Posted by FHancock (anonymous) on January 30, 2010 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

“People near Oceana are protective of Oceana,” Barlow said. “And some interpret [the bill] as a threat.”

Isn't it odd that the people near Oceana didn't consider their lawsuits against jet noise and the citizens' group (Concerned Citizens Agaisnt Jet Noise) a threat? Exporting their problems into the rural areas is not the answer.

Posted by Timberlake (anonymous) on January 30, 2010 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Read and comprehend. No issue has 100% support or dissent.
The majority of Virginia Beach citizens are willing to put up with occasional noise because Oceana is an important part of the economy--a jobs producer and a chunk of the tax base--in spite of a handful of loud complainers. Mr. Barlow (a very good man) has made a point that contradicts his own political stand on the issue. (A Freudian slip?) Of course the majority is protective of Oceana. Hancock, you cherry pick an article for your point of view. This is the problem. Step back and get a load of the big picture. I do believe local governments should have a BIG say in what goes on in their backyards, naturally. However, eminent domain will always exist. Once again, the goal is to stay out in front of the issue and bargain to our greatest advantage.

Posted by allsites (Matthew (Matt) Peeler) on January 30, 2010 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

“An additional OLF is critical to providing our pilots a facility where they can realistically train ashore as they operate at sea,” Brown said.

Is Mr. Brown stating that they cannot realistically train ashore now? That their goal is to find A (singular facility) to realistically train ashore now? If that is so, what is the Navy doing about the facilities that are suppose to be performing that training mission? Which fields are doing this training, but not doing realistic training for our pilots? That is a key and critical aspect of coming to a rural area. Train as we fight. The Navy has been saying they will continue to use Fentress even after this OLF is built, so when is the Navy going to condemn all the people within the 75 dB DNL contour line like they are going to do at the 2nd OLF site? Because of encroachment, that facility is not realistically training our pilots. Or is it? Same with Oceana, in 2003, the Navy told us Oceana could be used to train our pilots, now they say it cannot. Is it Oceana cannot realistically train our pilots now? If the encroachment was removed, could Oceana realistically train our pilots? I know it could. Fix Oceana first, fix Fentress first because that is the realistic requirement. Don't impose a standard on a rural community and ignore an existing problem. If Oceana and Fentress cannot realistically train our pilots, it is time to find a home base that can.

"The Navy will continue to meet its training commitments by using available facilities until a new OLF is constructed and operational, Brown said."

If the Navy will continue to meet their training requirements without this OLF, then they have the capacity to perform the mission. For two years, they have claimed lack of capacity, now they are implying train as we fight is the key. Why isn't capacity a concern now? I'm confused. Is this OLF no longer about capacity since they can do the mission now? Mr. Brown just said they are doing it. Yet I bet if the Navy would come and talk to the communities, they would contridict this statement, or try to claim I am misinterpreting what Mr. Brown said. What is going to happen to this existing field they are using, will it go away? Is this existing field Fentress? Is this 2nd OLF a replacement for Fentress now? Normally the Navy says this field is to augment Fentress, but they did not say that this time, why?

Start the JSF NEPA process which will look at Oceana's ability to realistically perform the mission. The Navy can then decide if their home base should be moved. If the Navy desire to keep Oceana, then fly at that base like the other home bases do. They support FCLPs. Why cant Oceana?

What is the Navy doing about this story in the Pilot? It shows how they treat those around Oceana within the 75 dB DNL contour line. Your LG is not empowered to do this if the Navy forces you to host this OLF and join this partnership with VB.
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/01/keeping-...

Posted by allsites (Matthew (Matt) Peeler) on January 30, 2010 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Ted Brown, a media relations spokesman for the U.S. Fleet Forces Command, says a new OLF is necessary for Navy training purposes."

I can see how the Navy could claim this is a valid statement. Because Oceana fails our pilots as well as Fentress, they do not have a single runway that realistically can train our pilots. What has the Navy done about this problem since 2003? Not much, if anything. The Navy has provided the standard of what they shall do to make an airfield to properly (now realistically) train our pilots here, http://www.olfeis.com/land.aspx . Look at some of the wording and decide if the Navy is committed to protecting their existing air fields.

"Noise Zone 3 (75 DNL to Core)

* All residences within Noise Zone 3 will be purchased and residents will be required to relocate.
* Navy will consider purchase of non-residential property from willing sellers on an as-requested basis.
* Navy will acquire restrictive use easements on all property not purchased in fee-simple to prohibit incompatible use of the property.
* Relocation benefits will be provided for eligible parties."

