You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Let's keep this simple-
If your neighborhood has MAC noise mitigation then you're already prepared for airport noise. In fact you *expected* overflights when you purchased your home.
If your neighborhood does NOT have MAC noise mitigation then you never bargained for this nor should you have to endure it.
I live in the latter type of neighborhood. The flight pattern implemented after the near miss has absolutely pummeled our homes and NONE of us are mitigated.
So I support the new plan because it puts the planes where they have been expected all along- where MAC has already made agreements with neighborhoods and homeowners.
steveminne- the airport is available for use by anyone in some way by everyon; particularly to those who can purchase a ticket and get on a plane- or who benefits careerwise or economically some way from the airport. So, the noise fall out really belongs to everyone. Further- there were some who promoted the idea new flight patterns would promote safety ... but for whom? The 125 passengers on the plane or the thousands of people living 'below' in high population/ high density housing who along with their homes would be decimated in the event of a disaster?
Why don't we let setting flight paths to the FAA instead of neighborhood activists, they can go back to measuring the height of grass in their neighbor's lawns.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks