Scottsdale again.....

Just got this too ...

[ QUOTE ]

We received your letter to the editor. It is being considered for
publication in the Scottsdale Republic Opinions section, which is published every Monday through Saturday.
If you have any questions, please send an e-mail or call us at
602-XXX-XXXX.
Thank you,
Erica Roudebush
Editorial Asst.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, I can imagine the P/O'd folks right now ... maybe we should all do a celebatory "fly over" if it gets published! (evil, evil grin)
 
[ QUOTE ]
Just got this too ...

[ QUOTE ]

We received your letter to the editor. It is being considered for
publication in the Scottsdale Republic Opinions section, which is published every Monday through Saturday.
If you have any questions, please send an e-mail or call us at
602-XXX-XXXX.
Thank you,
Erica Roudebush
Editorial Asst.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, I can imagine the P/O'd folks right now ... maybe we should all do a celebatory "fly over" if it gets published! (evil, evil grin)

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, we could organize a "fight-back" campaign just as easily as they do a "noise complaint" campaign.
 
I'd love to take an old, non-hushkit 727-200 into KSDL. And then do a full power static run-up, "packs off", "green light required" full power takeoff with a nice slow climb.

Or maybe we can have Eagle get access to an early Learjet and do some touch and goes.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to take an old, non-hushkit 727-200 into KSDL. And then do a full power static run-up, "packs off", "green light required" full power takeoff with a nice slow climb.

Or maybe we can have Eagle get access to an early Learjet and do some touch and goes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are these new homes that just got approved supposed to be located?
 
And this is the mentality/intelligence of the folks who are complaining about noise/SDL.

[ QUOTE ]
Your editorial stated, "Nobody wants safety standards to deteriorate at Scottsdale Airport." Let me see, at a time when mother's milk, grandmas and baby's toys are all subject to scrutiny at airports, we have unidentified Marine F-18s landing at the Scottsdale Airport! Isn't there someone in the tower that can ask the pilots to identify themselves? Such a strange safety standard when the only weapon of mass destruction to be used against us has been aircraft. The only lower "safety standard" for the private sector would be UFOs landing without identification.
Lee B****
Cave Creek

[/ QUOTE ]

If they are unidentified how does he know they are marines or for that matter F-18s? ... my head hurts, physically hurts.
smirk.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
And this is the mentality/intelligence of the folks who are complaining about noise/SDL.

[ QUOTE ]
Your editorial stated, "Nobody wants safety standards to deteriorate at Scottsdale Airport." Let me see, at a time when mother's milk, grandmas and baby's toys are all subject to scrutiny at airports, we have unidentified Marine F-18s landing at the Scottsdale Airport! Isn't there someone in the tower that can ask the pilots to identify themselves? Such a strange safety standard when the only weapon of mass destruction to be used against us has been aircraft. The only lower "safety standard" for the private sector would be UFOs landing without identification.
Lee B****
Cave Creek

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT IS THE MAJOR MALFUNCTION OF THESE JACKASSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Well... I'm all for a fight-back campaign. In fact - if anyone wants one I made up t-shirts a while ago that kind of fit the situation. If anybody's interested pm me and I'll shoot you the URL. (if this is too close to an "Ad," Doug, just kill it)

I'm all for a fight-back campaign. Wouldn't be hard to some up with some posters, and get a hold of the media etc.

I think the houses are going in across the 101 from the arrival end of 21. That's the ony open land I know of around here.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Where are these new homes that just got approved supposed to be located?

[/ QUOTE ]

1.5nm off the approach end of the runway.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well... I'm all for a fight-back campaign. In fact - if anyone wants one I made up t-shirts a while ago that kind of fit the situation. If anybody's interested pm me and I'll shoot you the URL. (if this is too close to an "Ad," Doug, just kill it)

I'm all for a fight-back campaign. Wouldn't be hard to some up with some posters, and get a hold of the media etc.

I think the houses are going in across the 101 from the arrival end of 21. That's the ony open land I know of around here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. We should take some sort of lead and get a ball rolling. I'm sick and tired of this crap. AOPA FAILED, and look what happened to Meigs. SDL could very well be next. Not that I truthfully give two hoots for SDL and it's airport management, but the noise complainers are on my • list.

"We're trying to reduce noise", yet they still voted yes on the housing development. Can we say kickback? At least Ecton did ONE thing right by voting against this. More tap-dancing probably.
 
[ QUOTE ]
1.5nm off the approach end of the runway.

[/ QUOTE ]Doug, you said that was what, 450' AGL on a normal approach? Methinks a fight-back campaign should include a bunch of aircraft of varying noise levels flying around at 450' AGL to make sure the developers and city council members know EXACTLY what the noise levels are going to be like BEFORE they break ground.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Doug, you said that was what, 450' AGL on a normal approach? Methinks a fight-back campaign should include a bunch of aircraft of varying noise levels flying around at 450' AGL to make sure the developers and city council members know EXACTLY what the noise levels are going to be like BEFORE they break ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's basically presuming a 3:1 glideslope but I might be wrong.

In the last six months, this city council:

a. Approved a $60,000,000 taxpayer subsidy to build a Wal-Mart, about 4 miles from a pre-existing Wal Mart.
b. Attempted to rezone an area within a high-value area into industrial.
c. Fired the city attorney, but turned around and re-hired him as a third-party consultant.
d. Approved a taxpayer subsidy to build a high-rent condo complex on an irrigation ditch called "The Water Front" (??!??)
e. Is trying to repurchase a tract of land that they sold to a developer a year ago, at twice the price the developer originally paid for it when they bought it from the city (go figure)
f. Put up a 800 number for noise complaints of LOCAL CITIZENS (umm, last I checked, all of Scottsdale is a toll-free telephone call)

and a list of other things. Now one of the bozos is running for mayor. The funny part is, she lives down the block from me. Hahaha!

Maybe I'll pick up the mail and give her a piece of my mind on the walk back home!
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'll pick up the mail and give her a piece of my mind on the walk back home!

[/ QUOTE ]

Will you be employing the flaming-bag-of-doggy-doo form of free speech or the rotten-eggs-"artisitcally"-hurled-at-facade-of-house?
grin.gif
 
ok - so i saw Ecton's so called apology in the editorial section of today's Arizona Republic....

and decided to reply (to the "letters to the editor" page) - I've never done this before, so we'll see if it gets put in the paper or not... but here's what i said, if your interested...
___________________________________________________________
Councilmen Ecton & Council,

We understand you welcome all jets to Scottsdale Airport. Those planes are a big money maker for Scottsdale. We also understand you want to appease your constituents who are also homeowners under the airports landing area. However, your comment stating "The issue is not military. The issue is noise. We continuosly work with all pilots to find ways to reduce the noise impacts."

If I remember correctly, I believe the Scottsdale Airport was here first, before the homeowners... and if that is the case, as it is, you should be working with the homeowners, not the pilots. They (homeowners) are the ones that have to live with the noise. The homeowners under the landing area either knew or didn't know they were on the landing path to a important airport. If they didn't know - that's their bad - they should have done their research before buying there.

Also - If your so concerned about noise and the aircraft that lands at the airport... then WHY IN THE WORLD would you and the council even THINK of allowing another developer to build even MORE homes under the landing area and CLOSER to the airport landing strip? You may think that by having them ONLY sign a waiver to not SUE the developer or city is a good idea...but..you also need to have them sign a wavier to not complain!! AND how bout a waiver in case a jet has to unload some fuel during an emergency landing?

Those new homes, if developed a mile off of the approach to the landing strip, will be 450 feet from the bottom of the plane to the GROUND. If a two story house is approx. 30-50 feet tall, figure the bottom of the plane will be 400 feet from the roof of your house. Will your house shake and will it be even noisy'er - you betcha! Seems a bit too close for comfort, doncha think?

