San Francisco votes to Ban the Blue Angels

[Smokey]

Although it is "the other team" (Navy) I think this would interest all.......
those looney lefties in San Francisco voted to ban the Blue Angels from flying over the city.........you have to read the entire resolution to see how really wacky these folks are.......

Resolution seeking a permanent halt to the annual
Blue Angels air show over the City of San Francisco.

Whereas, Pursuant to Environmental Code Section 101 of the City and County of San Francisco, all officers, boards, commissions and departments shall implement the Precautionary Principle in conducting the City and County affairs; and

WHEREAS, the Precautionary Principle requires public servants to take anticipatory action to prevent harm and through exploration and careful analysis select courses of action that present the least threat to all; and,

WHEREAS, The Blue Angels is an elite Navy exhibition squadron that tours the United States to perform air shows, involving dare devil maneuvers and tight flight; and,

WHEREAS, Blue Angels air shows have not occurred without incident or loss of life; and,

WHEREAS, Over the past 60 years, the air show has resulted in 26 fatalities, most recently on April 21, 2007 Beaufort County, South Carolina, when Blue Angel pilot Lt. Cmdr. Kevin J. Davis, crashed with his plane into several neighborhood homes, killing himself and injuring eight people on the ground; and,

WHEREAS, Each October, the Blue Angels performs an air show over the City of San Francisco as part of the Fleet Week; and,

WHEREAS, Based on the recent history and the style of their performance in which the slightest error by a pilot or a mechanical malfunction has been known to have disastrous effects, the Blue Angels air show poses an unwarranted risk to life and property in the densely-populated, urban environment of San Francisco; and,

WHEREAS, The Blue Angel F/A-18 Hornet jets make a considerable amount of noise pollution with volume rising to levels that exceed legal limits for the civilian community; and,

WHEREAS, When the aircraft fly their simulated strafing runs over the concrete and glass canyons of San Francisco's high-rise buildings, the volume is magnified to ear splitting and nerve shattering levels; and,

WHEREAS, San Francisco is a Sanctuary City for many immigrants from war torn countries and home to thousands of veterans of war who have experienced air bombardment and are at risk of being traumatized when the Blue Angels perform; and,

WHEREAS, The jets also terrorize small children, seniors, pets and local wildlife; and,

WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco has taken steps to contribute to the effort to stem global climate change and to avert the catastrophic consequences of air pollution, nevertheless, the Blue Angels spew tons of toxic exhaust during their flyovers; and,

WHEREAS, This is a time of under-supplies of crude oil and its byproducts, the F/A-18 Hornet wastes an inordinate amount of jet fuel; and,

WHEREAS, The Federal deficit and national debt have risen to levels never before imagined, and the people of San Francisco have suffered from Federal cuts to vital programs; and,

WHEREAS, The City pays for additional support from the police and fire departments while waiving the normal $25,000 fee to the military; now, therefore, be it

RESOLved, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco support the permanent halt to flyovers by the Blue Angels; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors call on Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Tom Lantos to use all resources at their disposal to bring a permanent halt to unnecessary flyovers by military aircraft.

Members of the San francisco Board of Supervisors
Below are the people to write

The Honorable Aaron Peskin
President
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-7450
Fax: 415-554-7454

Email: Aaron.Peskin@sfgov.org

The Honorable Michela Alioto-Pier
Member, District 2
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-7752
Fax: 415-554-7843

Email: Michela.Alioto-Pier@sfgov.org
The Honorable Tom Ammiano
Member, District 9
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-5144
Fax: 415-554-5163

Email: Tom.Ammiano@sfgov.org

The Honorable Chris Daly
Member, District 6
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-7970
Fax: 415-554-7974

Email: Chris.Daly@sfgov.org
The Honorable Bevan Dufty
Member, District 8
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-6968
Fax: 415-554-6909

Email: Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.org

The Honorable Sean Elsbernd
Member, District 7
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-6516
Fax: 415-554-6546

