Two local congressmen have introduced legislative amendments that would give more teeth to opposition to the Navy’s proposed outlying landing field.
A measure by Republican U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes of Virginia’s 4th District would allow each county being considered for the practice field to have final say on whether to accept it. The Navy would be unable to build a landing field if the local government formally opposed it within 90 days of final site selection.
A second measure, by U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, a Republican from North Carolina’s 3rd District , would prohibit building an outlying landing field at Sandbanks or Hale’s Lake in the northeastern part of his state. The Navy is considering those two sites, as well as three others in the Virginia counties of Southampton, Sussex and Surry.
The Navy long has wanted a new landing field, citing light pollution and scheduling overload at both Oceana Naval Air Station and at its current outlying facility, Fentress Naval Auxiliary Landing Field in Chesapeake.
Local governments and residents’ groups have resisted these plans, saying they fear noise, lost tax revenue and a degradation of their rural lives. A site in Washington County, N.C., was abandoned after residents challenged the Navy in court and won.
Forbes said Wednesday that his measure is intended to mirror Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s promise to localities that they would have a say in the siting process.
“If localities don’t want it, we will not force it upon them,” Forbes said. “We’re trying to bring some sanity back to this process.”
He said he’s working to correct the fact that Congress has never given the Navy any power other than eminent domain to use in these situations. This “strong-arm approach” has led to situations such as the Navy’s rebuff in Washington County, he said.
“If you don’t have a reasonable approach like ours, you have an extremist approach like Jones’,” he added, referring to his colleague’s measure to prohibit an OLF at the two North Carolina sites. “This would be enormously detrimental.”
In a statement released Wednesday, Jones offered the reasoning behind his amendment.
“The people of Eastern North Carolina have spoken loud and clear on this issue,” the statement said . “If the OLF is needed to support F/A-18’s operating out of Oceana Naval Air Station, then Virginia should bear the burden.”
Jones’ amendment comes as other North Carolina lawmakers push to move the landing field to Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station.
Two state legislators recently proposed building an OLF near Cherry Point and moving several squadrons there from Oceana. They argued that the area has both the space and the interest to support the planes and the field. The Navy declined the offer, citing training requirements.
That proposal came after North Carolina passed a state law in April stating that the Navy cannot take property for an OLF in a county that does not already have a military base where aircraft squadrons are stationed. The state pegged this legislation on language in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the federal government from taking land without the state legislature’s approval.
Building a field near Cherry Point would be permissible under the new law.
Forbes’ and Jones’ amendments were part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (HR2647), which was passed unanimously by the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday. To become law, the measures must remain through a full vote of the House of Representatives before going to the Senate and President Barack Obama’s desk.
“Nobody knows, including the good Lord himself, what happens in the Senate,” Forbes said , adding that, if his measure is taken out in the Senate version, he would fight for its reinsertion in conference committee.
To overcome constitutionality issues, a provision in Forbes’ amendment would allow Congress to go ahead with a landing field in a particular area as long as it passed specific legislation to do so. That makes such a move doable but difficult. As the legislative process grinds on, the stakeholders are watching.
Ted Brown, a spokesman with U.S. Fleet Forces Command, said it is Navy policy not to comment on pending legislation. He said the Navy continues to work toward a solution with the states and their residents.
Tony Clark, a Southampton resident and chairman of Virginians Against the Outlying Landing Field, said it’s hard at this point to measure what the new amendments mean.
“I think it’s in the message-sending stage,” he said. “Even if it’s not ultimately passed into law, it signifies to the Navy that they need to do a better job of finding locations in communities that are more receptive without dangling the specter of eminent domain.”
Clark said there are areas that clearly do not want the Navy there, and others that clearly do.
“If they would go out and recruit a location, it would make it a lot easier for the Navy to do business in the future,” he said. “If this passed, it would force them into this. If it doesn’t pass, it would let them know that the way they’re doing business is unpalatable.”