You really cannot deviate the height of a landing jet as it greatly compromises the safety of the landing, plane, it's pilots and passengers. I should know, I'm the wife of a major airline pilot who flies MD90's for a living. I would not want my husband's life compromised just because someone doesn't like the noise of the jet. We have jets going over our house too in Mcdowell Mtn Ranch but we don't complain because we knew they would be there when we bought in MMR - we did our research instead of depending on our realtor to tell us "all". They bought in that neighborhood - it's their problem - if they don't like it, they can sell and move elsewhere in Scottsdale. They NEVER should have been allowed to build those homes in the first place.

And speaking of complaints - WHY is there an 800 number for noise complaints? Wouldn't all of the complainers be within the 480 area code? Hmmmm...

My belief, if you don't vote and don't do your research - you have absolutely no right to complain about it.

Resident & current voter
Mrs. Taylor
 
This is what I sent the city council. It's not very good grammar and a little angry because the kid sitting next to me on the commute here was DRIVING ME BALLISTIC.

September 25, 2003


Dear Scottsdale City Council.

I have been a full-time resident of the city of Scottsdale since the spring of 2000 and I’m afraid that the beautiful city that I cheerfully discovered in the late 1980’s and happily moved over 2,000 miles to become a part of a decade later is sadly eroding and permanently changing from a recent rash of shockingly poor city council decision making.

I think the Los Arcos quagmire has already been beaten to death but I’d like to discuss the recent Scottsdale City Council decision to allow DC Ranch to expand a subdivision encroaching onto the clear zone of the Scottsdale Airpark.

Perhaps the first hint that this was a horrible, dangerous idea was the aviation subcommittee’s unanimous recommendation against the plat approval.

On a standard glidepath, one and one-half miles from the extended centerline of the airport an aircraft will be at an altitude of approximately 450 feet above ground level. In most cases an aircraft is required by regulation and simple standard procedure to be configured, stabilized and on an adequate descent profile two to three miles from the landing runway.

With heavier, and significantly louder turbojet aircraft, that distance increases to approximately three miles to five miles if not more depending on atmospheric and meteorological conditions. At this close distance, there isn’t allowable space to continuously maneuver the aircraft in order to comply with noise abatement procedures because the aircraft is experiencing it’s most vulnerable flight conditions: Low altitude, low airspeed and low maneuverability.

It’s tremendously difficult to believe that a city council, who on one hand embraces the importance of the “Airpark” as a vital economic engine for the city of Scottsdale and the surrounding area, is making a decision that may, and certainly will jeopardize the economic health of business and job growth (read: tax revenue for boondoggles such as Los Arcos).

Many corporations that are based in Scottsdale, particularly the airpark have located there in order to have easy accessibility to their corporate flight departments. The city generates revenue from fuel sales and there are many jobs closely married to the success (or failure) of the airpark.

Enabling the developer to build there, even with a signed “noise waiver” is nothing more than a false panacea. Once this subdivision is completed, with great certainty, I can guarantee that we’re going to have the mother of all lawsuits in an attempt to close the airport.

We’re going to face heartfelt, tearful testimony from parents frightened of the aircraft whizzing over their children’s soccer fields, angry citizens calling the toll-free complaint line about “wreckless hot dogging” pilots zooming low (albeit on a proper glidepath) and our elected officials jumping on the “Close the Scottsdale Airpark” bandwagon under the auspices of “Quiet Skies for our Children” or whatever other catchy emotional title the people give it.

If you feel that the citizens of Ironwood Village are upset, just wait for the citizens of this new subdivision of DC Ranch.

Ned O’Hearn is dead wrong. The council acted in a shockingly irresponsible fashion by approving the plat, both in terms of common sense and especially the tremendous degradation of both air and public safety in the area.

This tremendously degrades air safety, increases the amount of litigants in the inevitable “Let’s Close the Airport” lynch mob and is completely avoidable.

The honorable Mary Manross is horribly incorrect as well. It’s not too late to reverse a poor decision by the city council. When the first student pilot ends up in a resident’s backyard, I’m going to refer the media to the city council who thought that it was more important to appease a developer than to practice rational decision making.



