Primary winner says he opposes field
Staff Writer
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Bob Albury said he doesn't want it to sound like sour grapes.
But the day after he lost his bid for a seat on the Camden County Commission, he questioned if he might have won if Camden County voters clearly understood that his opponent has taken an "open-minded" view about the prospects of a Navy pilot training field coming to Camden.
For his part, Michael McLain, who beat Albury in the Republican primary, wants to set the record straight: He is strongly opposed to a Navy outlying landing field coming to Camden County, and would take that position as a commissioner.
McLain said there are some residents who are in the silent minority who favor the OLF coming here.
McLain also said during the campaign that he is open to talking with the Navy and listening to their proposals. And he said he favored a referendum where voters could express their opinion about the issue.
But on Wednesday, he said that does not translate into his support for the OLF coming to Camden.
Navy pilots use OLF's to practice takeoffs and landings, mainly at night, preparing for the actual aircraft carrier maneuvers. Camden County commissioners have presented a unified front in opposition to the proposal, as have thousands of residents.
McLain said he would be part of that opposition movement if elected. He said he doesn't cherish the thought of fighter jets flying over his home in the early hours of the morning.
"I'm opposed to an OLF for Camden. I've
always stated that I'm opposed to an OLF," he said.
However, McLain said the Navy, like anyone else, has a right to be heard if they want to come and talk about it.
"I'm for open and fair government. Everyone has a right to be heard," McLain said.
However, Albury suggested that McLain's comments show he might be swayed toward accepting the OLF.
"If he is willing to negotiate, he is not completely against it (an OLF)," Albury said.
As a result, Albury said he is strongly throwing his support behind Joey Coppersmith, who will be running against McLain in the November general election.
Vote for this story!
Comments
By Carolyn R
May 14, 2008 10:21 PM | Link to this
My previous comment was directed to Mr. Tateu.
By Carolyn R
May 14, 2008 10:19 PM | Link to this
The purpose of this comment section as I understand it is to express an opinion and offer information. That is what I have done and will probably continue to do as long as The Daily Advance offers me this privilege.
Why do you take such interest in MY opinion?
By Ira Tateu
May 14, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
"Yes, I believe BRAC information can become outdated. Other that the Bible, all documents can become outdated."
Even theologians beleive the bible is in error many times. Anyhow, so you believe that the sun revolves around the earth(per the bible)but not a scientific paper? I guess some would call this bias. You believe what is convenient and shares your point of view.
"Concerning the decibel level of noise, I absolutely do not know."
Nuff said. I do. The pass is about 117DB.
"I have never hinted that I knew information on that level."
The level of...facts?
"If the noise was as bad as some say, I simply do not believe people in Fentress or Oceana would tolerate living there. They would move. A few may not have the means to move but the overwhelming majority could if they wanted to."
Subjective is a kind description of your statement. It's not true that all of these people "can" move. Many cannot afford a similiar property away from the noise. In addition, many(including myself) have moved. Perhaps you missed the news on the lawsuits? Maybe the housing market? The bait and switch offerd byt he Navy changing jets?
"I know there are drawbacks, and of course, noise is one that comes with them."
Virginia is looking for volunteers. Don't let the door hit you in the...
"You are welcome to check out any facts I state. I usually state my opinion. If I say something wrong, I welcome being corrected on facts."
You did not offer a single fact. Even your empirical study of noise on the side of the road was flawed and simplistic. By your own admission it is unreliable and flawed. Please offer some facts and I can check them out.
"I see you are out to try to make people think I am a liar at the VP.Good Luck!"
Not a liar really, just a misinformed, biased proponent of ruining our way of life. Virginia misses you-go back.
By NCguy
May 13, 2008 7:34 PM | Link to this
The Navy is suppose to be in an informational role. They are suppose to be fostering goodwill between the host community and the Navy.
At the scoping meeting, that will be the last official Navy presentation until the DEIS comes out. At that point, the Navy may indicate a prefered site, or they may just leave all 5 sites hanging until the FEIS comes out.
Your questions and comments from this public comments period will be addressed. You will get another chance (?) to submit more questions and comments, but that will be it. No more communication with the Navy.
The Navy may send you correspondence, but because it may not be found in the EIS, it is not official. They can deny it if this data does not fit their desires later.
So is the Navy in informational role when they came to us 22 Jan and said we have performed a thorough reevaluation of our operational requirements and this evaluation is the justification for their need. They did not present that information to us.
They PERFORMED the study, it is complete.
Why did we not get it? Why do we have to wait for the DEIS?
