Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 10 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Panel to consider OLF bill
Published Wednesday, February 3, 2010
This map is from the Navy’s Outlying Landing Field Environmental Impact Statement Web site at www.olfeis.com.
RICHMOND—One bill is grounded, and another is in a holding pattern: That is the status of two pieces of legislation affecting the proposed location of an Outlying Landing Field in Virginia.
A Senate committee last week killed Sen. Fredrick M. Quayle’s bill requiring the Navy to get General Assembly approval before it acquires property for an OLF. The Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections voted 8-5 to “pass by indefinitely” Senate Bill 6.
However, a different OLF bill is still alive in the House. Delegate William K. Barlow, D-Smithfield, is sponsoring House Bill 887, which makes land use a local matter to be decided by local officials.
“It is an attempt to prevent the Navy from locating an OLF in the three areas of Virginia” that the Navy is considering for an OLF, Barlow said. Barlow said that if his legislation passes, the federal government would not be able to tell local officials how to use the area’s land, giving localities control over land use.
According to Barlow, an OLF would exhaust numerous surrounding acres of land and limit property usage.
“The noise will be so loud, thousands of acres of land will be adversely affected,” he said.
Barlow’s other concern is the removal of citizens from their homes.
“If the Navy can’t purchase the land, they will condemn it,” Barlow said. “[They] will take it from people living there.”
Ted Brown, a media relations spokesman for the U.S. Fleet Forces Command, says a new OLF is necessary for Navy training purposes.
“An additional OLF is critical to providing our pilots a facility where they can realistically train ashore as they operate at sea,” Brown said. “It is also critical to meeting training requirements under both routine and surge conditions.”
The Navy will continue to meet its training commitments by using available facilities until a new OLF is built and operational, Brown said.
HB 887 has been assigned to the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns. A subcommittee may discuss the proposal next week. Barlow is hopeful legislators will approve the bill.
“We’re going to try, but we can’t tell whether it will pass,” Barlow said. “Chances are no better than 50-50.”
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by SueAnn (anonymous) on February 3, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You can go to this section of the OLFEIS site and see the maps of each site.
http://www.olfeis.com/alternatives.aspx
Posted by chuck (anonymous) on February 3, 2010 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Local decisions on land use are what made NALF Fentress in Chesapeake such a mess. The Navy opposed virtually every rezoning request around Fentress. Their objections were noted and then ignored.
Posted by truthseeker (anonymous) on February 4, 2010 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW, KNOWITALL!! That's quite a switch for you, and I totally thank you for your honesty.
Posted by allsites (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
From the Navy's official website,
"January 22, 2010
Navy officials hosted CVN embark for local officials, business owners, and residents in and around proposed OLF sites in SE Virginia"
The Navy made a change to their website and this was the information for 5 Feb 2010. This was the only thing I could find. Folks are asking the Navy to come to the sites and explain the JSF since Aug 2009. Have they? When will they come talk to the sites in an open forum? Is it the intent of the Navy to only talk to small groups of people about this program? Is it so there is separate information in the community? Why is the Navy making the community spread their message vice the Navy coming to the sites and discussing these issues. Since Aug 2009, the Navy could have been doing monthly, or every other month meetings with the communities in an open forum and explained some of the questions we have been having.
Even their updates you still have to know what the page had before it was updated or you wont know what is new. Instead of highlighting the new stuff in some fashion, they are still just putting they updated the page on this date. It is now up to the community to figure out what was changed. So much for keeping the community informed. Why is the Navy doing this to the communities?
This site is not user friendly. It has been this way since the inception of this process. The Navy has this attitude of "you figure it out, we gave you the information." I guess the Navy feels that if we really care about this OLF, we will be reading their information on a daily basis. The Navy did question me at the Mason presentation with a question something like do you check that site on a daily basis? While I don't check it every day, I do check it enough. I can claim the Navy has not been talking to the community, not when since Jan 15, 2010 to Feb 5, 2010, the above is all they will give us for information. That is all the public outreach presented to the community, and even then, it was not general knowledge that this "embark" was going to happen.