Matthew Jones, (757) 446-2949, matthew.jones@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
F-35 IS Way Louder
The F-35 is widely considered to be significantly louder than the F-18. The Marine Corps version is already in production and even the Navy acknowledges that its version of the F-35 is expected to significantly increase the noise impacts wherever it goes. Regarding the OLF, I think the OLF serves two purposes for the Navy. One, it gets the Va. Beach citizens off their backs somewhat with these jet noise lawsuits and complaints. Secondly, it is my firm belief that the Navy wants to base the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at Oceana. There is NO WAY that aircraft comes to Oceana without another OLF already in place. The residents of Va. Beach and Chesapeake will not stand for it because it WILL be significantly louder than the F-18 and MUCH, MUCH louder than the F-14 Hornets. Seriously, where is on the East Coast is the Navy going to put the F-35 besides Oceana? It is wrong for the Navy to foist the problems created by Va. Beach onto rural areas. It is Va. Beach that failed to protect the mission at Oceana and it is Va. Beach that needs to pay, not some rural community. If it means losing to squadrons to another state, so be it. NC wants them. TX wants them.
Sorry
I meant F-18 Hornets, not F-14.
OLF NOT WANTED IN CAMDEN, NC - HOW CLEAR CAN WE MAKE IT
Cherry Point is the only place for an OLF in NC. Cherry point WANTS the OLF there. The Navy should go where its wanted and supported by the people and its surrounding community.
OLF will never be supported by Camden, Moyock or Pasquotank residents and farmers. We have make it clear that we do not want it here. This will
kill our tourism, farms, crops and our way of life.
My husband and I are retired Navy of 22years. We sold out home in Chesapeake VA to live in Camden NC to get away from Fentress. This was
suppose to be the Navy's answer to the crowding problem at Oceana. Now
they have taken advantage of that situation flying 24 hours day and night. It never stops.
Too many people who live in Camden know this all too well. WE ARE RETIRED
MILITARY who have heard and seen this song and dance before. There are
generations of family land here including The historical land of Bunker Hill. This historical land is only a few miles from Hales Lake where the
Navy wants to build this OLF. Camden is one of the fastest growing counties in NC. We do not need the Navy here, we already have the Coast
Guard, that is who we support in the community.
If you think
Coasy Gurad is already there in NC.
By your logic, anywhere where there is already Coast Guard the Navy must stay out of. Hay there is a Coast Guard station in Virginia Beach.
Sooner actually. . .
"Won't happen soon due to the economy but within 10 years it'll be gone."
With the F35 coming out (WAY LOUDER than an FA18) in a few years Oceana will NOT be a MJB. I'd say in less than 5 years. Oceana will not be gone, but the squadrons will all have moved.
yo dude
the F-35 is 17 configurations away from the F-18.
The F-22 (RAPTOR) is the latest fighter series in service....which means there are 13 additional configurations remaining before we see the F-35.
Correct?
Incorrect?
The f-22 and the F-35 are the next two "big boys" on the block
with respect to fighter planes.
F-22 primarily for the Air Force, and the F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter).
Do not know what became of the other iteration numbers. While there was a long line of F numbers, not all have been used, or some have been skipped, or where associated with an experimental plane that may have been rolled into another plane or is no longer being explored.
The JSF is coming, and is suppose to start arriving in the Navy soon. by 2014 2017 time frame, depending on money.
Huh?
How do you know the F35 will be "way louder"??? The final engine has not been selected and tested yet. None of the jets are in production yet.
F-35 Noise
The Navy's version of the F-35, the F-35C, is being developed by Lockheed Martin and is WELL on the way to production. The F-35 will be significantly heavier than the aircraft it is replacing therefore requiring a larger, more powerful engine. The Joint Strike Fighter acquisition strategy also calls for the development of two separate interchangeable engines, one built by Pratt & Whitney system and the other built by General Electric and Rolls Royce. The engines will be physically and functionally interchangeable in both the aircraft and support systems. All JSF aircraft variants will be able to use either engine. With Air Force and Marine Corps versions already in production, I think the Navy knows that their version will be significantly louder than the Hornets and Super Hornets.
