Huge crowd at Resolution 258's public hearing
Posted: Dec 28, 2009 10:55 PM PST
by Nick Delgado
Guam - It was a packed house at the Guam Legislature's Public Hearing Room this morning as dozens of people came out to testify in support of Resolution 258 that opposes the use of condemnation for the purpose of obtaining Guam lands for the military buildup.
While the Department of Defense currently possesses nearly 30% of land on the island, it was apparent by the emotional testimony provided today that there are many island residents who aren't just concerned about the impacts the Marines' relocation will have on our community, but to their livelihoods and land.
Emotions ran high during today's public hearing as residents expressed their frustration with the possibility of land condemnation, as well as their support for the resolution that would prevent the feds from taking their land. "I the landowners say I'm sorry, my land is not for sale, you need to respect that. If the government says the land is not available because it's committed for something else, they need to respect that. But they have to work together to find alternatives, too," said Senator Judi Guthertz.
She is the author of Resolution 258 and chaired today's hearing. The senator pointed out the areas the military plans to use for its main base as stated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Those areas which are currently non-DoD property include 680 acres of the former FAA housing area, 326 more acres in what's called the Harmon Annex, and the biggest piece of 921 acres of land along Route 15. All which are under private or GovGuam owners today.
"These plans are in the best interest of Americans in the states. When will our best interests be considered? You must consider our best interests now!" proclaimed GovGuam retiree Gloria Nelson.
She argued island leaders are not doing enough, and that due to its lack of unity it seems like leaders are willing to give away the future of our children to the highest bidder. "We cannot stand by idly as our cultural resources, our homes and the futures of our children are trampled upon, given away or sold to those who do not truly value it. We have the right to control our lands and our destinies for the sake of our children," she added.
Superior Court Judge Steven Unpingco objecting to the possibility of land condemnation spoke on his personal capacity as a landowner of the Sasayan Valley. Unpingco saying there is no need for the military to acquire non-Department of Defense land as he believes the military has sufficient land to accommodate the buildup. "DoD owns approximately 40,000 acres comprised of 27% of Guam's total land mass...there are serious public concerns on the proposed activity to conduct live fire training facility in the Sasayan Valley."
Vice-Speaker BJ Cruz, meanwhile, wants more in the community to voice their concerns with the buildup, especially any and all concerns they have with his measure which would have left the option of the Marines relocation up to the people of Guam. "All of you need to get up and tell them no! I am diametrically opposed to the buildup. It's not an issue of whether or not I want to deny any of you but Bill 66 is only as it relates to the CLTC and the ancestral lands that's the only thing we have control of."
General Manager of the Guam Racing Federation Henry Simpson who also testified is still waiting to find out when, and if military will condemn the land at the entire Guam International Raceway Park for a single shooting range. The park is CLTC property, and Simpson recalls the military telling him that the land would just be convenient.
He said, "I don't think they've done a very good job at looking at all their options. I think it should be a lot ore inconvenient they could live with the property they've got they could fulfill their mission with the property they've got and they could it and do it safely it may cost them more money it may not be as convenient for them but they could do it."
But there was one person, local businessman James Adkins, who showed more support for the military buildup. "I don't think anyone has come up with an alternative to the military coming here. If you have, I would love to hear it, because we have looked everywhere to find other businesses and industries to come here," he said.
But right after, residents expressed their disagreement with Adkins, as well as challenged the senators to act on the plans the military has moving forward.
Showing posts with label FAA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FAA. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Navy to fence off Tinian training sites
Navy to fence off Tinian training sites
Tuesday, 29 December 2009 04:07
by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff
THE proposed training sites on Tinian will be fenced to ensure public safety during exercise, according to the draft environmental impact statement.
A total of five security gates would be constructed as part of the proposed action. However, the draft study states that the location of security gates would “not vary with alternative.”
“There would be relatively the same potential characteristics for closure and availability under all action alternatives,” the draft statement said.
The military is enhancing three training facilities on Tinian in preparation for training activities of U.S. Marines who will be relocated from Okinawa to Guam.