By NCguy
May 13, 2008 6:59 PM | Link to this
Planes have been flying the racetrack pattern to land on a carrier for years. When I watched planes landing on the John F. Kennedy as a 19 yearold, they flew the same race track they are flying today. That cannot change.
So what has changed? That is the fundamental question I asked of the Navy. What is different about how a pilot lands his aircraft on a pitching flight deck from 2000 until today? Or better yet, what changed from 18 Sept, 2007 to 22 Jan 2008?
Pilots still need to run down the racetrack. They still need to call the ball. They still need to catch a wire. They still need to go to full throttle no afterburner upon touch down until a flight deck handling officer tells them to throttle back.
That was happening in 1982, it was happening in 2000, it was happening in 2005 and it will be happening tommorrow and it will be happening 6 years from now. That is how planes have to land. That method was figured out in blood and constant evaluation and reevaluation.
Pilots have had to land in the dark, in the rain, in snow, etc. So what has changed about pilot training requirements for landing on a carrier that today requires a second OLF, but just last year, your site was tied to the old study that indicated a second OLF was not required.
The ONLY thing that has changed is the Navy has switched from the 5 original sites and are now focusing on 5 different sites.
The Navy claims they did a thorough reevaluation of their needs. They did not feel we should know what these needs are. You will learn those in 2 years. At the scoping meeting, the Navy should have presented those findings, or at least a rough of their findings. Did they? NOPE.
I have been working this OLF issue for a few years now. The story has changed again.
If the Navy would lay on the table their needs, to include accepting the problems at Oceana and Fentress and showed us that they are fixing (not going to fix, might fix, thinking about fixing) Oceana and Fentress and even when they are fixed that they still require this second OLF, ok, I will buy it. They must show were all the assets that the Navy has cannot help our pilots.
Have they ever done that?
Will they ever do that?
Should Camden or Gates County have to sacrifice their community when the Navy will not show any need or quantify their need statements?
By Carolyn R
May 13, 2008 6:36 PM | Link to this
I do believe the documents were correct at the time they were created. I also believe needs change. Yes, I believe BRAC information can become outdated. Other that the Bible, all documents can become outdated.
Concerning the decibel level of noise, I absolutely do not know. I have never hinted that I knew information on that level. My experience with the noise is a visit to the touchdown area at Fentress. I stood on the side of the rode for about 30 minutes listening and watching as the plane practiced. I estimate I was about 200 yards from the tarmac. I did not find the noise as alarming as it is being described. In fairness to all, I can believe that the noise would be louder if the plane was directly overhead but only so much. I also will have to say the pilot I spoke with at the Camden meeting said I might have been observing one of the quieter jets out of the four types that practice at Fentress. If the noise was as bad as some say, I simply do not believe people in Fentress or Oceana would tolerate living there. They would move. A few may not have the means to move but the overwhelming majority could if they wanted to.
The strategic needs of the USN are what I support. I know there are drawbacks, and of course, noise is one that comes with them.
You are welcome to check out any facts I state. I usually state my opinion. If I say something wrong, I welcome being corrected on facts.
I see you are out to try to make people think I am a liar at the VP. Good Luck! I tried to respond when I returned home last night but it would not go through. If you do not know that the USN and related business are a great contributing factor to many in Camden County you need to check out some facts. Iım not getting any monetary benefits from the USN now but my neighbors sure are.
By Ira Tateu
May 13, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
Carolyn,
Are you stating that you do not consider the USN's own paperwork to be correct? Are you actually saying that the wording rendered by BRAC is dated and cannot be trusted?
I have one question for you. I want you to answer it as completely and honestly as you are capable. How loud will a jet be when it banks to initiate a 'touch and go?' If you cannot answer that, how loud will the same jet be passing over a home in say the "average" 65-75DB zone?
Your quite the politician with your rambling yet meaningless statements. As you seem to be the USN's advocate on these and other boards, let's check YOUR facts out.
By Mary
May 11, 2008 10:16 PM | Link to this
Carolyn,
The Navy could have forced Virginia Beach to meet their needs. North Carolina makes every effort to protect the military and their installations from encroachment.
Mr. Bass hit the nail on the head; they do not need a new OLF. They need to relocate away from the encroachment.
Do not forget on or about September 2006 another wave of plaintiffs file a class action claim that could represent thousands of property owners around Oceana and Fentress. Damages are estimated in the claim are for $500 million. The Navy just settled a $38 million claim in Nov. 2006. The BRAC commission was correct when they wanted to close Oceana in 2005.
It is noise they want to export. Nothing else.
