For me it’s a close call, but I think it would be best for Madison if Truax Field did not end up hosting the U.S. Air Force’s new F-35 fighters.
Madison is on the Air Force’s short list of five cities that could host the new planes. We already have an F-16 fighter wing here, but those planes will be slowly phased out in favor of the F-35s. Supporters tout the 64 new jobs that will accompany the 20 aircraft and they say the new planes will solidify the future of the Madison base, which currently supports 1,650 jobs and has a $99 million annual economic impact.
But opponents focus on the noise. The draft environmental impact statement suggests that the F-35s will be louder than the F-16s and they are projected to make 27 percent more flights. There is a good deal of fuzziness and confusion about just how loud the new planes might be and under what circumstances the noise would be a real problem. The military’s own study says that 1,000 homes will experience noise levels that are “incompatible for residential use.” The city’s own review suggests that the number is closer to 1,200 homes. U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan and others have called for a live test of the planes, but the Air Force says that it can’t spare any of the new fighters for that purpose.
In the absence of any clarification on the noise concern, I think that, on balance, the opponents have the stronger argument.
I would feel differently if this were a question of national security. I don’t have any problem, as some of the opponents do, with the F-35s themselves. In fact, I believe America, for all of its misadventures, is still the most powerful force for freedom and democracy in a dangerous world. I want us to have a strong military. But since the Air Force itself is trying to decide between a handful of finalist locations it’s safe to assume that there isn’t one location with absolutely superior strategic benefits.
I also don’t think we should dismiss the jobs argument. Madison has an unfortunate and unappealing habit of snubbing its nose at jobs and development. Several dozen new good-paying jobs for the region is nothing to ignore.
And I don’t think it’s relevant that the impacted neighborhoods are mostly lower income. Should we care less about these impacts if the area was middle class or affluent? On the other hand, my near west side neighbors have been successful so far in pushing back against increased activity, including some more light and noise, from a high school stadium, annoyances that would pale in comparison to the F-35s. So, it’s not that I think we should care more about this simply because of the area’s demographics. I just don’t think these Truax neighbors should get any less consideration than Dudgeon-Monroe residents do.
It comes down to a question of weighing the costs and benefits. I don’t believe that the jobs are worth the potential for virtual destruction of entire neighborhoods and there doesn’t seem to be a program or a commitment of resources to mitigate the damage or to buy out the home owners. And, of course, any mitigation for houses would do nothing for a resident trying to enjoy a quiet evening in her backyard.
So, the concerns here aren’t just NIMBY overreactions. Though we do live in a town where the slightest neighborhood disruptions are too often portrayed as the end of the free world as we know it, frequent blasts of high-volume noise would make living under the flight patterns of these jets extremely unpleasant and it will likely substantially reduce home values.
The final decision on the location of the F-35s will be made by the secretary of the Air Force in February. While he needs to make his decision based primarily on issues of national security it would seem that, all other things being equal and assuming there aren’t similar concerns at at least one of the other locations, community interests would argue for bedding down these jets in some other city.
Maybe you agree. Maybe you don’t. You can register your thoughts with the Air Force until Sept. 27.
