Real Estate & Property Law

Owner Wins an Airport Case

By Alan Ackerman

A Cincinnati Enquirer article explained how difficult a time an owner had in obtaining just compensation.  Situations in which properties could be rezoned or used for a different use but for the contemplated airport action, are common throughout the country.  Airports know many years ahead of time which properties it desires to take.  If the Airport Authority influences the community in keeping properties down-zoned or down-zoning property, the negative effect on value should and will be disregarded by courts.

Cincinnati.com

The airport had originally wanted to pay Cecilia Baston less than $300,000 for the land, based on a valuation that considered the property only for residential use. But a jury originally ruled in 2005 that the land should have been valued for commercial and not residential use, therefore more than doubling the value.

Taliaferro had argued that by giving notice that the runway was coming as early as 1997, the airport had killed any chance for commercial or industrial use and therefore the land should be valued at that level.

An appeals court overturned the original verdict, saying Taliaferro unfairly prejudiced the jury by portraying the situation as 'a large wealthy entity running
roughshod over a poor widowed woman,' and that his arguments that the project killed development were incorrect.

But the Supreme Court ruled that the trial was not tainted by improper arguments and that the facts were in Baston's favor.

 

Full post as published by National Eminent Domain Blog on September 07, 2010 (boomark / email).