Heather R., you missed the whole point of the release. She lays it out very clearly what to expect with possible changes in the pipeline. Do you not see that the F35 will likely be a bust? A10s are here to stay for quite some time.

Canada might become the first country to pull out of the F-35 program

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/canada-might-become-first-country-184723584.html

And how would a third runway that doesn’t cause noise problems be connected to the existing runway/taxiway network? 15 minute taxi times?

While I agree with many Ms. Clegg’s points and appreciate her more practical stance, I take issue with the letter coming from her campaign. Of course in an election period you are going to take very thoughtful approach that appeals on some level to everyone. One can read her message and see support to protect the neighborhoods, and another reader can see support for F-35 and the message the noise is not really that bad as it has been in the past.

If she had any guts on the matter she would state on City Council letterhead her support for F-35 at Gowen Field, or not, not a warm fuzzy campaign, please vote for me notice.

It might sound a bit callous, but the airport’s been there since at least 1936. If you don’t want to hear the planes, don’t buy a house so close to it. I live off Broadway and the freeway. Seriously don’t know what all the noise fuss is about.

EDITOR NOTE–Given your logic, wouldn’t it stand to reason that ANG pilots serve at the direction of the commander? Will these guys leave their nation’s defense wanting just because they have to fly out of Mt. Home? We think not.

We heard a Colonel warn citizens of potential “under recruitment” if his men had to go to Mt. Home to fly supersonic jets instead of Boise. So much for the “volunteer force” if they will only serve under their own rules.

All comments about volunteer force and commutes are spot on.

But a question: How many ANG pilots are actually in the Boise unit? (I’m hazarding a wild guess that it’s way less than 100.)

Doesn’t it make more sense to go with the greater good? Inconvenience these pilots for the sake of 500 (minimum) or 3300 (I’m betting more realistic) homes staying habitable. (Let’s see…that would be probably 1500 residents.)

And for Pete’s sake, I’d think that pushing for $100 million in new runway when there are obviously more cost-effective ways to skin this cat (e.g., MHAFB) would be seen as what it is: lunacy.

J Smith: Thanks for calling BS on the “we had noise before” line.

While we continue to hear “move them to Mtn Home” we need to know if they are wanted by the air force at Mtn Home or even if Mtn Home can even handle the extra traffic. I have heard it cannot.

In my email to Mayor Bieter I pointed out that the air force will have to invest 10’s of millions to upgrade the infrastructure at Gown Field to handle a new aircraft. Why not put that investment into the runway a mile to the south?

With the proposed f-15 mission someone is going to need to cough up millions more to mitigate around 419 households. Households that would now be in a zone not suitable for residential use. We might even have to pay to sound proof schools outside of this noise contour, so that they can function.

Earlier this year the Governor, the Lt Governor made numerous press releases about supporting the military mission at Gown Field. He even created a “military advocacy task force” which has not been filled. google “gowen strong”

At a recent presentation by the airport concerning the Boise airport 150 noise study the number I heard was $60M. The economic impact of the air guard mission here was stated by air guard personnel as $254M annually. Spending $60M-$100M to preserve a $254M economic impact, seems like a good investment to me.

If the City, the State, the FAA and the air force want the f-15 here, in the long run the investment into the third runway is attainable and reasonable with funding from all parties. The third runway would also offer the option of expanding the mission(I think, not verified). The noise study showed that f-15’s at the third runway would have no impact on homes. At least none would be in the “not suitable for residential use” zone. I am sure their home out there that would be impacted by a change in flight patterns though.

Personally, if the Governor actually supports the mission as strongly as he stated earlier this year, they need to cough up some money.

For years now our legislature has championed property rights. They have vilified eminent domain, even limited its use through legislation. Here we have an issue of 419 home owners being displaced, property values threatened and state thinks that is okay.

I do not.

Push for the third runway, push hard and keep the mission here. Or watch this community get torn apart by litigation, anger and dissent. Imagine the Eagle Chevron station issue times 419.

Thanks, Dave Kangas, for a well reasoned analysis of the situation, without the name-calling all too prominent here.

A lot of comment here seems to miss the point that Gowen’s ANG mission is training. The occasional placement of MHAFB jets here have had a different mission, often preparing to deploy overseas, combat ready.

Of course, guys (and gals) usually fully employed in other jobs, are not gonna want to drive to Mountain Home; and we’re not just talking pilots—whole crews are involved.

It kinda amazes me, given all the hawkish, self-proclaimed patriots here, how many get all willy-nilly when it comes to sharing some of the civilian burden of our military preparedness.