A prominent factor in Mayor Schum's lengthy explanation of his vote on the proposed Mountainairre subdivision is "site location," or, in other words, concern for complaints about planes flying in the town's altered flight patterns. That really takes the cake.
To even suggest that these flight patterns have any effect as to how pilots fly in and out of Payson demonstrates that the Mayor is either grasping at straws since his original position on affordability was not well received or, worse yet, has no grasp of reality regarding flight patterns.
In reality, Mr. Mayor, at least 90 percent of all flights enter Payson from the south and exit Payson to the south. The simple fact is that most pilots prefer to fly around the other side of snowstorm mountain. This means that the vast majority of flights enter and exit over the subdivisions south of the golf course which, by the way, are not under any designated flight pattern.
When we have complained in the past, we have been told that flight patterns are not controlled by the town, but by the FAA. The town's designated flight patterns are mere suggestions, and most pilots treat them as such.
Consequently, the residential encroachment issue is purely a red-herring. If the mayor wants to vote down this project that's his business, but please don't try to sell us that the citizens of the town will ever have any real say about how, or whether, the airport will continue to operate.
If complaining does no good for citizens in upper-end homes that are not under designated flight patterns, how can one credibly suggest that complaints from new owners who buy a home near the airport will have any better chance of changing airport operations.
In the law, such complaints would be immediately dismissed on the grounds that the new owners have "come to the nuisance."
If any resident of Payson actually buys into the notion that Mountainairre is a legitimate threat to the continuing existence of the airport, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell!
Christopher M. O'Donnell, Payson