Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It does not, because you are still trying to compare planes that are separated from your property by hundreds (thousands?) of feet of air to trains that would be running along the ground shared with your 100-foot postage stamp property.
Its a distinction without a difference, really. Increased, consolidated aircraft noise (just like increased railroad traffic) is akin to a governmental taking that requires just compensation vis-a-vis the 5th Amendment. Try reading US v. Causby, where the U.S. Supreme Court confirms my argument in that regard.
Quote:
We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that, if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land. See Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, 84 F.2d 755. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense -- by the erection of buildings and the like -- is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. We would not doubt that, if the United States erected an elevated railway over respondents' land at the precise altitude where its planes now fly, there would be a partial taking, even though none of the supports of the structure rested on the land. The reason is that there would be an intrusion so immediate and direct as to subtract from the owner's full enjoyment of the property and to limit his exploitation of it. While the owner does not in any physical manner occupy that stratum of airspace or make use of it in the conventional sense, he does use it in somewhat the same sense that space left between buildings for the purpose of light and air is used.
Quote:
We think that the landowner, as an incident to his ownership, has a claim to it, and that invasions of it are in the same category as invasions of the surface.
Sorry, how does a physical encroachment such as a rail line compare in any way with airplanes flying overhead? Or are these planes landing on your roof?
This is reality people. Does it really bring you great warm and fuzzies to know that real people, families, are subjected to this kind of abuse, in this nation? Don't forget Flint and the dozens of other failed municipalities. NextGen is for real, and so is its noise and air pollution.
This is reality people. Does it really bring you great warm and fuzzies to know that real people, families, are subjected to this kind of abuse, in this nation? Don't forget Flint and the dozens of other failed municipalities. NextGen is for real, and so is its noise and air pollution.
It is all across America. Everywhere Nextgen was implemented there are the same complaints. You would think by now the FAA would realize that this is a failed plan, that people do not, and should not have airplanes fly over thier neighborhoods every 30 seconds for 20 hours a day.
What is happening here in America, all they seem to care about is making profits, at OUR expense. We are US citizens, we pay taxes here, we as people should come first, not the FAA.
sorry, how does a physical encroachment such as a rail line compare in any way with airplanes flying overhead? Or are these planes landing on your roof?
Its a distinction without a difference, really. Increased, consolidated aircraft noise (just like increased railroad traffic) is akin to a governmental taking that requires just compensation vis-a-vis the 5th Amendment. Try reading US v. Causby, where the U.S. Supreme Court confirms my argument in that regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovi8
n o i s e
I'm sorry, no compelling argument has been made explaining how the sound of a train passing a few feet from your door even remotely compares to the noise of a plane hundreds or thousands of feet above. Or are we playing some kind of "all noise is the same" game?
I'm sorry, no compelling argument has been made explaining how the sound of a train passing a few feet from your door even remotely compares to the noise of a plane hundreds or thousands of feet above. Or are we playing some kind of "all noise is the same" game?
You are avoiding answering my question because if you agree that such activity would upset you, you undercut your whole argument but if you disagree, you will be seen as an obvious fraud without credibility.
You are avoiding answering my question because if you agree that such activity would upset you, you undercut your whole argument but if you disagree, you will be seen as an obvious fraud without credibility.
That's the strangest comment, it seemed like you were the one avoiding my question. Which you just did again in this reply.
Unless of course you're tacitly conceding that you believe all noise is the same as all other noise.
That's the strangest comment, it seemed like you were the one avoiding my question. Which you just did again in this reply.
Unless of course you're tacitly conceding that you believe all noise is the same as all other noise.
In both cases, the government has sanctioned a change that results in noise that affects the value and enjoyment of the property. Now try answering my question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.