Before the Navy takes one acre of land for a field that does not exist, shouldn't they do this around Oceana and Fentress? If the Navy has their way, by 2014, they intend to KICK those around the rural host site off their lands without batting an eyelash. Why is that? Around Oceana, with years of the local government refusing to support the mission, the Navy allows them to encroach, yet you shall be thrown off your properties just as soon as the record of decision is published. The ink may not even dry before the Navy will be at your County Courthouse with condemnation paperwork. They condemned property at Washington County in this manner.

According to the Navy's last EIS, 33,000 people live inside the Zone 3 around Oceana/Fentress. Do you see the Navy condemning any of them? ALL of you Zone 3 people shall be. Why the difference, and is this proper? Yet for realistic training, they have to do this. Shouldn't the Navy be doing this around Fentress even while this OLF process is running? Has the Navy even asked for this kind of money to accomplish this at Fentress? Why not? They asked for the money at Washington County to go out to the 60 dB DNL contour line. Come on Navy, when are you going to fix your existing facility?

Nothing about the Navy's decision making in this process is uniform. Navy, why is that? Guess if you dont come visiting, you don't have to answer these kinds of questions, right?

Since the Navy refuses to talk to the community as a whole, they should simply abandon this process like they did the last and start the JSF NEPA. Prove Oceana is a viable home base for our pilots, only the JSF NEPA can do that.

Posted by allsites (Matthew (Matt) Peeler) on January 30, 2010 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Barlow please read the Navy's land acquisition strategy criteria, they really don't care if a family is willing to sell or not, you will be required to leave. http://www.olfeis.com/land.aspx BTW, keep working this bill!

"All residences within Noise Zone 3 will be purchased and residents will be required to relocate." The Navy is going to do this once they have put all the checks in some NEPA process check list. Folks have asked why wont they do this around Oceana and Fentress and the Navy tells us, "the viability of Oceana and Fentress is outside the scope of this NEPA process. Only the issues surrounding the building of this facility is within the scope of this NEPA process." The Navy will not answer these questions, nor explain why they do not have an active program to perform this statement and require all to relocate. In fact, it is up to the VB LG to condemn people and require them to leave if they live inside Zone 3 around Oceana. The Navy wont take this step for their MJB, even after the findings by a Congressionally chartered board concluded Oceana fails our pilots. If the Navy does not care about Oceana, why do they want our lands so bad? They wont even take on the responsibility of buying from willing sellers around Oceana. How many properties are up for sale around Oceana that the Navy could be buying?

No, not one acre should be allowed to be condemned for this project until the Navy can demonstrate they have a desire to fix Oceana. To do that would require "All residences within Noise Zone 3 will be purchased and residents will be required to relocate" around Oceana. If the Navy cannot do that, then this OLF is NOT a priority as realistically training at Oceana is not a priority of the Navy. This OLF is a want to fix the problems found around Oceana. It is too costly by the Navy to do what is required around Oceana so our pilots may realistically train, so the Navy has opted for this solution. To force a rural community to partner with another LG so that LG may continue to ruin any chance of our pilots realistically training.

What is dead wrong about this criteria established is the Navy is not using that criteria around Oceana, Fentress, Chambers Fields or any other airfield they own. So why this draconian stance at a simple OLF that is not required, but a want?

The Navy claims, "for the mission", "for surge", "for realistic training", "for darkness" do they have to throw folks off their lands, but only at this 2nd OLF site. When in reality, the Navy cannot afford to fix Oceana so this is their solution, one runway out of seven that will realistically train our pilots. Guess that is an improvement over zero runways out of six. The Navy wont even mention that.

Posted by Timberlake (anonymous) on January 30, 2010 at 8:49 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by allsites (Matthew (Matt) Peeler) on January 30, 2010 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope I have demonstrated that the Navy is giving folks around Oceana and Fentress the opportunity to decide if "occasional" noise bothers them or not. Those people get to choose to stay, or sell to their LG their property. The Navy is not requiring them to do anything. The Navy is not threatening them for 2 years with the possibility of losing their homes even though they are hosting one or 4 runways already, and these runways cannot realistically perform the mission for our pilots.

The Navy IS going to choose a site for this OLF, that is a 100% certainty as they said they were going to do that at the Mason presentation meeting. It will most likely be one of these 5 new sites, that is a high probability as any one of these 5 sites meets the Navy's wants. Which are low population density, low voter numbers meaning little to no opposition, darkness (but not really since Fentress is a key and vital air facility for this mission voiding this criterion), and cheap land. The Navy had a bargin at Washington County where they allocated just a little over $200 million for 30,000 acres.

