Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit 1 Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend 1 (4 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   1 comment

General News

Air Force Hits Flak Over Vermont

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 10/23/13

Become a Fan
  (28 fans)
- Advertisement -

There are at least two resolutions, probably more, that will be presented at the October 28 council meeting. One resolution says the city will prevent F-35 basing at Burlington airport at any time.  Another says the city will prevent basing the F-35 at Burlington airport during the first basing sequence (beginning in 2020 at the earliest, according to the Air Force, which once said it might happen as early as 2015). Another resolution might be only a sense-of-the-council statement, without binding force of law (which Mayor Weinberger has said he expects).  

Blackwood's legal memo acknowledges quietly that a municipality that owns an airport has the legal authority to adopt health and safety regulations for that airport, including control of noise.  But mostly she describes all the ways Burlington might be limited in its exercise of that right.  Her political position is clear: that the city has the right to protect health and safety in a way that could bar the F-35 from the airport, but it shouldn't even consider exercising that right because, well, someone might sue or something. 

In a brief, preliminary response to Blackwood, attorney James Dumont writes:  

"Eileen Blackwood's memo accepts the most basic point we have been making for months -- that unlike South Burlington, Burlington is the proprietor of the airport and therefore it has authority that South Burlington lacks. Federal noise standards preempt South Burlington's authority to regulate through zoning or other regulations. The caselaw we submitted and that Blackwood found all agrees that a city that owns an airport can set noise or other standards as proprietor, not regulator." 

Does Vermont still know what it means to be a good neighbor?

Although Dumont leaves it implicit, the fundamental question is whether Burlington, unlikely to feel much negative impact from the F-35, has the integrity, conscience, neighborliness, or the will to act to protect the health and safety of South Burlington. A corollary question is whether, Burlington will face any consequences if the city fails to act, and South Burlington suffers the grievous harm the Air Force and others predict. 

Dumont, who represents the Stop-the-F-35 Coalition, argues that Blackwood's memo is, in effect, mostly smoke and mirrors: 

"None of the cases cited in the memo address the situation in Burlington. Uncited cases and scholarly articles explain that in the Burlington situation local action is acceptable if the purpose is within the traditional purposes of local government -- protection of the public health of the local public -- and if the effect is not to directly control military affairs. For example, there is the case of Arthur D. Little v City of Cambridge, decided by the highest court in Massachusetts. The City there adopted a regulation, like the proposed resolution here, which had the purpose of protecting local public health. The regulation banned all manufacture of chemical weapons in

- Advertisement -

the city." 

When the chemicals weapons maker, Arthur D. Little, sued to continue making chemical weapons in Cambridge, the Massachusetts Supreme Court forcefully rejected Little's claims and emphasized the city's right and duty to enact laws "to protect the public health and welfare". municipal health and safety regulations, such as that at issue here, carry a heavy presumption of validity, and are only rarely preempted by Federal law." 

According to Dumont, there will a resolution of this sort offered to the city council on October 28: "it is explicitly a public health measure." 

In addition to the four Progressives on the city council, there is one Republican, two independents, and seven Democrats.  The Democrats are all under pressure from their party leaders -- including U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, Rep. Peter Welch, and Gov. Peter Shumlin -- to support the F-35, although none of these "leaders" has offered a coherent argument as to how this nuclear-capable bomber serves the common good. 

Ultimately the question comes down to whether Democratic loyalty to Pentagon extravagance is some kind of justification for Burlington to impose damage on its neighbors against their will.  It should be unconscionable.    

- Advertisement -

 

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Vermonter living in Woodstock: elected to five terms (served 20 years) as side judge (sitting in Superior, Family, and Small Claims Courts); public radio producer, "The Panther Program" -- nationally distributed, three albums (at CD Baby), some (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Nuclear Perceptions Fight Reality

Fukushima Spiking All of a Sudden

Fukushima Meltdowns: Global Denial At Work

Vermont Asks: "What the Fukushima"?

Military-Industrial Complex Owns Vermont

Accountability in Vermont?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Let your voice be heard this Monday Night at City ... by Christian Noll on Friday, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:37:03 AM