©
With Florida trying to snatch an aircraft carrier out of Hampton Roads, the last thing the region needs is state lawmakers making trouble for Oceana Naval Air Station.
But that's exactly what's happening. Sen. Fred Quayle has introduced a bill that would force the Navy to obtain permission from the General Assembly before purchasing land in Virginia for an outlying landing field to serve Oceana's jets.
Beyond the obvious constitutional questions raised by the Suffolk Republican's bill, there is the larger question of whether the General Assembly understands the issue well enough to set itself up as the final arbiter. The first piece of evidence that the answer is no comes in the form of yet another bill.
Del. Bill Barlow is sponsoring legislation that would eliminate limitations on future development around a practice landing field. After nearly losing Oceana in 2005 because of population incursions, it's inconceivable that the state would consider creating a new problem with development.
Worse, Barlow's bill appears to roll back existing development protections now in place at Fentress Auxiliary Landing Field in Chesapeake. The Isle of Wight Democrat said that's not his intent. He is sponsoring the bill at the request of rural counties being considered for the practice field.
"It's a modest attempt if this is forced on us so we have some semblance of freedom," he said. "It's trying to give us a bit more control of our destiny if an OLF comes there."
Barlow correctly argues that the Navy has been inartful in its handling of local government concerns. But it's also important to note that both Quayle and Barlow favor construction in Surry County of what would be the state's largest coal-fired power plant. While loud airplanes can be annoying, this page knows of no scientific studies suggesting that they can cause respiratory illnesses, heart attacks or cancer, or deposit mercury and other pollutants on nearby communities.
The truth is that the coal plant is getting less flack from the legislature because it will bring new tax revenues to Surry. Ultimately, the Navy will have to offer some financial or economic incentives in order to gain support for a practice field.
But state legislators should remember that Oceana and other military bases already provide the closest thing Virginia has to recession-proof jobs and economic activity. They should tread lightly or, better yet, not interfere at all.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Representing their constituents
While the effort to legislate this might be misguided and even questionable for the constitutional stand point these elected officials are simply doing what their constituents want and that is some protection from an OLF that will ruin the quality of life of citizens in Surry, Sussex and Southampton County tying up large amounts of land while bringing very little tax revenue into those communities. I know of no community that would not react the same way if threatened in this manner.
I have attended several meetings on the OLF issue and it seems there are two different stories. Here in the urban VB/Ches. area we are told Fentress is no longer viable due to " light pollution " and it is not an optimal training platform for FCLP's. Yet in the rural areas they are told the new OLF is needed as a reliever field because Fentress has maxed out its capacity. That Fentress would still be in operation and the new OLF would accept the overflow traffic. So which is it?
What Revenue Sharing?
Carolyn R below talks about revenue sharing under the mistaken impression that there is revenue to be shared. Fact is, the latest fiscal impact study revealed that it is more expensive to the local government and to the state to retain the master jet base than to let it go to some other base. Why? The real reason is that the land use restrictions imposed by the AICUZ (air installation compatibility use zones) have a cost, and that cost is more than the positive fiscal benefit from the jobs. Further, while the Navy frequently likes to imply that the purchasing of jet fuel and aircraft parts and equipment is important to the local economy, the fact is, these purchases are done nationally from firms outside of this region, and that income does not flow through our economy. Frankly, I think the citizens around Cecil Field figured that out before we did, and in a referendum, they said no.
Just give the Navy and a new OLF a free pass?
NO. If they really needed an OLF in VA (or NC) they would have clearly demonstrated the need, acquired the land, and be using it by now. Opposition to the OLF sites is real and cannot be forced upon the residents in its vicinity. Encroachment has worked both ways in this issue, yet you see it as everyone's problem except the Navy. Clear the acreage and put the OLF in Ghent if it's such a boon to an area. I still subscribe to the Virginian Pilot despite editorials like this.
NAS Oceana
When you people vote trash into office, you get Quayle and Barlow! These self-righteous illegitimate children think they have all the answers because (fill in the blanks)
Revenue sharing with VA Beach
has been mentioned in some discussions I have read. Don't divert the USN's attention away from their mission to have to worry about the financial piece. The governments of the location where the OLF goes should share in the revenue the base generates. It is only fair, and I do support the USN in getting their additional practice area.