There is an AIR FORCE nepa study going on in CA
for either their West Coast JSF, or for their F-22. This study has a diagram of the latest engine noises. The 35 is louder then the 18cd model it will be replacing. The Navy is kinda tricky with their 35. They are not claiming they do not need to figure out where to put the 35 because it is not ready to come to them. So technically, they do not have to factor in that plane. It does not matter that the plane uses the same engine, same thrust vectoring system, etc as the AF varient. Nope, they are hoping to get this NEPA process in the can before they have to introduce that noisy beast. They hope they will have this 2nd OLF at least approved, then will perform another NEPA process for the introduction of the JSF. At that point, they will claim the noise will be a mild increase to the 18cd, but nothing the new sites cannot handle. They will increase the noise zones, but will indicate no further condemnation is needed as the first buffer provides suffiecent protection from incompatible development. They will "do the people at the second OLF a favor" by not condemning the new ppl who roll into the 75dB DNL contour line. Thanks Navy for the favor.
For those who complain about jet noise
because of where they live...did you move in in the middle of the night, just get your hearing back, someone else buy your house for you, what?
Oceana was here first. Sounds like post NIMBY syndrome..not-in-my-backyard-even-though-you-were-here-first!
I think the clock is ticking against Oceana due to all the wanking and OLF issues. Won't happen soon due to the economy but within 10 years it'll be gone.
Then Rep. Randy can come up with legislation regarding final say on bull dozing all the vacant houses and apartments from the loss of 20,000 residents.
What really cracks me up is a number of the wankers have some sort of dependency on Oceana.
OLF
I am a Navy veteran who lives in Chesapeake and STRONGLY believes that VA Beach and Chesapeake are the ones who need to fix this problem. Both of these cities (especially Va Beach) have allowed development to encroach too closely onto Oceana and Fentress. The leadership at Oceana was against the development that has taken over around that base but VA Beach city council refused to acknowledge their valid complaints until BRAC threatened to shut Oceana down. Day late and a dollar short I say.
I do not think that it is fair to force an OLF down the throats of other rural communities and change their lifestyles with out their approval. I think that VA Beach and Chesapeake should have to buy every piece of property that causes an enchrochment issue from the owners at market value PLUS addition fees for the disruption of their lives and the cost to relocate. Once everyone is moved out Oceana and Fentress will be able to support required training missions. Let them use the millions or billions that are slated for the new OLF to buy back the land they need. JMO
If this measure is approved..
I believe it will effectively end any efforts to obtain an OLF. I think NAS Jax is looking better and better for a 'reverse BRAC' endeavor to reopen it, and start looking at shifting all the planes, commands, and services there from Oceana. Then transferring more than just 1 carrier to there will make sense as well. Time to move on, and let someone else enjoy the benefits of having the only Navy Master Jet Base for the east coast. No one can state with a straight face that VA is a truly military friendly state. Let some other locale that welcomes them, have them..
I concur but...
The only problem with that is Jacksonville doesn't want the Navy back. They were burned in 1994 because Oceana was supposed to be BRAC'd but after several meetings Cecil Field was put on the list to take Oceana's place. Florida offer to take them when BRAC threatened to close Oceana in 2002 but Jacksonville came back and said NO we don't want you.
The Navy needs to move the whole base someplace that wants them and that will treat the personnel decent. Virginia treats their military like second class citizens.
All that may be true..
but times do change. With this latest economic meltdown in the nation, haivng a steady source of funds (and hence jobs) like a naval air station may be viewed more favorably nowdays. NAS Jax is still isolated (if my info is correct/current) and relatively intact, and if the transfer of a carries does in fact occur, it may make sense to move that carrier's airwing, and then some, there as well. maybe NAS Jax and/or the state of FLA, or nearby Georgia, may be able to provide what's needed in the way of a practice OLF.