Danger zones
A similar component of all three alternatives is the inclusion of surface danger zones; and the development of rifle known distance, automated combat pistol/multipurpose firearm qualification course, platoon battle course, and field firing live fire training ranges.
According to the impact statement, the primary difference among alternatives is the location and orientation of the firing ranges and “associated notional surface danger zones.”
Under the “alternative 1”—the preferred option—all four proposed ranges would be located in the south-central portion of the military lease area within the area delineated by 8th Avenue, 90th Street and Broadway.
Additionally, all alternative 1 live fire range footprints would partially overlay the Federation Aviation Administration mitigation area, and all associated danger zones would “extend over the FAA mitigation area, DoD ‘s “No Wildlife Disturbance” Mount Lasso escarpment area and a segment of Broadway.
The preferred alternative “was evaluated to ensure it met the purpose and need “to locate U.S. military forces within a timely response range to meet international agreement and treaty requirements and to fulfill U.S. national security policy requirements to provide mutual defense, deter aggression, and dissuade coercion in the Western Pacific Region.”
Awaiting ROD
The study states that the U.S Navy will not make its decision on a final alternative “until the Record of Decision is signed” at the conclusion of the National Environmental Policy Act process.
Alternative 2 proposes a northeast range alignment that avoids the FAA mitigation area and Mount Lasso escarpment area for its field firing range. Its associated danger zones extend over the ocean.
Out of all three proposals, alternative 3 proposes to situate three of four ranges at the military lease area’s southern boundary, which keeps three of four range footprints out of the FAA mitigation area. If implemented, layout plans of alternative 3 affect the least amount of surface area.
Tuesday, 29 December 2009 04:07
by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff
THE proposed training sites on Tinian will be fenced to ensure public safety during exercise, according to the draft environmental impact statement.
A total of five security gates would be constructed as part of the proposed action. However, the draft study states that the location of security gates would “not vary with alternative.”
“There would be relatively the same potential characteristics for closure and availability under all action alternatives,” the draft statement said.
The military is enhancing three training facilities on Tinian in preparation for training activities of U.S. Marines who will be relocated from Okinawa to Guam.
Danger zones
A similar component of all three alternatives is the inclusion of surface danger zones; and the development of rifle known distance, automated combat pistol/multipurpose firearm qualification course, platoon battle course, and field firing live fire training ranges.
According to the impact statement, the primary difference among alternatives is the location and orientation of the firing ranges and “associated notional surface danger zones.”
Under the “alternative 1”—the preferred option—all four proposed ranges would be located in the south-central portion of the military lease area within the area delineated by 8th Avenue, 90th Street and Broadway.
Additionally, all alternative 1 live fire range footprints would partially overlay the Federation Aviation Administration mitigation area, and all associated danger zones would “extend over the FAA mitigation area, DoD ‘s “No Wildlife Disturbance” Mount Lasso escarpment area and a segment of Broadway.
The preferred alternative “was evaluated to ensure it met the purpose and need “to locate U.S. military forces within a timely response range to meet international agreement and treaty requirements and to fulfill U.S. national security policy requirements to provide mutual defense, deter aggression, and dissuade coercion in the Western Pacific Region.”
Awaiting ROD
The study states that the U.S Navy will not make its decision on a final alternative “until the Record of Decision is signed” at the conclusion of the National Environmental Policy Act process.
Alternative 2 proposes a northeast range alignment that avoids the FAA mitigation area and Mount Lasso escarpment area for its field firing range. Its associated danger zones extend over the ocean.
Out of all three proposals, alternative 3 proposes to situate three of four ranges at the military lease area’s southern boundary, which keeps three of four range footprints out of the FAA mitigation area. If implemented, layout plans of alternative 3 affect the least amount of surface area.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Tiyan parkway controversy continues
Tiyan parkway controversy continues
Posted: Dec 21, 2009 9:32 PM PST
by Mindy Aguon
Guam - The members of the Tiyan neighborhood association aren't backing down on their efforts to ensure that access to their homes and the airport remains open to the public and that the road doesn't end up being built on their homes. The residents are calling on the airport to be a better neighbor.