Which communities were invited? What local officials? What was presented? No stories of this event were published in the TN, yet they are a voice for many of those in and around the proposed OLF sites in SE Virginia. The communities are not being kept informed. The community is starving for information, but it is up to the Navy to release the information. The community is begging, but the Navy is withholding. Please Navy, come talk to the communities, folks will listen. Folks will come.
Posted by Timberlake (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Allsites, "folks will listen"....are you kidding me? The "folks" have thrown eggs at the Navy. As has been suggested by a couple of businessmen from the area,who have been tarred and feathered in this blog, we should bargain for our very best deal, cause the Navy might be comin hook line and sinker WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. You just wait.
Posted by RobertM (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The OLF will be located at Hales Lake, NC. The Navy identified that site back in 2006-2007. If the Navy wanted a Virginia Site they would have already released the study.
There is NO political opposition to the Virginia sites. The Navy has to overcome some of the politicians in NC and some engineering problems. This is why the study has been delayed.
It will only take 20 minutes to get to Hales Lake (driving).
The Navy is working very closely with the Governor of NC and Senator Hagan. Senator Hagan will allow the Hales Lake site to move forward. She is only giving her constituents lip service.
Dole and Hagan are one in the same!
Posted by allsites (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
With regard to "throwing eggs", I have never seen anyone demonstrate anything but respect for our Navy at any of the meetings they have sponsored, or attended. Some will ask tough questions, but what you are describing I have never seen.
Also, at the various NO OLF rallies I have been to, I have not seen egg throwing either. I see folks questioning our Navy. I see folks frustrated, hurt, confused but above all asking questions. Questions that the Navy has the answers to, but the Navy wont come visiting and enable people to ask. I see many folks on the fence, they are listening to what folks are saying, both Navy and NO OLF folks, and they are trying to decide what is the story. Asking questions is not egg throwing.
The NO OLF folks are not against the Navy, but are against the Navy's intended action. They have valid concerns that the Navy will not answer, nor does it appear the Navy desires to answer those questions. At the Mason presentation, a citizen asked the representative of the Secretary of the Navy to pass to the Secretary an invitation to come to the community. To see what he wishes to take away. Has the Navy representatives passed on that request? What did the Secretary say? The Secretary is about to condemn or take over 7500 acres yet will not visit the 5 regions and talk with them? Wouldn't anyone agree that this is probably one of the most important projects on the Secretary's plate? Building a partnership should be high on the Secretary's part. The Secretary is not that busy that he can't come to the 5 sites, look the people in the eye, and explain to them why they must leave. He will also be able to explain why those living around Oceana and Fentress do not have to move but are just as required to perform the mission as this new field is.
That is not egg throwing, but the community asking tough questions that the Navy does not wish to address. This line of questioning I was asking during the previous NEPA study, I asked during the scoping meetings, and I'm still asking. Since 2005 timeframe, I have been asking these kinds of questions. I see where the Government has evaluated the ability of Oceana to properly perform the mission for our pilots and determined that because of encroachment and not capacity, Oceana should lose the planes stationed there. BRAC gave the Navy a solution for any capacity problems, it still is to use existing assets. I see that Fentress and Oceana does not support our pilots, and I question the uniform decision making process of the Navy's plan.
And your right, the Navy is coming WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. Yet, a unified stance will make this outcome tougher on the Navy and may still stop them.
Posted by Timberlake (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
semantics....and we will see
Posted by minkybut (Jeff Turner) on February 7, 2010 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is as simple as this. When the Navy finally decides where it wants the OLF, the Navy will put it there where the Navy has decided they want it.
Posted by bluefishgertie (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems like they where real keen on Washington, N.C. Lots of federal courts out there. Let's try and keep defeatist and fatalistic attitudes out of the equation.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)