The community that is chosen, some people will have no options other then to leave. They will be required to GET OUT, be gone. Your mere presence hampers the realistic training of our pilots. You must go. For those who have lived under this Navy sword for two years, please forgive me for being so cold and calused toward you with this statement. I realize you live with this every day and don't need me reminding you of it. I make this statement to let others know who are not impacted just what is about to happen to you and someone in their community.

Is it proper that some are threatened by our Navy they are required to leave for the mission but our Navy will not require this upon the same people who will live in the exact same criteria around Oceana nor Fentress? Some of the families who are about to be condemned off their lands have owned their land for generations, some longer then planes have flown in the sky. Yet some families around Oceana, the houses are not even completed yet, but will shortly have to choice to buy this property and move in. They will be in the same zone as found around this new site. The Navy wont stop them from moving in. The Navy will not require them to leave. The Navy wont even require the local government to make them go away. The Navy allows local governments the right to build, encroach, and condemn as they desire, but only around Oceana and Fentress. Your local government is not afforded that right/responsibility. The Navy is going to take that from your community and local government.

The Navy allows some to have choices and other are required to leave. Why does our Navy treat one group of folks differently then another simply because of where they live? Is this a proper course of action for our Navy? Why the two standards?

Posted by Timberlake (anonymous) on January 30, 2010 at 9:11 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by allsites (Matthew (Matt) Peeler) on January 30, 2010 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Treating folks differently is tiresome? Maybe to you, but those who are about to lose everything they own, I bet it is not.

When the people are actively engaged in a process and are speaking their mind, their voices must be acknowledged by those who make the decisions. If I were to shut up, as your implying, I would send a message of acceptance that I have agreed to the Navy's plan to take that which does not belong to them for a purpose that is not equally protected at all of the Navy's training sites. While some may feel that is tiresome to contemplate, I do not. Since our Navy wont talk to us, or come to our communities with an open invitation to talk with them, these BLOGs are the only public voice we have. Since the Navy does read them (they are quick to write rebuttal LTE on occacsions), this is the only way we can publicly talk to them. I know they wont answer, but they are hearing me. Many have the same thinking I do. I have the same thinking as many others.

The Navy wont be able to claim they did not know of any kind of opposition nor will they be able to claim that folks got "tired" of talking about this. That we started to accept this OLF in some form of broad local support through some form of apathy.

When the Navy stops this OLF NEPA process and starts a JSF NEPA process, then I probably will have nothing to say. Others will be screaming louder then I could when the viability of Oceana is finally publicly discussed and the Navy has to answer the various aspects of the BRAC process and how some of the findings were conviently ignored by the Navy, and VB LG in particular. This OLF hunt will be dead when the Navy has to explain the viability of Oceana and why that aspect was not included in this OLF hunt.

When the Navy is forced to give VB the same Zone 3 land acquisition strategy around Oceana or abandon the mission, the VB local government and the people will have a very difficult decision to make. The 75 dB DNL contour line will be much bigger impacting a whole lot more. The Strip will be questioned for its light pollution. Folks who have nothing to do with the Navy, or rely on Navy related jobs will question why they should lose their property and why not let the Navy move on. When the Navy is forced to address Oceana, a rural community and this OLF will be the least of their concerns. They will be defending Oceana from plane grabs from other communities that wish to host a MJB for the jobs it will provide. They will be able to justify their community will protect the mission much better and they will be right.

The Navy will have a tough decision, which of the new MJB proposals to pick. Oceana will be dead as a MJB, and the need for this OLF will die with it. At that point, a local community will desire to partner with the Navy and I will have nothing to say other then fair winds and following seas to the Navy and the community who gets the honor of partnering with the Navy as the new MJB for the east coast.

Posted by allsites (Matthew (Matt) Peeler) on January 30, 2010 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey timber,

Love you man! Really, I enjoy when folks speak their mind. I hope others do. I encourage it as it provides feedback. It is helpful to the overall process. The more people speaking, the more points of view are represented.

Keep it up, and thank you for your contributions to the discussion. The pen is mightier then the sword.