The Tiyan Neighborhood Association contends there is no practical reason or basis to prohibit the public from using the new road saying it's apparent that the "FAA wants to take the airport back and restrict access to locals as though it was still military property.
Residents are extremely upset that the Government of Guam returned the land several years ago and now there's a possibility that they will have to give their land back so the government can build the Tiyan parkway.
Tiyan resident and Neighborhood Association member Leonard Calvo said, "They're going to put a road through a neighborhood. It's a neighborhood. People are living there. There's people living in the houses, kids are playing in the streets and now they want to put a major road through there. OK, that just doesn't make sense."
The Department of Public Works, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Guam International Airport Authority have been involved in biweekly meetings to determine where the parkway will be built. As we first reported GIAA officials had asked the FAA whether the parkway could be built on airport property.
The feds denied the request and went as far as saying the airport could not use its land or even its revenues to pay for the access road. The FAA is also seeking the closure of the current access road that runs through Tiyan connecting Route 8 with Route 10a.
"Basically," continued Calvo, "the FAA wants to federalize all the land up there and control everything and keep the local traffic off it."
The residents contend the airport is being an irresponsible neighbor by not insisting on the placement of the road. At this point DPW is looking at several options that include building the parkway along the Tiyan cliffline, which would result in homes being condemned as well as another plan for the road to run through the neighborhoods in Tiyan.
"You can't put a five-to-six lane major thoroughfare through a residential neighborhood; I wouldn't see it through Nimitz Estates. I wouldn't see it through Perezville. You don't see that anywhere," said Calvo, who added that the Neighborhood Association is pushing for the airport to be responsible neighbors and work out a compromise with the FAA so that residents can utilize the access road in Tiyan as well the more than 200,000 square feet of new facilities there.
"But really the solution is to put it through the airport property and have the minimal impact on the original landowners and the current residents and it won't really affect the tenants and the people who do business at the airport," he said.
But whether the airport and the FAA will agree on that solution remains to be seen as GIAA Executive Manager Carlos Salas has said he anticipates the issue to be resolved before the New Year or sometime next month.
Posted: Dec 21, 2009 9:32 PM PST
by Mindy Aguon
Guam - The members of the Tiyan neighborhood association aren't backing down on their efforts to ensure that access to their homes and the airport remains open to the public and that the road doesn't end up being built on their homes. The residents are calling on the airport to be a better neighbor.
The Tiyan Neighborhood Association contends there is no practical reason or basis to prohibit the public from using the new road saying it's apparent that the "FAA wants to take the airport back and restrict access to locals as though it was still military property.
Residents are extremely upset that the Government of Guam returned the land several years ago and now there's a possibility that they will have to give their land back so the government can build the Tiyan parkway.
Tiyan resident and Neighborhood Association member Leonard Calvo said, "They're going to put a road through a neighborhood. It's a neighborhood. People are living there. There's people living in the houses, kids are playing in the streets and now they want to put a major road through there. OK, that just doesn't make sense."
The Department of Public Works, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Guam International Airport Authority have been involved in biweekly meetings to determine where the parkway will be built. As we first reported GIAA officials had asked the FAA whether the parkway could be built on airport property.
The feds denied the request and went as far as saying the airport could not use its land or even its revenues to pay for the access road. The FAA is also seeking the closure of the current access road that runs through Tiyan connecting Route 8 with Route 10a.
"Basically," continued Calvo, "the FAA wants to federalize all the land up there and control everything and keep the local traffic off it."
The residents contend the airport is being an irresponsible neighbor by not insisting on the placement of the road. At this point DPW is looking at several options that include building the parkway along the Tiyan cliffline, which would result in homes being condemned as well as another plan for the road to run through the neighborhoods in Tiyan.
"You can't put a five-to-six lane major thoroughfare through a residential neighborhood; I wouldn't see it through Nimitz Estates. I wouldn't see it through Perezville. You don't see that anywhere," said Calvo, who added that the Neighborhood Association is pushing for the airport to be responsible neighbors and work out a compromise with the FAA so that residents can utilize the access road in Tiyan as well the more than 200,000 square feet of new facilities there.
"But really the solution is to put it through the airport property and have the minimal impact on the original landowners and the current residents and it won't really affect the tenants and the people who do business at the airport," he said.
But whether the airport and the FAA will agree on that solution remains to be seen as GIAA Executive Manager Carlos Salas has said he anticipates the issue to be resolved before the New Year or sometime next month.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Tiyan Landowners Uspet Over Parkway Plans
Tiyan Landowners Uspet Over Parkway Plans
Guam - Tiyan landowners are angry about the airport's plans to pave the new road called the Tiyan Parkway through some of their property.
In fact several Tiyan landowners have begun firing off letters to the AB Wonpat International Airport Authority Executive Manager Carlos Salas calling for his resignation.
Several Tiyan landowners have written letters to Salas asking him to "step down" as airport general manager if he is not up to the task of "representing the people of guam". These owners of Tiyan property are upset about the airports plans to take some of their property and use it for a road known as the tiyan parkway. The Federal Aviation Administration has been pushing this plan for the road and has also asserted that the public be denied access to the road. Department of Public Works directorLarry Perez says the road will be open to the public as it is part of DPW's 2030 transportation master plan. He adds that they have yet to make a decision on where exactly the road will run. There are three options for the new road and perez says his agency is working with both the airport and tiyan residents to pick the most viable one.
One of the options would place the road along the cliffside and would require the taking of local landowners property. Another option would place the road inland utilizing more of the airport's property. Perez says that the cliffside option which has angered Tiyan landowners may also be less viable because of the costs involved when constructing a road along a cliff.
Perez says all three of the options will run the road in and out of both airport and local landowners properties. Perez says they are now focussing on picking an option that both the airport and landowners can live with and one that is simply more feasible to construct.
Perez says that the issue of where to put the new Tiyan parkway road has to be resolved by April of 2010.
Written by :
Clynt Ridgell
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Tiyan Access Road May Be Closed by FAA
Tiyan residents infuriated at FAA
Dec 20, 2009
by Mindy Aguon
Guam - Tiyan residents have launched a letter campaign outraged by the Federal Aviation Administration's efforts to completely shut down public access through Tiyan. The airport is currently collaborating with the Guam Department of Public Works, the Federal Highway Administration and the FAA to find a win-win solution.
Dozens of Tiyan landowners put pen to paper, expressing their frustration in letters to Guam International Airport Authority Executive Manager Carlos Salas. The landowners are particularly upset about the FAA's insistence that the public be denied access to the new road. The feds have threatened to cut off federal funds unless the access road is closed.
The FAA also warned that GIAA cannot use airport revenues or property for the Tiyan parkway that is supposed to be built and completed by April 2012. The Tiyan Neighborhood Association contends there is no practical reason or basis to prohibit the public from using the new road, saying it's apparent that the "FAA wants to take the airport back and restrict access to locals as though it was still military property."
The Airport's executive manager couldn't detail what plans are in the works for the stalled Tiyan parkway project, but he confirms officials are in discussions to resolve the matter and make it a win-win for everyone. Said Salas, "We want to help and make sure there's public access as well. Our latest collaboration with Public Works and Federal Highway is that the airport is favorably looking at maybe even providing more land to make that possible."
At this point DPW, the FHA, the FAA, and the airport are working on the road alignment and determine where the parkway would be situated. While the FAA previously indicated that GIAA could not use any of its property for the access road, Salas says the airport may end up giving twenty-four acres of land. "Not a change of heart, but look at the parameters that you have to work within," he continued.
"And the parameters are this, that the airport property is strictly for airport use and there are other properties that are available or could be attainable for purposes of the roadway. So let's work with that and see what the airport can do on a give and take situation."
Salas says while discussions are ongoing, he expects the Tiyan parkway will run along East Sunset Boulevard and eventually connect to Route 8 further from south of its current location. He's hopeful an agreement will be reached before the end of the year or by January.