Email: Sean.Elsbernd@sfgov.org
The Honorable Ed Jew
Member, District 4
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-7460
Fax: 415-554-7432

Email: Ed.Jew@sfgov.org

The Honorable Sophie Maxwell
Member, District 10
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-7670
Fax: 415-554-7674

Email: Sophie.Maxwell@sfgov.org
The Honorable Jake McGoldrick
Member, District 1
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-7410
Fax: 415-554-7415

Email: Jake.McGoldrick@sfgov.org

The Honorable Ross Mirkarimi
Member, District 5
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-7630
Fax: 415-554-7634

Email: Ross.Mirkarimi@sfgov.org
The Honorable Gerardo Sandoval
Member, District 11
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415-554-6975
Fax: 415-554-6979

Email: Gerardo.Sandoval@sfgov.org

[RogueLeader]

Shall we start emailing en-mass to reverse this "cultured"- proposal. :angel:

[SARPilotNY]

If I remember, the SF City Council was the location and cause of the death of Harvey Milk, councilmember.  Maybe based on the above, they should prohibit the SF City Council!
Finstein and Boxer...where are you?

Where is Dirty Harry when you need him?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Won't work, Aaron.  San Francisco is the last vestige of Communism.  Eventually, once California is given back to Mexico, SF will be kept open as the Communism Museum to attract tourists.

[SARPilotNY]

Let's see...
Banned bottle water
Banned Blue Angels
Banned common sense

Have the banned CAP in SF?
They have banned recruiters, what's next?

[RiverAux]

WHEREAS, Blue Angels air shows have not occurred without incident or loss of life

Hmm, to me that reads as if they Blue Angels have never had a show without an incident or loss of life...

[jimmydeanno]

They've also banned JROTC and the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.

[O-Rex]

WHEREAS, This is a time of under-supplies of crude oil and its byproducts, the F/A-18 Hornet wastes an inordinate amount of jet fuel;

The same "inordinate amount" is used every day  so that the writers of of this post-hippie-counterculture balderdash can have he luxury of doing so in relative comfort and safety.

Six years ago, the ear-splitting nerve wracking level of noise was that of an American Icon being destroyed by 'enemies of the state.'

To date, SF never has to experience that, and they should thank the Blue Angel for it!!

[gallagheria]

well, I think the Solomon Amendment needs to be extended to local governments in this case. The Blue Angels are a recruiting tool, and if the city is going to ban them, they need, just like universities, to lose all public funds. Half the city would die just from losing their federally subsidized AIDS drugs. I say go for it. Any city like LA, Houston, SF, Chicago, and others that ignore federal laws or ban the military in any way, cut all federal funds.

I'd like to look at the data--I bet Uncle Sam wastes far more money in these cities from all the welfare and education subsidies than they collect in taxes from the urban population.

[Pylon]

Watch it with the personal jabs and other references outside of a professional's lexicon.  This is not a thread that should need to be locked.

[SARPilotNY]

Now that is the most stupid  thing I have ever heard of!  Just  think of what your saying.  If you cut off all that funding, those folks are going to have to move and some of them may show up in my town.  Than I will have to deal with them!  

[ZigZag911]

More evidence why it is called the "Left Coast"!

[RogueLeader]

^^ Burn. . . .
seriously, if they lost their funding, and moved elsewhere; I doubt all would move to a single place.  Therefore, they would be more easily out-weighed.

[Eagle400]

[sigh]... San Fran Sicko strikes again. 

[Mustang]

Have the banned CAP in SF?

Haven't, and can't; the CAP squadron in SF resides in a National Guard armory; the host battalion commander is a cadet alumnus of that squadron.

Though the city seems pretty-anti-military, they go to pretty substantial lengths to honor veterans. The War Memorial building across from city hall is host to the various veterans organizations (VFW, AL, even the AFA...and housed the SF CAP squadron for about a year after 9/11, when heightened security kept them from their armory home.

[CAP428]

This may be a dumb statement, but can they ban the Blue Angels?  I mean, I can see where air show organizers could choose not to book them, but I thought the Blue Angels' flights were designated military missions, not under the authority of local government?