Your friend,

Allsites

Posted by mellowyellow (anonymous) on January 30, 2010 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you allsites for your comments! You are preforming a great service to the citizens of all 5 sites by taking your time to share your research and knowledge.
The Navy certainly is observing these articles and comments, and they should know that the vast majority of people in these sites feel the same as you. The Navy has been pursuing OLF for 10 years, talking out of both sides of their mouth, deceiving the public, fabricating studies, manipulating data and intimidating U.S. citizens.
Around Oceana, residents in APZ zones mearly received a letter asking if they would like to sell their property. That's it, if they wanted to sell, fine - if they did not want to sell, fine. The Navy should have asked that question first, then make a list of potential sites. And none of the 5 sites being "studied" now would be on that list!
Allsites, please keep posting comments!!

Posted by allsites (Matthew (Matt) Peeler) on January 31, 2010 at 12:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mellow,

I will endevour to honor your request! Maybe the Navy will accept some of my comments, such as come out and talk to the communities in an open forum where everyone has the chance to hear what they have to say. The methodology they engaged in earlier last year was to invite small groups of people and to give different information to the groups. This way they could say what they wanted and no one would be the wiser. Such as showing Oceana could perform FCLP missions in the dark and when I brought that up to them in their slides, they took that out of their slides.

Maybe they will start to put the minutes of these various meetings they have sponsored, such as the COA and Mason presentation meetings on their official website. Maybe they will also put up the two presentations and an explination as to why they removed the line that showed Oceana could help Fentress perform FCLPs, if the Navy simply wished to demonstrate that fact. I guess we shall never be told that information again. Only a handful of people ever saw that change.

The folks who attended the COA meeting have not been told by the Navy that line was removed. So those folks still realize that the Navy can use Oceana to perform FCLPs to help Fentress. However, the people at Mason were not shown that line, and the Navy did not have to show, or explain how is it that when Oceana does 2 45-minute FCLP blocks during the summer time, after 10 pm, that 40% of their 63% number is wiped out. It does not exist. That their number is now only 23%. They wont even talk about the 23%, but still insist on the 63% number.

Is this why the Navy does not wish to talk to the communities, because they do not wish to try to answer these kinds of questions? Questions like where is the siting study documentation that demonstrates how the 5 sites got the honor of being labeled as finalists. Talk about making studies meet the desired or predetermined outcome.

Forthright information exchange was promised by the Navy, I wonder why the Secretary of the Navy refuses to require his subordinates to support that promise he made. Sept 18, 2007, a spokesman for the Navy (who is the Secretary of the Navy) stated that robust dialog is essential to this process. That this process would be transparent. That the Navy would do deep dives of information. That the Navy would avoid the preception of sticking flags into the ground and daring people to knock them down. How many folks have been told to submit a FOIA for information from the Navy about aspects of this NEPA process? Is there open dialog between the people and the Navy?

It is now Jan 2010, and nothing is transparent, there are flags all over the place, and we have to knock each one down, just to have another one pop up someplace else. The Navy changes information to the point where no one knows the story. Now it is for realistic training when before it was capacity. What's gonna be the next line? Please Navy, talk to us.

Posted by RobertM (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don’t bother asking real questions of the Navy all you will receive is the talking points that are already in either the Notice of Intent or on their website. They stay on the talking points and do not answer the real questions.

What people can do is expose the failure of Virginia Beach. Expose the people on these boards and committees.

For instance who is Bob Matthias??

Notice he was present opposing the first OLF bill. Why?
Because he is a paid lobbyist who works for the Virginia Beach City Manager’s Office. He also was on the Technical Committee of the Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study.

Who is Joe Ferrera? Talk about the fox watching the hen house….

Joe Ferrara, a Cheltenham Square resident who is on the committee that oversees the buyout program, Accident Potential Zone 1 and Clear Zone acquisition plan in response to the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission’s 2005.

Joe Ferrara is also on Oceana Land Use Committee - http://www.yesoceana.com/about-oluc/rost...

Also look into House Bill 295 and ask why is the Executive Director of the Virginia National Defense Industrial Authority being added to the Oceana/Fentress Military Advisory Council.

Posted by allsites (Matthew (Matt) Peeler) on January 31, 2010 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RobertM, very interesting reading. I got to page 3 of 40 and found this tidbit "It is important to understand that acquisition of property to achieve land use conformance with this program will only occur with the consent of willing sellers.

This master plan has been prepared by direction of the City's Oceana Land Use Conformity Committee. It is intended to provide general land use policy guidance regarding the future use of property located within the Accident Potential Zone 1 and Clear Zones around NAS Oceana. The intended users of this master plan are the citizens of Virginia Beach, especially property owners in APZ-1 and Clear Zones; the business community, the U.S. Navy as well as elected and other officials at the local, state and federal levels."