Dec 20, 2009
by Mindy Aguon
Guam - Tiyan residents have launched a letter campaign outraged by the Federal Aviation Administration's efforts to completely shut down public access through Tiyan. The airport is currently collaborating with the Guam Department of Public Works, the Federal Highway Administration and the FAA to find a win-win solution.
Dozens of Tiyan landowners put pen to paper, expressing their frustration in letters to Guam International Airport Authority Executive Manager Carlos Salas. The landowners are particularly upset about the FAA's insistence that the public be denied access to the new road. The feds have threatened to cut off federal funds unless the access road is closed.
The FAA also warned that GIAA cannot use airport revenues or property for the Tiyan parkway that is supposed to be built and completed by April 2012. The Tiyan Neighborhood Association contends there is no practical reason or basis to prohibit the public from using the new road, saying it's apparent that the "FAA wants to take the airport back and restrict access to locals as though it was still military property."
The Airport's executive manager couldn't detail what plans are in the works for the stalled Tiyan parkway project, but he confirms officials are in discussions to resolve the matter and make it a win-win for everyone. Said Salas, "We want to help and make sure there's public access as well. Our latest collaboration with Public Works and Federal Highway is that the airport is favorably looking at maybe even providing more land to make that possible."
At this point DPW, the FHA, the FAA, and the airport are working on the road alignment and determine where the parkway would be situated. While the FAA previously indicated that GIAA could not use any of its property for the access road, Salas says the airport may end up giving twenty-four acres of land. "Not a change of heart, but look at the parameters that you have to work within," he continued.
"And the parameters are this, that the airport property is strictly for airport use and there are other properties that are available or could be attainable for purposes of the roadway. So let's work with that and see what the airport can do on a give and take situation."
Salas says while discussions are ongoing, he expects the Tiyan parkway will run along East Sunset Boulevard and eventually connect to Route 8 further from south of its current location. He's hopeful an agreement will be reached before the end of the year or by January.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Land conflict
Land conflict
Tuesday, 15 December 2009 00:42
by Therese Hart | Variety News Staff
Guthertz proposes alternative sites for military use
MOST of the conflicts between Guam and the federal government historically center on land issues as exemplified in the draft environmental impact statement, Sen. Judi Guthertz said yesterday.
In a speech before the Rotary Club of Northern Guam at the Hyatt Regency Guam, Guthertz discussed the military buildup and the possible taking of lands along with Resolution 258, which addresses the land issue.
“All the information we’ve been looking over in the [draft study] tells us that, once again, our limited land on this small island is the root of our difficulties with the federal government,” said Guthertz, chair of the legislative committee on military buildup.
A promise broken is not easily forgotten and retired Maj. Gen. David Bice has yet to respond to Guthertz’s letter regarding his former remarks stating that nonmilitary lands will not be condemned.
When Bice first visited Guam in April 2007 for the initial scoping meetings, he announced that the military would remain within its current land holdings and would not need any additional land for the buildup.
Additional lands
Now, the draft study states that the military wants additional lands including the former Federal Aviation Authority housing area of 680 acres and a large amount of land, either 1,129 or 921 acres in two alternatives, east of the back road to Andersen in the Marbo area.
One alternative involves both private and public lands while the other alternative appears to avoid private land.
“Major General Bice also reassured me personally that condemnation, a.k.a eminent domain, would not be used as an option for acquiring any additional land. Now, the draft EIS declares that it will be obtained by ‘longterm lease or condemnation,’” Guthertz said.
“The general’s assistant, Col. John Jackson, played coy with Ray Gibson about this matter, saying, ‘everything is on the table.’ Several weeks ago, we wrote to General Bice asking for clarification, but there’s been no response to date,” Guthertz said, warning that “the federal government’s power of eminent domain is absolute.”
Alternatives
Guthertz proposed some alternatives that do not require acquisition of additional land and would allow the military to remain within its current footprint.
“What about the former FAA housing area? In my opinion this is merely catering to the military desire to be tidy, filling in a separation gap between the main area at NCTS and South Finegayan,” Guthertz said.
