Viewing page 45 of 93

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

by public improvements because, as pointed out by the Supreme Court of California, if the provision in the Constitution were taken literally it "would impose a severe burden on the public treasury and, in effect, place 'an embargo upon the creation of new and desirable roads'. ..."107 No highway, for example, could be built if there had to be compensation to every property owner along the entire course of the highway who could show that the value of his property for its current use was depreciated as a result of the building of the highway. Of course if a person's property adjoining a highway is acquired, or if access is closed, he is entitled to compensation.[108] The same problem arises in connection with the construction of schools, prisons, hospitals, and almost all other types of public improvements since they inevitably cause at least annoyance to some of the persons in the area.

In short, in the United States it is now established that the airport owner has a legal obligation to acquire at least property under the low-and-frequent-flight paths whose current use is substantially destroyed as a result thereof.

The foregoing discussion is not included in this paper to suggest that the noise abatement effort should be so restricted but rather to show the minimum required by law, and also to emphasize that the use of any property for which the airport is obligated to pay under the above-mentioned

41