This is a 40 page plan were the city is empowered to protect the CLEAR and APZ1 zones around Oceana. It apperently has the blessings of the Navy because the Navy is an intended user of this document.

Is this the Navy's partnership with VB LG even after years of encroachment and the VB LG thumbing the Navy? A 40 page plan were the emphisis is on willing sellers, and the existing rights of the individual shall not be taken by either the VB LG or the Navy. The Navy is a partner with this.

Now lets look at how the Navy intends to partner with the 2nd OLF community for the same mission.

# All residences within Noise Zone 3 will be purchased and residents will be required to relocate.
# Navy will consider purchase of non-residential property from willing sellers on an as-requested basis.
# Navy will acquire restrictive use easements on all property not purchased in fee-simple to prohibit incompatible use of the property.

This is the plan, it is not 40 pages, it was not developed with your local government's input, it was developed by the Navy. Noise Zone 3 encompasses the field, CLEAR, APZ1 and APZ2 plus additional lands.

The VB LG government plan only looks to willing sellers in the CLEAR and APZ1 and the Navy is OK with that. Again, why the two thought processes and what did the rural community do to warrent this action by our Navy?

Navy, stop the madness and start treating everyone uniformly. The standard your imposing on the rural community is the proper standard for the mission, completely enforce it first around Oceana/Fentress or scrap your OLF plans. If you start the JSF NEPA you have the chance to treat everyone uniformly. Might want to start that very soon.

Posted by RobertM (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Who is on VIRGINIA MILITARY ADVISORY COUNCIL? And what is their role in Virginia Beach and NAS Oceana?

Bob Crouch is the Vice Chair. Who is Bob Crouch? See for yourself… http://www.commonwealthpreparedness.virg...

Why is there a bill currently in the House adding the Executive Director of the Virginia National Defense Industrial Authority?

Why did Rear Admiral Anderson present an update about the OLF to the Virginia National Defense Industrial Authority on the Outlying Landing Field on October 15, 2008? http://www.vndia.org/pdf/VNDIA_Minutes_1...

All these boards/committees are designed to keep Oceana alive at any cost and to find 30,000 acres anywhere for an OLF. These boards are designed to take your land so that Oceana can continue to develop and redevelop land in the APZ zones. Keep Oceana and keep developing.

Follow the money…Who is Ocean Bay Homes, LLC? And Who is Murray Homes? These are the only two developers purchasing property from the City of Virginia Beach in the APZ zones for pennies on the dollar. Why? What is their connection?

Posted by RobertM (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Typo correction...

All these boards/committees are designed to keep Oceana alive at any cost and to find 30,000 acres anywhere for an OLF. These boards are designed to take your land so that VIRGINIA BEACH AND CHESAPEAKE can continue to develop and redevelop land in the APZ zones. Keep Oceana and keep developing.

Posted by allsites (Matthew (Matt) Peeler) on January 31, 2010 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

“Timeline (pg 35 from RobertM link)
May 2005 Joint Land Use Study policies adopted on May 10, 2005. The JLUS worked with other localities in Hampton Roads to reduce noise impacts on communities surrounding NAS Oceana, NALF Fentress, and Chambers Field.

August 2005 The BRAC order asked the City to condemn ALL incompatible development within APZ-1, including existing residential neighborhoods and incompatible businesses.

December 2005: The City adopted its APZ-1 Ordinance on December 20, 2005 In order to accomplish this mission the City developed an APZ-1 Use and Acquisition Program on December 20, 2005, that provided for the VOLUNTARY acquisition of qualifying property in order to reduce further encroachment of incompatible uses around NAS Oceana.

February 2006: Amendment of the APZ-1 Ordinance to include the Clear Zone.

January 2007: The City began purchase of properties within APZ-1 and the Clear Zone in accordance with the BRAC Order and subsequent state legislation that required the City to spend at least $15 million dollars annually to acquire incompatible use properties within the APZ-1/Clear Zone areas.

July 2007: At the end of the first fiscal year of the APZ-1 / Clear Zone Program the City had acquired 84 dwelling units that were already in existence or proposed for development, removing a total of 72 residential dwelling units. The City had also acquired roughly 2.5 acres of non-residential properties incompatible with AICUZ provisions for APZ-1.”

May 2005 item, yet none of the rural sites are included in this. I guess they figured this process really did not need a 2nd OLF or the inputs from a rural community that would host this. Did this item result in the HRJLUS?