By Ernest T. Bass
May 11, 2008 9:38 PM | Link to this
Also, folks PLEASE don't let the Navy fool you with their "surge" talk. This is designed to underestimate their available capacity and this is what they are using to "justify" the need for another OLF. It is bad math.
What they are doing is basing their "surge" calculations on Donald Rumsfeld's Fleet Response Plan (FRP). Basically, the FRP requires a stage of readiness for all carrier wings at the same time. This is NOT realistic. They are using these surge calculations...all east coast carrier wings training at the same time at Fentress ALONE...to say that Fentress doesn't have the capacity to meet their training needs. This is bad math! They are taking the absolute worst case situation and using it to establish the norm. They are discounting available training capacity at Oceana altogether. They are attempting to make Fentress look "full" when everyone knows it's not.
Why is the Navy still following the FRP doctrine established by Donald Rumsfeld? He is the worst Sec. of Defense we have ever had. His Iraq War strategy has been an absolute disaster. Yet we are still making military facility siting decisions based on his FRP? We need to be aware that this FRP is not realistic. There is no way the Navy will ever be training ALL of its carrier wing squadrons at the exact same time.
As this process moves forward, you will hear this "surge" argument from the Navy and an associated assertion that Fentress "lacks capacity" as reasons for why they "need" another OLF. Don't believe it.
By Ernest T. Bass
May 11, 2008 9:08 PM | Link to this
Carolyn R,
The Navy DID have the opportunity to protect its assets in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake many years ago. They could have done so the same way they are attempting to hijack 30,000 acres in NC - by fee simple purchase or purchase of easements on the land. Remember, Fentress and Oceana haven't always been encroached upon...they were once "in the sticks" as well.
Yes, Va. Beach deserves a great deal of blame here but then again, so does our USN.
However, it is a mistake to think that this is just about encroachment's effects on the quality of training. I firmly believe this OLF is ALL about mitigating the noise impacts of the louder jets on the residents of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach (some of whom have sued and are suing the Navy over the noise...there's patriotism for you).
See Carolyn, this is the gist of the thing. When the Navy issued their Record of Decision in 2003 to site the eight Super Hornet squadrons at Oceana, they modeled the noise contours around Fentress and Oceana resulting from the introduction of the much louder Super Hornets to Oceana. What they found was that more than 45,000 residents of Va. Beach and Chesapeake would be living within the greater than 75 dB DNL zone which is not considered to be fit for human habitation. This means that without an additional OLF, Va. Beach and Chesapeake will have to condemn the homes of 45,000 residents in order to satisfy the 2005 BRAC requirements.
Here's the kicker, there are actually FEWER planes homebased at Oceana now than there were in 2000 yet no OLF was deemed necessary back then. Why? It is because the Super Hornets are so much louder than the Tomcats and Hornets that they are replacing. Fewer but louder jets create larger and more intense high noise impact zones. As part of the 2003 Record of Decision to site the Super Hornets at Oceana, the Navy knew they had to mitigate those noise impacts on the population of Tidewater or Oceana was not going to make the cut as the East Coast Master Jet Base. THAT'S when this whole OLF thing got started. It IS about the noise and exporting a good portion of it somewhere else so that Va. Beach will not be forced to condemn all of those properties as BRAC 2005 required under imminent domain. Want to talk about a MAJOR national news story? Try confiscating the property of 45,000 people under imminent domain.
This is patently unfair to NC residents. It is also patently unfair to some Tidewater residents too. Did you know that many of the folks suing the Navy up there actually moved into their homes when those homes were NOT in the high noise zone? With the introduction of louder jets, the high noise zones have expanded and encompassed homes that were not within the zones prior. Throw in the population growth up there over the last 20 years and you have a disaster on your hands.
The Navy's answer is to export the noise elsewhere. They will say that they are exporting 50% of the FCLPs to an OLF in NC, re-model the noise contours up in Tidewater with a 50% reduction in noise and training flights, average it over a one year period, develop new noise contours, and say that no properties in Tidewater have to be condemned and Oceana can remain open. This is what we find unacceptable. Why are we finding ourselves having to pay for the mismanagement of Va. Beach and the US Navy? Oceana is NOT viable for the future as an East Coast Master Jet Base and they know it. The new F-35s due out in a few years are expected to be even louder than the Super Hornets are. An OLF in NE NC is nothing but a bandaid on a terrible problem the Navy themselves have allowed to happen and I find it appalling that our very own US Navy is seeking to dump a problem they helped to create on a poor, rural population. Are the folks in Virginia more important than us? Do they have more rights than we do?
[1 2 3 4] next
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F, except on Tuesday when it's open until 9 p.m.
Post a comment
*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.