San Francisco votes to ban Blue Angels
 

Resolution to be heard in today's San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting:


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

:hulk:

No problem.

They should move to a more deserving city.

For the sake of reason they should not perform about settlements, and thus move to some abandoned or desert ground. If then visitors drive there to watch, okay - their risk. It should be obligatory, though, that insurances must not pay for anything in case something bad happens due to planes faling down from the air and into the crowds. Like smokers also should obligatory pay all by themselves for all costs and health problems cuased by their smoking.There is a reason why military practice grounds and gunnery ranges usually are kept strictly separate from urban and civilian areas. It is not feared so much that a tank, for example would intentionally fire into a settlement. But accidents, technical malfunctions, human errors - all that is something different, and thus military airshows should at leats be kept away from settlements and cities. It simply is unreasonable to the max to perform extreme air manouveurs in formation above the heads of a crowd, wether it be fighters, or air race planes. that's as if Formula One would allow people to stand right in the sandboxes at turns and corners. Instead they have built walls and fences and minimum distances between stands and tracks. I wonder why?

The Blue Angels do shows over INHABITED AREAS?

Holy ****. That's safe.

Actually, they fly over San Francisco bay, not the city itself. But little details like that don't mean anything to anti-military zealots.

The city has consistently made resolutions against the Uniformed Services. They voted against hosting the USS Iowa . . . and now this . . . I say the next time they need help from the Uniformed Services, someone just pass a resolution against their request . . . I'm sure they'd like that.

And as for our elected representatives of our Great State of California . . . I wish I could vote them out of office . . . Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi . . . :nope:

Reminds me of when the voted to end JROTC and ROTC programs within the City and County of San Francisco. :shifty:

I have never liked San Fran... waaaaaaaaaay too liberal for me. Damn hippies. :nope:

Actually, I think SF gives hippies elsewhere a bad name. :p

Maybe you shouldn't come out of your house - you might get hit by a falling meteor! :p

Watching the Blue Angels is safer than swimming in the ocean. Chances are that you will get eaten by a shark 1,000,000 times over vs. being killed by watching the Blue's airshow.

I understand that some people have a phobia of aircraft such as airliners, private aircraft, and even military jets flying over them (forgot the name of this particular phobia), but please let let the rest of us watch our air shows.

Thanks,

-S

So when are they going to ban cars?

Hear! Hear!

You're kidding, right? They've been moving in that direction for decades now. They're just being as subtle as possible about it.

Exactly. That is the most dangerous thing possible upon stepping outside your house.

I wonder if someone could even run a statistic on the possibility on getting killed by a Blue Angel F-18? I bet it would be impossible to calculate it would be so high an improbability.

-S

Me an anti-militaristic zealot? Maybe it is you being a militaristic zealot! ;)

Well, I am certainly guilty of not jubilating and shouting hiphip and hooray when military weapons are on parade. Having them is unfortunately a necessity, but never a reason for celebration (or must our human stupidity that leads us to mutually kill each other be celebrated today?) Waging a war, and even win it, may be a necessity sometimes as well, but still is no reason to celebrate, but for sadness (TaoTeKing). And if LaoTse is not you taste, and you happen to be Christian, eventually, try to imagine what Jesus would have to say on people parading with and celebrate toys of death, killing and destruction.

I'm just one of those old-fashioned people who don't believe in this stuff and medals and honours and parades, but think that a sword should be kept hidden if possible, and only be drawn blank if you are really intented to kill. Tools of war are no means of mass amusement. It is perverse and almost pathologic to think so.

Just my view on it.

Childhood memories...

"The Streets of San Francisco"
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...nfranscio2.jpghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...anfranscio.jpg

:)

That view is a modern liberalistic view, not old fasioned. Old fasioned loves this kind of stuff.

In case anyone forgot, this is the first generation in history where the men where not brought up and taught either to shoot a rifle or use a sword. Look how disrespectful we have become as a result!

-S