‘Right to Fly’ law would be proper

In August 1993, the Snohomish County Council passed Ordinance 93-040, “Right to Farm.” The ordinance seeks to reduce conflicts between farm and non-farm uses through notification of existing and new residents near farms of likely farm operations. When there is a transfer of real property that is within, next to or near farmland it must be disclosed that farming is an activity that goes on in farmland areas. It may cause inconveniences or discomforts for you including noise, odors, operating machinery or the storage of manure. These are acceptable and established agricultural activities that you acknowledge before you buy the property so you have no right to interfere with these activities later on or claim the activities a nuisance.

This same disclosure should be adapted as the “Right to Fly” by the County Council. An airfield covering 1,300 acres with three runways is likely to have aviation activity. If you are going to buy a house that is next to, within or adjacent to an airfield you too need to know the air field operations cause aviation activities that may annoy or be distracting such as hours of operations, noise, lights or aircraft testing. These normal and established functions of an airfield need to be restated before the transfer of property, leaving no room for buyers to later complain and blame the airport for somehow denying them a quality life.

It is time for the Paine Field populace to put up and shut up about their “quality of life” because they bought a house next to an airfield. They don’t live in a quiet neighborhood but they didn’t pay for a quiet neighborhood either. They bought houses misplaced in an industrial part of town. They are the odd man out, not the airfield. The County Council is obligated to protect the right to fly at Paine Field just as must as they protect the farmers’ right to farm.

Linda Mattison

Snohomish