Print
Email
Share
NIMBY on the OLF
June 30, 2009
"Not in my backyard" just took on official form in a restriction that Rep. Randy Forbes of Chesapeake got written into the defense spending bill working its way through Congress. It denies the Navy the right to build a practice landing field in any community that formally objects. The only way that objection could be overridden is if Congress passes a law specifically doing just that. A congressman from North Carolina took a more direct tack, adding a specific ban against an outlying landing field, or OLF, at two sites in his state the Navy is considering.
Contrast that with Sen. Jim Webb's problem-solving approach.
Webb added an amendment to the Senate version of the bill that requires the Navy to address local concerns, but doesn't give the locals a veto. Before selecting a location, the Navy would have to report to the Senate Armed Services Committee about local opposition and potential measures to mitigate local impact. As Webb put it, "It will enable our congressional committees to make more informed judgments to strike the right balance between important national security decisions and the views of local communities." Balance, not NIMBY. That's more like it.
With all the benefits, jobs and dollars Virginia reaps from the presence of the military in its borders, we should step up to welcome this critical operation, and find solutions for the legitimate local concerns.
The need for such a field is undeniable. Landing jets on the small, rocking deck of an aircraft carrier is a dangerous and difficult job, requiring great skill and allowing little margin of error. The safety of the pilots and carrier crew, and the strength of the critical cog in the nation's military machine, depend on practice, practice, practice.
The Navy needs a new place to practice. The east coast master jet base at Oceana in Virginia Beach is not suitable — there are too many neighbors, too much development, too many lights to simulate the challenge a pilot faces in landing on a speck in the middle of a dark sea. The existing OLF, in Chesapeake, is also compromised by development.
The Navy is trying to find a location near enough to Oceana to be operationally efficient but deep enough into rural territory that a minimum of people will be inconvenienced. The sites it has identified are in Surry, Sussex and Southampton counties in Virginia, and two in North Carolina.
Look at a map — specifically, at a Google map that shows the terrain around the sites — and the reasons why they're appropriate are obvious. They are in the middle of wide, open space, with little or no development nearby to compromise Navy flight operations and little or no development to be inconvenienced.
The argument of some OLF opponents comes down to "me first": I don't want to hear jets going over my house. But they have, of course, to go over something.
There are also tax issues, if large swaths of land are removed from local tax rolls. Surely this can be worked out, and Webb's approach specifically identifies it as an issue for the Navy to address.
Citizens should tell their representatives in Congress: Thanks for looking out for us, but let's look out for the big issue — national defense — and not get lost in the details, such as whether a jet flies over a farm or a golf course. Put the common good ahead of parochial interests.
In siting a new OLF, the Navy has to work with communities, but in the end, its job is to look out for national security, not local politics. Thank goodness.