The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 53-57

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 53... ... 54 tions to the complaint.542 The Port also emphasized that the interlocal agreement would address the tree-hazard issue in a comprehensive way, and that it had taken action to address the tree intrusions. In addition, the Port argued that the trees intruding into Part 77 airspace do not constitute a public nuisance: Part 77 does not constitute the minimum acceptable safety standards for airports and is not the same as the airport protection privileges covered by Revised Code of Washington Section 14.08.030.543 However, the court found that the trees did in fact violate the state statute and constitute a public nuisance, that the Port had a duty to top the trees, and that the court could in fact issue a writ of mandamus.544 The court then held that the Port had exercised its discretion by entering into agreements with the City that would address the tree issues, if implemented. Read the entire page →
From page 54... ... 55 question (see Subsection 4, Regulatory Takings and Exaction, infra) Read the entire page →
From page 55... ... 56 nize prescriptive easements as a defense to inverse condemnation claims? If so, can easements acquired by a predecessor in interest be asserted? Read the entire page →
From page 56... ... 57 exercise of airport zoning authority as a condition of state aid might prove useful. Read the entire page →
From page 57... ... 58 ordinances or state law requiring local approval of land acquisition by another jurisdiction, will be held federally preempted. In some cases, the only alternative is to seek a change in state law to allow the acquisition (Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport; O'Hare) Read the entire page →

From page 53...

... 54 tions to the complaint.542 The Port also emphasized that the interlocal agreement would address the tree-hazard issue in a comprehensive way, and that it had taken action to address the tree intrusions. In addition, the Port argued that the trees intruding into Part 77 airspace do not constitute a public nuisance: Part 77 does not constitute the minimum acceptable safety standards for airports and is not the same as the airport protection privileges covered by Revised Code of Washington Section 14.08.030.543 However, the court found that the trees did in fact violate the state statute and constitute a public nuisance, that the Port had a duty to top the trees, and that the court could in fact issue a writ of mandamus.544 The court then held that the Port had exercised its discretion by entering into agreements with the City that would address the tree issues, if implemented.

Read the entire page →

From page 54...

... 55 question (see Subsection 4, Regulatory Takings and Exaction, infra)

Read the entire page →

From page 55...

... 56 nize prescriptive easements as a defense to inverse condemnation claims? If so, can easements acquired by a predecessor in interest be asserted?

Read the entire page →

From page 56...

... 57 exercise of airport zoning authority as a condition of state aid might prove useful.

Read the entire page →

From page 57...

... 58 ordinances or state law requiring local approval of land acquisition by another jurisdiction, will be held federally preempted. In some cases, the only alternative is to seek a change in state law to allow the acquisition (Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport; O'Hare)

Read the entire page →

Key Terms

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.