There can be sound reasons to oppose flight-path changes.
As a resident of Edina, I feel the need to respond to Margaret McRaith's accusation that we are "poor in spirit" because we don't want "a little bit more airport noise" under the proposed shift in flight paths ("Flight paths, it seems, are very personal," Nov. 27).
When my husband and I were married in 1990, we lived in south Minneapolis. Plane traffic required conversations to cease on a regular basis. But we accepted this tradeoff in order to live in the city.
When we returned to the Twin Cities in 1998, we made an intentional decision to buy a house outside of Minneapolis solely to avoid the high-decibel plane traffic. The city lifestyle was no longer worth the airplane noise. We ended up buying a house in Edina, and while we still have plane traffic, we decided the noise level and frequency were acceptable.
My reason for explaining all of this is that we were aware of the plane noise when we purchased both homes, a crucial point that McRaith does not appreciate. We never would have bought our current home if it were under a primary plane path.
McRaith makes it clear that she was aware of the plane noise when she bought her Lake Nokomis home, so why am I selfish and mean-spirited if I am now unwilling to take some of her noise? I ask that she respect our choice of community as much as she expects us to pat her on the back for hers.
ERICA SCHMIEL, EDINA
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.