Viewing page 44 of 93

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

of property for a public use without adequate compensation. In a series of about 25 cases (through 1965) it was held by the United States Supreme Court/101 and various other Federal as well as State Courts that, if an airport neighbor can prove low and frequent flights over his property that have resulted in complete, or at least substantial, deprivation of the current use of his property, he is entitled to have the airport owner acquire and pay the fair value of his property./102 The Federal Courts have consistently held that this applies only where the flights are over the property in question,/103 but the Courts of two States have held that if the other tests are met this is not necessary./104

In 26 States in the United States (but not in the United States Constitution itself) there are also provisions that the government may not even "damage" or "injure" a person's property by a public improvement without paying for the damage, or injury/105 In one State, Washington, the State Supreme Court has held that under such a State constitutional provision the property owner must be paid an amount equivalent to any decline in the market value of his property that he can show was caused by noise from aircraft./106

The Supreme Court of California, however, in a case involving a highway improvement, and most other States which have such constitutional provisions, have more severely limited the obligation of the State to pay for "damage" caused

40