Turnout has been high and dialogue heated at a series of public meetings held lately in Burlington and environs.
On Monday, dozens of people both in favor and opposed to a proposed health access buffer zone at Burlington reproductive health care centers brought their arguments and deeply held beliefs to the City Council. Meanwhile, 40 Vermonters showed up just to watch the South Burlington City Council, in a 4-1 vote, reject a plan to base F-35 fighter jets at the airport.
Last week more than 300 people turned out in South Burlington for a U.S. Air Force public hearing on the environmental impacts of the multi-purpose aircraft, the military’s most expensive pet project yet.
Only days before more than 100 residents showed up at Burlington High School to speak their minds about racial inequality and harassment in the schools.
Some people called for Superintendent of Schools Jeanne Collins to resign. Collins recently issued a public apology, but added that she does not intend to step down.
“To those of you who believe action has taken too long,” she wrote, “and particularly to students in our district who have suffered from the racism which I know continues, I say that I am sorry.”
Progressive Vince Brennan, one of the first to call for Collins’ replacement, suggested on Monday that safety and other race-related problems are being swept under the rug.
Mayor Miro Weinberger is about to release a statement about Collins and the school.
Mayor says noise a “limited” factor for F-35s
On Tuesday, the mayor defended his most controversial decision to date: support for basing 18 to 24 F-35s at the airport. Last week, Weinberger opted not to send a statement to the environmental impact hearing. Instead, he issued his decision in the days that followed in a rolling response to media inquiries.
Weinberger aide Mike Kanerick acknowledged that there was no press release, but insisted that it wasn’t a calculated move.
The period for public comment on the F-35s’ impacts has been extended until June 20, according to the Air Force. This is mainly due to a request from Maine for a hearing. A number of Vermont public officials, including Gov. Peter Shumlin and Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, haven’t waited and are already on board, mainly touting economic benefits and the need to protect National Guard. Although there is no official link between where F-35s are based and the future of the Vermont Guard, many backers assume that cutbacks are more likely if Vermont is not chosen, or even seems less than enthusiastic.
Vermont’s congressional delegation has expressed pride in the past about being considered for the F-35s. More recently, they have issued careful statements about balancing “legitimate concerns” with the value, services and excellence of the Guard. Little has been said about the aircraft itself.
Weinberger, a leading member of the Airport Commission before his election as mayor, said he decided to wait until after the hearing just in case “anything new” emerged in the discussion. That said, he feels the benefits of the Guard to the city and region are obvious and enormous, while “the environmental impacts have been limited.”
“Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and listened closely to the public reactions to it, I do not believe that this balance will substantially change,” his statement says. “I support the Air Guard in its efforts to base the F-35As here.”
In response to VTDigger, Weinberger acknowledged that “some people will be more impacted than others,” and said he respected the concerns and views offered during the hearing, and at other stages of the process. He bristled, however, at the suggestion that housing will be lost as a consequence of accepting the aircraft.
“Not a single person will lose housing because of this,” he insisted. The airport’s decision to purchase nearby residential properties is not linked to the F-35s, he added. “These properties are impacted not only by takes-offs and landings, but also by a variety of impacts on the ground.”
“The most significant F-35 impact is potentially increased noise,” he added. “I’m not ignoring that, but it is a limited impact.”
On Monday, the City Council authorized Weinberger and airport officials to purchase up to 14 properties near the airport for “anticipated growth, environmental compatibility (noise), and in the interest of public benefit.” Reimbursement is anticipated through FAA grants.
The F-35 environmental impact statement (EIS) says that up to 1,300 properties will be affected adversely by the noise, to some extent and depending on how many fighter jets ultimately arrive. The nature and intensity of the impacts, plus the fact that lower-income areas will disproportionately feel the effects, are at the heart of the debate.
In Winooski on Monday night the City Council officially asked the Air Force to “clearly identify the potential impact on the economic health” of Winooski. They also want to know why Burlington’s airport is a preferred alternative to “areas that may have fewer adverse impacts.”
A controversial ordinance to fine protesters
Although the Burlington council also heard briefly from the Air Force, the focus in Contois Auditorium was on the health care buffer zone proposal, sparking debate over another question of balance – between free speech and access to health services.
Ultimately, the council voted 13-1 to send the proposal on to the Ordinance Committee for review before its expected passage. The topic nevertheless dominated an intense, extended but civil public forum period. If the measure passes, protesters could be fined between $50 and $500 for violating a 35-foot “sphere of protection” extending in all directions around reproductive health facilities in the city.
Planned Parenthood supporters said protests have been a bigger problem since the regional headquarters for the women’s health clinics moved from Mansfield Avenue to a downtown location.
Anti-abortion activists insist that the protests are not obstructive. They say they want to pray, grieve and offer a different choice.
Weinberger calls the public forum period, which often covers a range of topics, “democracy in action.” In this case, however, he didn’t need more input before taking a stand.
“I took a public position early in favor of the ordinance,” he noted, and he agrees with the basic findings as explained in the draft: “the exercise of a person’s right to protest or counsel against certain medical procedures is a First Amendment activity that must be balanced against another person’s right to obtain medical counseling and treatment in an unobstructed manner.”
During the forum several speakers criticized what they described as limitations on speech rights and preferential treatment. Comparisons were drawn with the Occupy encampment that was briefly permitted in City Hall Park last fall, and more recent picketing outside the door of the Citizens Bank.
Paul Decelles, a Republican councilor who has emerged as a major critic of liberal stances since the departure of his counterpart Kurt Wright, took up the comparison and ran with it. “What would we do if banks felt intimidated and wanted a buffer zone?”
He called the proposal a form of unnecessary “spot zoning.” Democrat Norm Blais objected to the comparison.
In an April 29, 2012, statement Occupy Burlington announced plans to develop a permanent picket line outside the Citizens Bank until it closes and leaves. Since then activists with signs and handouts have gathered each weekend to talk with bank patrons and get the word out.
“Ultimately, our goal is for there to never be a time when someone can bank at Citizens Bank without first crossing a picket line,” says the group’s “Resolution for the Ejection of Citizens Bank from Burlington, Vermont.”
Bram Kranichfeld argued that existing legal tools – mainly trespass and disorderly conduct statutes – are not adequate to deal with the main problem. Anti-abortion protests he said could have a “chilling effect” on people facing difficult life choices.
Progressives Rachel Siegel and Max Tracy support the buffer zone. Vince Brennan, the third Progressive, looked for a way to reconcile his belief that “protest is positive” with an equally strong sense that health care is a human right.
“I’m not an anarchist,” Brennan said, “but we need a place where that voice can be heard.”
Occupy movement wants new encampment
The Occupy Burlington movement is also looking to expand its protests. In addition to picketing outside the Citizens Bank the Occupy movement wants to establish a new encampment this year. An attempt in early May to set up tents at Pomeroy Park in the Old North End was interrupted by the police. The group continues to hold General Assemblies, and uses social networks to organize events and show solidarity. Members of Occupy, often with signs, have been present recently whenever people gather to address officials.
“Even though I have sympathy toward goals of the Occupy movement, the events of last fall brought it home that that we as a community need to be clear,” Weinberger explained. Although he expressed support for free speech and free assembly, “and those rights need to be respected, I intend to enforce regulations for all groups.” That means an encampment will not be allowed in City Hall Park or other public locations where overnight camping is prohibited.
However, Weinberger also mentioned that the rules and ordinances on camping are not uniform throughout the city. Asked whether there are circumstances or places under which a permanent presence might be legally possible, he suggested that interested parties consult the statutes.
So far, however, Weinberger said “no one has come to me about camping on public lands.”
