The Virginian-Pilot
©
Asserting its rights under the U.S. Constitution, the North Carolina General Assembly has passed legislation that could complicate any effort by the Navy to build a practice airfield in Camden or Gates counties.
Expected to be signed by the governor next week, the bill says North Carolina does not consent to the Navy taking property for an outlying landing field in a county that does not already have a military base where aircraft squadrons are stationed.
It was passed unanimously by the state Senate on Wednesday and by the state House last week.
The bill amends an old state law that for decades has given the federal government blanket permission to take land and build facilities such as military bases and post offices, said Camden County attorney John Morrison. Most states, including Virginia, have similar laws because federal facilities typically are beneficial, he said.
The state amendment invokes Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which says the federal government may not take land without the consent of the state legislature, Morrison said. It says North Carolina does not consent to an OLF in Gates or Camden counties, he said.
Despite the amendment, the federal government still has the authority to build an OLF in North Carolina, said Navy spokeswoman Lt. j.g. Laura Stegherr.
"We are concerned this may be misinterpreted," she said.
The bill sends a strong message of opposition from North Carolina but does not stop the Navy, said North Carolina Rep. Bill Owens, D-Pasquotank, who sponsored the legislation.
"At the end of the day, if they want it bad enough, they will prevail," Owens said Wednesday from Raleigh.
The economy and possible reductions in the defense budget may be what stops construction of a new airfield, he said.
But Morrison said the legislation gives opponents a useful new legal tool.
"The question will be whether or not federal law exclusively applies or if North Carolina law will also apply," Morrison said. "If the Navy selects Camden County, then Camden County will litigate and will stand on this constitutional principle. I believe it will work."
Federal, state and local officials in North Carolina have opposed construction of an OLF in Camden or Gates counties after they were announced as potential sites in January 2008. Three sites in Virginia also were proposed.
Camden and neighboring Currituck County hired attorneys, engineers and a public relations firm to help battle the Navy's efforts to build an OLF there. Duke University's Environmental Law and Policy Clinic and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice stepped in to help Gates County. The bill was a part of the efforts.
"I think our representatives are doing their job," said Juanita Krause, a spokeswoman for the citizens group opposing the OLF in Camden and Currituck counties.
"We're just thrilled that it passed, especially unanimously," said Laura Dickerson, spokeswoman for Citizens Against OLF in Gates County.
Residents have formed anti-OLF groups that have held public forums opposing the Navy's proposals, and some members have researched laws and Navy documents looking for flaws and contradictions.
The Navy plans to base eight new F/A-18 Super Hornet squadrons at Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach and two squadrons at Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station in North Carolina.
Unfunded upgrades at Cherry Point have delayed moving the two squadrons there until 2014. The amended law would allow an OLF in Craven County, where Cherry Point is located.
After a March meeting in Camden County, Owens and leaders of the OLF opposition asked U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., to push to get more F/A-18 Super Hornet squadrons located at Cherry Point, where the community has been more open to an airfield.
"That would be the perfect solution," Owens said at the time.
A draft environmental impact statement from the Navy is due out this summer, Stegherr said.
Jeff Hampton, (252) 338-0159, jeff.hampton@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
The line of reasoning by the
The line of reasoning by the pro-OLF crowd is great. You say to them, " what about the studies that show this is an unneeded and poor idea?" They tell you the studies are stupid and yesterdays news. One tries to paint herself as learned on the subject but has never read a letter of the reports. Claiming to support states rights but not if they interfere w/ the federal goverment.
I understand your bias and your desire to 'win' on this subject. LEt's be honest w/ each other. You want the base regardless of who is affected. 2 of you have admitted to your financial connection to the navy and placement of the jets.
BTW, no one has answered the question of why the jets were never sent to Cherry Point as planned. Who blocked it and why?
fear mongering tactics, cont.
The listing of specific rights in the Constitution does not deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. This is exactly what Virginia is doing to NC in the HRJLUS (chapter five). Oh, but that’s a big joke.
fear mongering tactics
It is ironic reading old document illicit a sarcastic response from you. Your so worried about your fourteenth amendment, well that is a “historical document”. The historical studies and information the Navy performed previously cost the tax payer millions. This information was a preparation for the future of the Master Jet Base. You may not agree however BRAC was a study with recommended results to improve the MJB. An OLF was never a requirement. The FEIS never required an OLF. The fidelity of Oceana is fine and manageable they have been training for over 30 years with no issues of safety to the pilots.
