon described in my original article, the last minute vote change of some democrats on the B.C.C., we are seeing the much referred to “Industrial-Military-(Political)Complex”in action here in little Vermont where town meetings and citizen democracy has been taken for granted.

To put it simply- we watched the Democratic political machine in action from top to bottom as it played self out over two years of opposition to the F-35.

The worst offender and hypocrite is Bernie Sanders. Here we have a “Progressive” talking out of one side of his mouth about the fat military budget and how poor folks are picking up the tab for that, but in his own back yard he supports this Washington pork while thousands of people in the noise zone are harmed by the warplanes there.

One has to wonder why the unqualified support from our federal delegation. I suspect several reasons. One, Democrats need to be seen as strong on national security to counter the conservatives’ traditional strength. Two, Senator Leahy has limited time left in office and may want to feel he has left a visible legacy here in the form of the F-35. Three, Senator Leahy’s family through marriage to a Pomerleau stand to rake in big bucks if and when the area where communities are being destroyed by houses being torn down are rebuilt with commercial buildings such as hotels. I believe Sanders and Welch follow Leahy’s lead.

Finally, a figure that I have seen is the federal delegation in total received $140,000 from the defense industry – primarily from Martin-Litton the builder of the F-35 in 2011 in campaign contributions (I may be wrong about the exact year).

Senators Leahy, Sanders, and Representativ a good documentary. It is a “60 Minutes” story waiting to happen.  e Welch – I know all of them and have voted for them every election.

However, their long-standing constant refusal to sit down with opponents of the F-35 to review the facts along with their support for the F-35 begs a question.  Why? All of the facts are on the side of the opponents. I believe they know that and this is the reason for their stone-walling- while harm to many of their constituents continues on a daily basis and will get worse when the F-35 arrives – if it does.

And this is in spite of the fact that this is not the AIR Force’s first choice. Political pressure has caused much of the EIS process to be flawed in order to point to Burlington as the first choice.

So I do not know what you folks are afraid of in giving my original article top billing. It puzzles me. I researched your biographies to see what you political leanings and backgrounds are and I see that it is “Democrat” for the most part.

I have always voted Democrat, except as noted above, but seeing the party’s action from all available evidence in this controversy has forced me to turn to being a third party supporter – and the best chance for a third party is the Vermont Progressive Party (along with several other opponents).

I do not know where that puts me in regard to Bernie Sanders though. If his run for president is a serious intention we will certainly derail that before it ever gets started right here in Vermont. We have the ammunition make sure that tanks.

But getting back to the issue of the intrusion of the military (VTANG) into civilian life – I have only touched the surface of it in my original article. It gets much worse than what I have written. What I have written is just the publicly visible part of their behavior – on tape.

Collusion with the business community and supporters of the F-35 is another aspect of this questionable behavior. Distortion of the facts is yet another issue they need to be called out on.

Individual personal behavior of some of them in uniform at Burlington ward meetings is also questionable by attempting to intimidate those testifying against the F-35. Put this together with the national Military Industrial Complex and now along with the Democratic political machine and it gets really interesting.

We will yet get a national story out of this. For those inside the opposition movement – they see this story has the makings of a good novel or at least

By Ray Gonda

The rules were changed from previous meetings to favor allowing the pro-F35 faction to testify first – allegedly legitimate according to Robert’s Rules of Order,  but unethical – a complete setup from start to finish. It turned out to be a charade.

It included the chair person, Joan Shannon, creating a flyer, a counter to a fact sheet of the F-35 opponents. Her flyer was full of inaccuracies and amateurish conclusions – almost all simply false. (Opponents stick to statements documented in or derived from the EIS to be factual and maintain credibility – so her counter assertions were false.) It was widely circulated at the 11th hour, posted on the “Green Ribbons for the F-35” website,  posted on several Burlington Front Porch Forums and provided to other councilors. All this was done the day before the meeting so F-35 opponents did not have a chance to respond.

About a week to two weeks before the council meeting the opponents of the F-35 appeared to have the majority vote. However, in the previous week it became clear that the Democratic Party machine and business community from the top down put pressure on individual council members (as related to me by one councilor and to other opponents by other councilors) to toe the party line.

These wavering councilors’ floor speeches indicated their opposition to the F-35 but they also included waffling statements to balance that. It gave a definite appearance of them voting against their consciences. That was accompanied by a few councilors who voted against the resolution watching the World Series on their laptop during testimony, which helped make a charade of the meeting.

The worst of it was the entire meeting was an exercise in political theatre with the VTANG members and friends marching into the meeting room (literally) in a double column and taking up most of the first floor seats in the lower level. There were about 200 of them and many were in uniform. Some seats were “saved” for the top brass all the way to General Cray himself. Those seats were saved for them while at the same time others not in uniform were turned away by police and had to sit upstairs. The VTANG brass sat closest to the council members facing them squarely and got a standing ovation from F-35 supporters. The supporters were almost all themselves guard members and their families or former guard members. None of the brass testified.

VTANG members testified about their lives and their jobs, the little league, their children and their local volunteer work, with lots of self-back-patting, with, in several cases the wife sitting next to them but not testifying. The PR officer for VTANG, in uniform testified about his family and activities – not about the F-35.

Other F-35 supporters in civilian clothes (they wore green ribbon shirts so it was easy to determine that) testified about VTANG generally and how VTANG would disappear if the F-35 didn’t come here – uniformly disingenuous statements.

In spite of all the above the opponents matched the proponents in testimony. Businessmen, airport officials, and former council presidents were given a privileged place in the speaking order and allowed to testify but the opponents counsel was not – the one person who had the legal insight necessary for basing such important decisions on. Our experts were not allowed to testify because they ended up at the end of waiting list and the council voted to cut off testimony, depriving the process of critical legal testimony – dirty politics at its finest.

In spite of the rigging by the council chair of the meeting the testimony was about 32 against the F-35 to 38 for it – a surprise to us given the obvious rigging done.

Not a single F35 supporter, in uniform or out, said a word about concern for the people whose lives are being harmed by warplanes here. Their testimony was all about them – their own lives – completely self interest. This politicalmilitary theatre was clearly stage-managed to intimidate the opponents and the council members and deprive the opponents’ experts the opportunity to testify.

It raises a very important question of the proper role of the military in civilian life and in the decision-making independence of local elected officials, about the influence of the military in our democratic processes.

Burlington has been known for its independent thinkers and progressive attitudes where the voices of people count and testimony is listened to and weighted. In other words it has been known for its tradition of true democracy. This event made a mockery of that tradition. If this kind of elected official’s behavior continues, that tradition may be a thing of the past.

When his miscarriage of the democratic process is added to the $20,000 plus spent to get F-35 friendly councilors elected in South Burlington, to reverse the earlier City Councils request to delay the bed-down of F35s here until many unanswered questions about it were answered, we can see a picture forming which should make any thoughtful Vermonter begin to worry about this new direction our state appears to be taking.

How long will it take for this way of conducting local business filter out into other Vermont cities and municipalities? Is this what Vermonters want?