[brasda91]

Blue Angels air shows have not occurred without incident or loss of life; and,

Over the past 60 years, the air show has resulted in 26 fatalities

the Blue Angels air show poses an unwarranted risk to life and property in the densely-populated, urban environment of San Francisco

How many people are murdered there every day??

[Eeyore]

Blue Angels air shows have not occurred without incident or loss of life; and,

Over the past 60 years, the air show has resulted in 26 fatalities

the Blue Angels air show poses an unwarranted risk to life and property in the densely-populated, urban environment of San Francisco

How many people are murdered there every day??

Crime rates for 2006 from fbi.gov

Population 746,085
Violent Crime 6,533
Murder 86
Forcible rape 154
Robbery 3,858
Aggravated assault 2,435
Property crime 36,992
Burglary 6,465
Larceny- theft 23,891
Motor vehicle theft 6,636
Arson 226

[SARMedTech]

Im working without a net here, but Im guessing that the Blue Angels are responsible for fewer air crash fatalities than the airline industry. Are they going to take the airport out of SF? Less pollution I would suppose, too? Ridi-frickin-diculous! I say we pass a CAP reg banning San Francisco. Even so, lets ease up on the comments about AIDS patients (says the CAP member working on a masters degree which includes infectious disease and pandemics).

[mdickinson]

I can see how some of the language in the resolution could be construed as "leftist": the parts about San Francisco being a sanctuary city for immigrants from war-torn lands; the concern about the amount of fuel used at a Blue Angels show and its effects on global warming; and the worry about how the noise will affect local pets ( ). So let's assume some of the various reasons given were intended to provoke. (The gibes about the federal deficit and national debt - would those would be considered conservative, or liberal?)

But let's ignore the partisan stuff for the moment and look for the real reasons that this body of eleven civic leaders chose to make this rule. Because in a politically diverse city such as SF, you don't get eleven people to agree on anything that's purely partisan - it has to have some real reasons behind it in order to get consensus. I think that for this resolution to have passed, local residents must have been lobbying for this for a long time. And not for partisan reasons, but for legitimate concerns.

I think there may be food for thought in this for those of us who feel strongly about protecting general aviation by stopping the closure of urban airports. (In my area, we've been losing about two airports per year for the past ten years. Part of the problem is rising property values, and part is the declining amount of GA operations, but a large part is the concern of local authorities over perceived noise and safety issues at airports located in thickly settled areas.


So if we ignore the partisan language, it looks like there are two "real" reasons for the resolution, both related to the Board of Supervisors' job description, which is to "take anticipatory action to prevent harm" to the city's residents.

1. Airshows featuring jet fighters doing formation flying are incredibly loud! So much that they probably shouldn't be conducted right over a major city, thereby turning the city's residents into a captive audience. They should probably be held in less populated areas, where the majority of the people who will hear the noise will be willing participants. (Can you imagine the guy who lives right next to an Air Force Base calling up his town councilman and complaining about the noise from the F-16s? Me neither. )

2. Airshow flying is, well, risky. It sometimes, though rarely, results in crashes. We've all seen the videos that get passed around - videos taken at airshows, where something goes wrong and a plane goes down. Thankfully, the pilots usually eject in time... and the broken airplane ends up hitting the ground with an explosion. No harm done, except to some insurance company's budget.  That seems like a reasonable risk to me... but is it really wise to hold an airshow right over a city? If something hits the ground, the possibility of collateral damage is infinitely higher than at a typical airshow location (sparsely populated area).

Don't get me wrong, I love going to airshows! - but WOW are they are loud! When I first read this, I thought "they hold an airshow right over a densely populated urban area? You've got to be kidding me!" But reading further, I gather this has been a regular part of SF's Fleet Week for years.

The lesson here may be: "if you make insane amounts of noise right over people's homes, year after year, they will eventually complain so hard to their local government that you'll lose your right to fly there."