If this land is so precious to our national defense, why wasn't the land already owned by the federal government? Eminent domain is the uno reverse card here.
I don't think it's that simple: The US Air Force doesn't give a damn if some farmer buys up nearby land and uses it for farming. They do care if it's a foreign entity trying to use bulk land purchases to spy on or otherwise harm the United States or its people.
The real problem here is the lack of transparency in ownership of corporations in the United States. If corporations weren't allowed to buy--then keep--other corporations (instead of just absorbing all their assets) this wouldn't be a problem.
Rant: I don't think corporations should be allowed to sell brands that don't include the name of the corporation clearly marked on the packaging. Walmart's Equate products all say they're manufactured by and for Walmart right on the bottle/box/whatever. Every product should be like that. Any and all corporations that own a brand should be on the label. From the bottom all the way to the top. The whole child-parent tree should be present.
US Air force should have protocols to assume that any would be farmer buying land near a base is in fact a spy and operate accordingly. This sort of spycraft happens all the time, with intelligence agencies buying property next to each other in effort to eavesdrop.
My grandma used to own a house near a naval air station in Virginia Beach. Eventually, the Navy bought the house and surrounding farmland just as what I understand to be a jet bailing area (somebody who lives closer to there can probably correct me on this). They actually offered a fair amount of cash and my grandparents were able to negotiate a little above and nothing had to be seized, thankfully. I'm sad to hear that the house was never torn down afterwards though and likely has squatters in it. I wish they would have done that for my grandparents.
But for the land around Travis Air Force Base... Just seize it. If you're going to buy land around a military base and obscure the owners, that's a fair action. 2-3 seizures like this and the land around military bases will be untouchable in the future.
> I'm sad to hear that the house was never torn down afterwards though and likely has squatters in it. I wish they would have done that for my grandparents.
You’re sad that the government would not allow your grandparents to continue living in an area which is designated for plane crashes?
I lived in VB for over 20 years, family in the military and such. I’m very interested in where your grandparents house was. The house my parents bought in the early 90s would have the windows sounds like they were shattering when jets would break the sound barrier over the neighborhood. The sound of jets was almost consistent. It was a wild time. Over the years the jet noise has become less and less with the ever sprawling suburb of Virginia Beach (I don’t claim it to be a city because it doesn’t really have city vibes, it’s just one big suburb with lots of neighborhoods). There’s no more breaking of the sound barrier on a what seemed like a daily basis. The pilots have calmed down their maneuvers and changed locations to further out in the ocean.
North landing road. They had a blue vegetable stand outside, if you were familiar with the neighborhood.
I too remember covering my ears every time a jet flew overhead when I was a kid. They were loud!!
I'm more sad the navy didn't destroy the home after purchasing it because it's fallen into disrepair and there's nothing really keeping squatters out. The house and surrounding farm was designated for plane crashes many years after they purchased it.
Also, if this is a genuine risk to be concerned about (as was the Cuban Missile Crisis), then why[1] are similar concerns out of Russia "not objective/logical/valid"?
[1] No "correct by definition" memes, please. Imagine that you are writing code and thus have to be logical, exhaustively if you want to achieve correctness.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of statecraft and adversarial relationships. The point is to gain and maintain a strategic advantage, not to be maximally fair. We want to have capabilities and exert a level of control and influence that Russia is not also able to exert. When we try to prevent China from controlling popular media narratives, it's not a gotcha to say "ha, but the US does that, too." Yes, that is the entire point. We're trying to win, not to play fair. Which is also what they're trying to do.
> I think you misunderstand the purpose of statecraft and adversarial relationships. The point is to gain and maintain a strategic advantage, not to be maximally fair.
Oh, I understand: it is that Westerners believe that what is mandatory for us is optional for others.
> We want to have capabilities and exert a level of control and influence that Russia is not also able to exert.
Right: regional security for us, but not for you.
> When we try to prevent China from controlling popular media narratives, it's not a gotcha to say "ha, but the US does that, too."
Yes it is, because it illustrates hypocrisy, thus is a gotcha.
> Yes, that is the entire point. We're trying to win, not to play fair. Which is also what they're trying to do.
Right, but our politicians and media lie about what is going on, and lots of people believe them so now we have a mess on our hands.
The real problem here is the lack of transparency in ownership of corporations in the United States. If corporations weren't allowed to buy--then keep--other corporations (instead of just absorbing all their assets) this wouldn't be a problem.
Rant: I don't think corporations should be allowed to sell brands that don't include the name of the corporation clearly marked on the packaging. Walmart's Equate products all say they're manufactured by and for Walmart right on the bottle/box/whatever. Every product should be like that. Any and all corporations that own a brand should be on the label. From the bottom all the way to the top. The whole child-parent tree should be present.