Sincerely,

Douglas L. Taylor
N. Scottsdale Resident
 
Actually, it's there, just that everyone on the website already knows that!
smile.gif


Anyway, here's the article that got me so po'd on the flight to DFW:

DC Ranch expansion under flight path OK'd

Mike Rynearson/Scottsdale Republic


Thomas Ropp and Lesley Wright
The Arizona Republic
Sept. 25, 2003 12:00 AM


SCOTTSDALE - DC Ranch is expanding closer to the Scottsdale Airport despite warnings from critics who predict that the city is setting itself up for more aircraft noise complaints.

The Scottsdale City Council voted 5-2 late Tuesday to approve 318 more DC Ranch homes that would be built about 1.5 miles from the end of the airport's lone runway.

In July, the council approved 111 homes for the project, which eventually will cover 330 acres and consist of 600 units, including condominiums and custom homes.

"This is insane," Councilman Bob Littlefield said prior to the vote. "Does anybody with half a brain think these people (future DC Ranch residents) won't be down here in a year bitching about the airport?"

Littlefield and Councilman Wayne Ecton, both members of the council subcommittee on aviation, voted against the DC Ranch plat approvals.

Over the past year, both councilmen have fielded hundreds of aircraft noise complaints from residents who live near the airport.

Residents of Ironwood Village, who live further from the airport than the DC Ranch expansion, have been especially outspoken. Nick Luongo of Ironwood Village recently threatened to join an initiative to close the airport if the city didn't do more to keep planes from flying over his house.

Besides noise, there's also a question of safety. The homes would be built directly under the airport's traffic pattern, where planes turn for their final approach. At that point, large business jets are as low as 500 feet above ground.

David Watts, Scottsdale Airport's air traffic controller, said planes could be even lower.

"Student pilots have got the power down, and before you know it they're below 500 feet," Watts said.

When winds are calm, usually in the mornings, pilots will depart from the other end of the runway right over the new homes. Engine failures on takeoff do occur and Watts pointed out that planes are noisier on takeoff because they become airborne at full throttle.


Commission opposed


All seven members of the airport's advisory commission are opposed to the DC Ranch expansion, according to commission member Thomas Guilfoy.

At last week's subcommittee meeting, Littlefield suggested the city look into rescinding plat approval for the DC Ranch expansion. But that seems unlikely. Interim City Attorney Brad Woodford said that Scottsdale has a legal obligation to approve the project because applicant DMB Associates has fulfilled all the requirements.

"We're not acting irresponsibly," Councilman Ned O'Hearn said. "How would you feel if you had checked all the boxes and the city turned around and said 'No,' based on speculation about what could happen?"


Mayor supportive


Mayor Mary Manross added: "We are looking at reality. And reality says, the law says, we must approve these plats."

Eneas Kane, vice president and general counsel of DMB Associates, said he is pleased with the council's votes. He does not believe Scottsdale would ever rescind the plat approvals.

"I don't believe the city of Scottsdale would ever throw away 20 years of planning in that manner," Kane said.

One of the conditions of final plat approval was that the builders of DC Ranch inform potential buyers about the airport. At closing, buyers would sign a document, waiving their right to sue over aircraft noise.

"It's a stupid idea to build those homes in that spot no matter how many documents they sign," Littlefield said.
 
Very well written letter Doug, keep us posted as to any replies that you may get. This is issue is growing to be a huge problem in not only Scottsdale but all over the country. Would be residents need to do about a hundred times more research on the area that they are considering building a 300,000+ dollar house on. If you don't want to be bothered by the noise of aircraft, don't build your freakin house a mile off the runway!!

Matt
 
Response #1 (of six councilmen):

[/i]Good e-mail. As you probably know I voted against it.

Councilman Ecton[/i]
 
Yeah Ecton voted against it but he's the jack@$$ that doesn't want military boys stopping in on occasion.

I give SDL about 12 years before it's gone.

Unless aviation (read that as "we") start fighting back. There is no reason on earth why homes should be built 1.5nm from the end ofthe runway.
 
Back
Top