“There is no national security need for that land. Why not merely give them access to a roadway through that area to connect the two base areas, without having to go out onto the main road? In doing so, we can demand that access is finally settled for the Castro family on the northern coast,” she added.
Guthertz said the military could transport the Marines back and forth to Tinian. “The federal government in the covenant, back in 1976, obtained two-thirds of Tinian, 21,000 acres under a longterm lease to be a fallback for our bases further west in the Philippines or Okinawa. Of course, I do not want to second guess the good people of Tinian and the CNMI. This is an option that the military would have to negotiate with them,” said Guthertz.
Wildlife protection
“The military can protect the wildlife at Ritidian while firing out toward the ocean along the north coast of our island. For both the Ritidian and Tarague locations, no one fishes in the Rota channel. The currents are just too rough,” said Guthertz.
Guthertz said the military does not need to take or condemn any more land and can fulfill its national security needs without having another land grab.
“Our only course as a community is to voice as strong an opposition as possible to such land takings. We have to have a united effort to get the military to realize that it will significantly damage or eliminate its welcome mat if they exercise eminent domain,” Guthertz said.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009 00:42
by Therese Hart | Variety News Staff
Guthertz proposes alternative sites for military use
MOST of the conflicts between Guam and the federal government historically center on land issues as exemplified in the draft environmental impact statement, Sen. Judi Guthertz said yesterday.
In a speech before the Rotary Club of Northern Guam at the Hyatt Regency Guam, Guthertz discussed the military buildup and the possible taking of lands along with Resolution 258, which addresses the land issue.
“All the information we’ve been looking over in the [draft study] tells us that, once again, our limited land on this small island is the root of our difficulties with the federal government,” said Guthertz, chair of the legislative committee on military buildup.
A promise broken is not easily forgotten and retired Maj. Gen. David Bice has yet to respond to Guthertz’s letter regarding his former remarks stating that nonmilitary lands will not be condemned.
When Bice first visited Guam in April 2007 for the initial scoping meetings, he announced that the military would remain within its current land holdings and would not need any additional land for the buildup.
Additional lands
Now, the draft study states that the military wants additional lands including the former Federal Aviation Authority housing area of 680 acres and a large amount of land, either 1,129 or 921 acres in two alternatives, east of the back road to Andersen in the Marbo area.
One alternative involves both private and public lands while the other alternative appears to avoid private land.
“Major General Bice also reassured me personally that condemnation, a.k.a eminent domain, would not be used as an option for acquiring any additional land. Now, the draft EIS declares that it will be obtained by ‘longterm lease or condemnation,’” Guthertz said.
“The general’s assistant, Col. John Jackson, played coy with Ray Gibson about this matter, saying, ‘everything is on the table.’ Several weeks ago, we wrote to General Bice asking for clarification, but there’s been no response to date,” Guthertz said, warning that “the federal government’s power of eminent domain is absolute.”
Alternatives
Guthertz proposed some alternatives that do not require acquisition of additional land and would allow the military to remain within its current footprint.
“What about the former FAA housing area? In my opinion this is merely catering to the military desire to be tidy, filling in a separation gap between the main area at NCTS and South Finegayan,” Guthertz said.
“There is no national security need for that land. Why not merely give them access to a roadway through that area to connect the two base areas, without having to go out onto the main road? In doing so, we can demand that access is finally settled for the Castro family on the northern coast,” she added.
Guthertz said the military could transport the Marines back and forth to Tinian. “The federal government in the covenant, back in 1976, obtained two-thirds of Tinian, 21,000 acres under a longterm lease to be a fallback for our bases further west in the Philippines or Okinawa. Of course, I do not want to second guess the good people of Tinian and the CNMI. This is an option that the military would have to negotiate with them,” said Guthertz.
Wildlife protection
“The military can protect the wildlife at Ritidian while firing out toward the ocean along the north coast of our island. For both the Ritidian and Tarague locations, no one fishes in the Rota channel. The currents are just too rough,” said Guthertz.
Guthertz said the military does not need to take or condemn any more land and can fulfill its national security needs without having another land grab.
“Our only course as a community is to voice as strong an opposition as possible to such land takings. We have to have a united effort to get the military to realize that it will significantly damage or eliminate its welcome mat if they exercise eminent domain,” Guthertz said.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Guam Governor: "I Think It Was Strategic On Their Part"
Guam Governor: "I Think It Was Strategic On Their Part"
Navy's Sudden Land Return Sparks Speculation About Unfair Trade
By Jeff Marchesseault
GUAM - As the Defense Minister of Japan tours Guam to see for himself whether the island is big enough to absorb a U.S. air base from Okinawa, the Government of Guam is facing speculation about a possible uneven land trade that could conceivably be offered by the U.S. Department of Defense.
"I think it was a strategic move on their part," said Governor Camacho.
After flying into Guam last night, Mr. Kitazawa met with Governor Camacho at Adelup today, then set off with his entourage to tour military installations, saying he believes Guam is suitable for hosting yet another base.
"I think he's going on a helicopter tour," said Camacho.
But after telling Minister Kitizawa that Guam is not an option to replace Futenma Air Base in Okinawa, the Governor announced the Navy will return excess lands to Guam.
Camacho was briefed on the matter by Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and the Environment Roger Natsuhara.
The Governor's announcement raises questions about whether the Department of Defense is posturing to swap land to support the buildup.
The Governor himself said he thinks it's a strategic move on the Navy's part. But it wouldn't be a clean trade. The land in question, behind former FAA housing, was designated for return over a decade ago during the last round of Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC) activities back in the mid-1990's.
U.S. Navy To Return Land To The Government Of Guam
December 8, 2009 – Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo today announced that the U.S. Navy has returned a parcel of land in Finegayan to the Government of Guam. The parcel of land, a total of 450 acres referred to as Guam Land Use Plan (GLUP) 77, is bordered on the west by the Philippine Sea, the north by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) property, the east by Finegayan South, and the south by Harmon. Governor Felix Camacho was also notified of the release of lands by the Honorable Roger Natsuhara, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment. The Navy declared the lands to be in excess and the General Services Administration (GSA) recently approved the transfer of the GLUP 77 land back to the Government of Guam.
"I was briefed by Acting Secretary Natsuhara that the U.S. Navy will be returning the excess land to the Government of Guam," Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo said today. "The return of these lands fulfills an obligation by the U.S. Navy to the Government of Guam. I believe this gesture shows goodwill on the part of the Navy. There are land issues that have been raised in the draft environmental impact statement and we hope that the Governor, the Legislature and our community will be able to find acceptable solutions to these challenges."
Navy's Sudden Land Return Sparks Speculation About Unfair Trade
By Jeff Marchesseault
GUAM - As the Defense Minister of Japan tours Guam to see for himself whether the island is big enough to absorb a U.S. air base from Okinawa, the Government of Guam is facing speculation about a possible uneven land trade that could conceivably be offered by the U.S. Department of Defense.
"I think it was a strategic move on their part," said Governor Camacho.
After flying into Guam last night, Mr. Kitazawa met with Governor Camacho at Adelup today, then set off with his entourage to tour military installations, saying he believes Guam is suitable for hosting yet another base.
"I think he's going on a helicopter tour," said Camacho.
But after telling Minister Kitizawa that Guam is not an option to replace Futenma Air Base in Okinawa, the Governor announced the Navy will return excess lands to Guam.
Camacho was briefed on the matter by Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and the Environment Roger Natsuhara.
The Governor's announcement raises questions about whether the Department of Defense is posturing to swap land to support the buildup.
The Governor himself said he thinks it's a strategic move on the Navy's part. But it wouldn't be a clean trade. The land in question, behind former FAA housing, was designated for return over a decade ago during the last round of Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC) activities back in the mid-1990's.