Aug 2005, BRAC “ASKED” to condemn all… That was not a request, but a requirement. Nice how the VB LG changed that word around, which enables this entire 40 page document. One little word change. Similar to the Navy adding ALONE in their notice of intent, as in Fentress ALONE.

December 2005 only VOLUNTARY acquisition from willing sellers. No one is to be condemned for the mission.

Why does VB LG accept the BRAC requirement to spend the $15m, but does not recognize the roll back encroachment requirement? Strange, but here it is in print with the Navy’s apperent blessing.

The Navy gives the VB LG the reins on land conformity outside their MJB and has no intention of infringing upon that thinking to the scale they are proposing at a rural site. Always remember, the Navy has a record of decision to condemn 24,000+ acres of land in Washington County for the mission. The Navy demonstrates confusion in their land acquisition authority on a daily basis. Maybe it is time to start the JSF NEPA process so something will require the Navy to look at all their fields for the mission accomplishment ability, and not just one runway. There are way too many Navy introduced inconsistencies in this OLF NEPA process for it to continue.

Posted by RobertM (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Who is Mr. Bobby Rountree, NAS Oceana? Mr. Rountree sat on the Technical Committee for the final Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study.

I found minutes where Mr. Rountree tried to convince the city council to deny Christian Chapel Assembly of God an expansion permit 3/7/04. It was approved…read the dialogue…read item 7 of the minutes. http://www.vbgov.com/file_source/dept/pl...

Then in 2006 Mr. Rountree opposed this application in Chesapeake.. Etheridge Square APPLICANT: Emerald Lake Estates 1, Inc. AGENCY: Hassell & Folkes, P.C. PROPOSAL: A conditional zoning reclassification of 22.4 acres from A-1 Agriculture District to O&I Office & Institutional District (11.1 ac) & R-MF-1 Multi-family District (11.3 ac) within a 26.3 acre parcel. PROPOSED COMP LAND USE & DENSITY: Low Density multi-family with density not exceeding 16 units per acre. http://www.chesapeake.va.us/council/acti...

How can Kelley Stirling, the base’s spokeswoman say, Overall, the city’s actions have “produced a significant reduction in actual and potential incompatible residential land uses in these areas near NAS Oceana,”???

Posted by allsites (Matthew (Matt) Peeler) on January 31, 2010 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Navy and the Virginia Beach local government are in bed. As long as their agreements stay under those covers, I do not really care how the Navy and the VB LG act toward each other.

However, when their pillow talk impacts others and their sweetheart deals enables one community to be condemned so various communities in VB may continue to exist, that becomes a problem. The Navy listened to the pillow talk in 2000 with the original hunt for this OLF. To be good neighbors by mitigating noise for Hampton Roads, the Navy agreed to look outside HR for an OLF. That particular process concluded Oceana did not require an OLF, but I guess because of the pillow talk, the Navy decided to condemn up to 30,000 acres in Washington County anyways. Legally, they could do that, but was it a proper decision?

Before, it was just pillow talk, now the Navy is utilizing the HRLJUS and this master plan http://yesoceana.com/download.php?file=A... (this is a direct link to the plan, sorry for ref it earlier, but not providing a good link) to officially allow encroachment to continue and to hamper the mission. Because of this pillow talk agreement, the Navy has been in all these communities for close to 10 years with threats of condemnation.

Yet for at least these 10 years, the mission has been adversely impacted at these existing facilities and the Navy is not doing what they should or empowered to fix the problem. They would rather abandon portions of the mission and force someone else to take on these responsibilities. Is this so the pillow talk and sweetheart deals may continue?

Really, does a community wish to jump into that bed and slip under those covers? How will your community be treated? Will you be treated as equals? I bet not.

Will the VA GA finally sees this and supports this bill?

Posted by RobertM (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One more good read and I will stop for today.

Read item agenda #8-#12
Where was your representation?

http://www.vbgov.com/file_source/dept/pl...

Posted by jaybirdflew (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Timberlake needs to read and comprehend: the number one industry in VA is FARMING! Seems reasonable to use eminent domain to roll-back the encroachment on the military facilities. Would be money more efficiently spent than setting VA Beach law suits. Clearly, need to keep in mind that the property values of these VB homes are already devalued due to jet noise.

Posted by Timberlake (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jaybird...you definitely have comprehension problems. The subject was Barlow and the contradiction he made to his stand on the issue. You're way out in left field.