I'm with you about how VA treats the military. It just may be time for the Navy to tell the Old Dominion to take a flying leap on all this! I have no heartbreak with that if they ever do.
Oceana has an encroachment Problem-Cont.
It is important to support our military but not blindly, we must ask questions. We must ask, has Virginia Beach and its residential development out grown Oceana?
Is Oceana the safest location for a Master Jet base with the next generation of aircraft that could be louder than current F-18 Super Hornet?
VERY nice posting
a question to ponder, from 2003 to 2008, the Navy claimed they needed an OLF to support OLF missions at both Oceana and CP. Recently, they stated that CP never needed this OLF for alternative 6, which was clearly spelled out in the original NEPA process. If the birds of Pacoson Lake would not have been such a blocker to this move, do you think the Navy would have NOT built an OLF in Washington County? Would they have ever told those folks we are building this OLF based on a want? They condemned lands and bought from willing sellers chunks of land for the facility. They would have built the OLF in Washington County while claiming CP required it and to give Oceana area noise mitigation and operational flexibility.
Believability and trust is difficult to give the Navy with this project when I know what the Navy was willing to do. They have said that any site would work for them. They really do not care what site is chosen, just so long as they do not have to rely on the cities of Hampton Roads to make Oceana's airfields viable and properly perform the mission. The Navy appears to be happy with one runway that will perform proper FCLPs.
Good Point
So, the Navy is claiming to have a "capacity" problem even though there are 2 sets of parallel runways at Oceana, a runway at Fentress, and a runway at Chambers field? That's six available runways just in Tidewater. The problem is that the Navy doesn't want to use Oceana or Chambers Field because of encroachment...noise, lights, etc. And it seems like they barely want to use Fentress either. So if they build this new OLF, does that mean that they will then only have ONE viable runway for training? Are you telling me that the Navy is going to all this expense and trouble just to have ONE viable runway when they have six already built and available for use? What a waste of taxpayer dollars. Fix what we already have and make it viable or move some of the squadrons elsewhere where they can receive adequate training. It really is that simple.
That is exactly what I am saying
the Navy is fighting tooth and nail to get just one viable runway working for our pilots. For 8+years they have sat on their butts letting VA BCH local government dictate to them how they may operate. At the same time, they have been threatening now 10 rural communities and changing their story based on our logical comments about there process.
They cannot present a factual, and truthful needbased statement. While they claim they need 7 runways to perform all the missions, they are only desiring to make one of them properly perform the mission.
Navy, you can say what you want, and spin it any way you desire, but the bottom line, your goal is to have only one runway to meet your training needs. Please simply fix one of the 6 you already have. For 8+ years you have done the wrong thing, do the right thing, fix what is broken or abandon what is broken. Please stop threatening to ruin a community simply because it is easier then fixing the MJB. Even if you get this OLF, the MJB is still broke, why are you doing this to a rural community? It seems like your doing this just because you think you can. Thats not my Navy.
Oceana has an encroachment Problem
There is NOT a capacity problem; there is an encroachment problem that cannot be served by 10 new OLF’s. More than 50 percent of all pilot-related accidents occur during takeoff or landing.
The solution is to spread the squadrons. NC has presented a viable solution by offering to take 4 of those squadrons. This would lessen the noise in the Hampton Roads area and an OLF would not be required in this region at all.
The Navy should have first approached the local citizens and local governments, and then worked their way to the state level. Instead the Navy’s tactic on the American citizens was to act covertly and operated behind close doors as though the citizen was the adversary.
They have used Propaganda techniques asserting their statements are correct with no explanation or back up documentation. They have omitted facts and information about this project to help the average citizen make an informed decision. They have given loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.
It is important to support our military but not blindly, we must ask questions. We must ask, has Virginia Beach and