U.S. Navy To Return Land To The Government Of Guam
December 8, 2009 – Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo today announced that the U.S. Navy has returned a parcel of land in Finegayan to the Government of Guam. The parcel of land, a total of 450 acres referred to as Guam Land Use Plan (GLUP) 77, is bordered on the west by the Philippine Sea, the north by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) property, the east by Finegayan South, and the south by Harmon. Governor Felix Camacho was also notified of the release of lands by the Honorable Roger Natsuhara, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment. The Navy declared the lands to be in excess and the General Services Administration (GSA) recently approved the transfer of the GLUP 77 land back to the Government of Guam.
"I was briefed by Acting Secretary Natsuhara that the U.S. Navy will be returning the excess land to the Government of Guam," Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo said today. "The return of these lands fulfills an obligation by the U.S. Navy to the Government of Guam. I believe this gesture shows goodwill on the part of the Navy. There are land issues that have been raised in the draft environmental impact statement and we hope that the Governor, the Legislature and our community will be able to find acceptable solutions to these challenges."
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Military eyes more Guam air space
Military eyes more Guam air space
Wednesday, 25 November 2009 01:45
by Zita Y. Taitano | Variety News Staff
THE use of air space and radar operation sites on Guam needed for the proposed military buildup are detailed in the thick draft environmental impact statement still undergoing extensive scrutiny by residents and government officials.
Chapter 7 of volume five in the ten part document outlines the Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force as well as its role and needs. The probable consequences of airspace in relation to alternative sites where the task force will be situated indicates a preference for the northwest area of Guam.
The impact of controlled and uncontrolled airspace was analyzed to determine if the missile defense group would need what is referred to as “special use airspace” or whether temporary flight restrictions should be introduced for the area.
Another aspect explored was the presentation of “an obstruction to air navigation.” That obstruction, however, was not described in detail in the exhaustive report.
It should be noted that in the chapter, however it was clear special use airspace would first have to come into compliance with existing policies and procedures of the Federal Aviation Administration. This would include training and certification periods the FAA would process in order for the utilization of air space at the selected site.
It was further noted in the report that restricted areas would have no impact with the flight patterns or operations at the Guam International Airport or at Andersen Air Force Base.
A location on the northwest shore of Guam, near Ritidian point and Jinapsan Beach, where a number of local families still own property, is the location the impact statement designates as a “preferred site” for special use airspace that would include a high altitude missile system and radar array.
According to the report, this area would also have no impact on GIAA nor Andersen and provide operations that would continue to be subject to air traffic control clearances and instructions.
The impact report further states any hazardous air training activities would be communicated to commercial airlines and general aviation as per regulations published by the FAA.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009 01:45
by Zita Y. Taitano | Variety News Staff
THE use of air space and radar operation sites on Guam needed for the proposed military buildup are detailed in the thick draft environmental impact statement still undergoing extensive scrutiny by residents and government officials.
Chapter 7 of volume five in the ten part document outlines the Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force as well as its role and needs. The probable consequences of airspace in relation to alternative sites where the task force will be situated indicates a preference for the northwest area of Guam.
The impact of controlled and uncontrolled airspace was analyzed to determine if the missile defense group would need what is referred to as “special use airspace” or whether temporary flight restrictions should be introduced for the area.
Another aspect explored was the presentation of “an obstruction to air navigation.” That obstruction, however, was not described in detail in the exhaustive report.
It should be noted that in the chapter, however it was clear special use airspace would first have to come into compliance with existing policies and procedures of the Federal Aviation Administration. This would include training and certification periods the FAA would process in order for the utilization of air space at the selected site.
It was further noted in the report that restricted areas would have no impact with the flight patterns or operations at the Guam International Airport or at Andersen Air Force Base.
A location on the northwest shore of Guam, near Ritidian point and Jinapsan Beach, where a number of local families still own property, is the location the impact statement designates as a “preferred site” for special use airspace that would include a high altitude missile system and radar array.
According to the report, this area would also have no impact on GIAA nor Andersen and provide operations that would continue to be subject to air traffic control clearances and instructions.
The impact report further states any hazardous air training activities would be communicated to commercial airlines and general aviation as per regulations published by the FAA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)