New are the lawsuits. The lawsuits are driving the Navy to act unscrupulously. The idea of an OLF was born in years 1999- 2000 by a private group called CCAJN.
You try to pit fear in people’s hearts by saying their children not have a training facility. The United State Government is the largest land holders in the US and the USN have the best training facilities in the world. Your exaggerations are nothing more that fear mongering tactics.
That old historical document called the constitution is being eroded away. The listing of specific rights in the Con
Carolyn,
North Carolina has provided this Virginian a quality of life that I could not find in Virginia. I chose to serve and protect, then I chose to retire in peace and quiet. “Freedom of Choice” isn’t that what I fought for?
Carolyn,
Agreed, the amendment requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people. The legislation does not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and is not in violation of the federal constitution on the grounds that NC has NOT prohibited an OLF from being constructed in the state of NC.
Furthermore the Navy has not demonstrated a procedural due process of this OLF project. Procedural due process issues concern the procedures which must be followed in order to deprive a person of a property or a liberty right. Please ask yourself this, has the Navy explored all reasonable alternatives?
the utilization of existing military airfields to augment Fentress such as NAS Patuxent River, MCAS Cherry Point, MCAS Beaufort, NOLF Whitehouse, and NAS Key West; and the lifting of restrictions on FCLP
Operations at the Master Jet Base at Oceana, all of which would serve to relieve any operational stress on NALF Fentress.
And by the way NC does offer VA benefits. First, I am from Virginia, I moved to NC for the peace and quiet. MY FULL Military Retirement Pension is exempt from state taxation. My taxes are low.
North Carolina has provided
More response
Reading the documents, here we go again. I have read most of what has come before me, no not all. I am concerned about current and future conditions mostly, not historical. As for the Joint Land Use Plan, if it is as big a joke in VA as they are in NC, don’t even mention them. Again, those military dollars spill over into NC in a big way.
I want NC, Camden in particular to tap into the port business. What kind of person would I be if I wanted only the benefits and none of the sacrifices from VA?
In mentioning this, “There is so much more to this story than what the nice handsome men provided to you at your scoping meeting.”, you are so correct. There are the young men we send off to man these jets. Who must learn to land a jet in pitch black on a tiny piece of steel in an ocean whose waves can be taller than houses. There are mothers and fathers to consider who watch these sons go off to do this job and then have to listen to people who don’t want to contribute to their practice to do this job. Yes, there is so much more to the story.
Response
I agree that all have a right to question anything related to governing. If you have seen anything I have said indicating otherwise I would appreciate you pointing it out to me so that I can apologize. The fact that I have a different opinion on a subject and voice my differing opinion does not equate to my thinking they should be silent. I am a strong believer in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The argument that Virginia owns this problem is what I have the most trouble with. National defense is just that, national. I don’t believe the USN defends based on lines and I don’t think they should be handled with lines in mind. As far as North Carolina benefiting from VA’s wealth, it is without question that the incomes coming out of VA are plentiful and not comparable to what one could make on this side of the line and without the medical services we get in VA, it would be sad. The military presence in VA is why these conditions exist.
Yes to olf
See blog post at http://virginianewssource.com/wallyerb/blog1.php/2009/04/24/north-carolina-to-navy-no-olf-navy-to-no
To Carolyn R.
“While the awarding of money to people in Virginia Beach is ridiculous, I do see that one area should not have to support the whole impact of loud noise, for those that consider it too loud.”
This is by far the most outlandish statement on these blogs yet.
Your arguments are baseless and without merit. Have you ever taken the time to read the million of dollars worth of studies the Navy conducted with regard this OLF?
While you are at it, you may want to read the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study. You may like the part where the military airfields contribute billions of dollars annually to Virginia’s regional economy.
“Political Marking” has a tendency to produce emotional rather than rational responses.
Please educate yourself on this issue.
There is so much more to this story than what the nice handsome men provided to you at your scoping meeting.
Cont. to Carolyn R.
The condemnation plan was “one of the most outrageous things I’ve seen from government,” Stolle declared. Suit pronounced the BRAC Commission’s decision-making process “pitiful.”
This statement was made May 25, 2006 in response to the Inspector General's report. "The city’s refusal to permit condemnation of homes and businesses in a high-risk “accident potential zone” along Oceana’s flight paths left him with little choice but to declare the city in violation of requirements established by the BRAC Commission, Gimble said.
Yet, in NC it is acceptable to condemn land and homes. Do you consider this burden equal?