QUOTE
Quote: rogueGOP "The adjacent property owners own the air rights above their respected properties. Traditionally one owned the air rights upward indefinitely. Recently the courts have allowed "reasonable interference" allowing for modern aircraft travel. However airport authorities must purchase air rights over adjacent properties to accommodate approach patterns for airtraffic".
You're really stretching this topic towards the bizarre. Please don't tell me that Heidi Wheaton is buying into this drivel.
Airports purchase trapezoidal shaped "safety zones" of property (adjacent to the runway ends) in order to allow FIXED WING aircraft an unobstructed approach to the runway. This has nothing to do with citizens' alleged "air rights" of the space above their residental property.
Air rights are a recent legal issue resulting from highrise building construction near airports being restricted by the federal government because of their close proximity to airport runway approach and landing corridors. Purely public traveling safety concerns, most notably, at the McCarren International Airport in Las Vegas.
Developers and local zoning boards lose, and the traveling public wins. That's why airports purchasing "safety zones" is justified with tax dollars in order to protect the National Air Transportation System of airports and travelers, as authorized by the Constitution.
The proposed private EH heliport hardly meets the critera to be considered an integral part of the National Air Transportation System. Unless you're looking for an excuse to justify Wheaton's trampling of private property rights.
