The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled in favor of homeowners near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, granting them the right to sue the City of Cleveland for damages stemming from the airport's expansion, according to Court News Ohio. Residents Susan Boggs and Fouad Rachid have contended that the expansion of the airport's runways has rendered their property near the flight path nearly uninhabitable.
Homeowners in the vicinity of the airport have experienced increased noise and pollution levels, along with recurring vibrations and debris fallouts due to the amplified air traffic — a substantial interference with their daily living conditions, Justice R. Patrick DeWine, writing for the Court majority, underscored the Ohio Constitution's mandate for the government to compensate for private property taken, stating through Court News Ohio, "It applies regardless of whether the property being taken is located in the jurisdiction doing the taking." The ruling is a reversal of a prior decision by the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which had determined that the plaintiffs lacked the grounds for a lawsuit because they resided outside Cleveland.
The lawsuit revolves around complaints from the homeowners that the 1999 runway expansion at Cleveland Hopkins significantly increased overflight noise and pollution, directly affecting their quality of life and reducing their property value. Although Cleveland had obtained easements from other landowners, Boggs had refused to sell her air rights to the city, leading to a legal impasse. In an arduous legal journey, Boggs had previously sought compensation through federal courts without success, prompting a remand to the state courts to address her state law claims; the latest Supreme Court judgment now paves the way for the homeowners to argue their case for an unconstitutional taking by the City of Cleveland.
While this decision does not guarantee a victory for the plaintiffs, Boggs and Rachid, it does offer them the opportunity to present their case in court, which could lead to compensation for the alleged intrusion on their property rights by airport operations the potential effects of the decision could reach beyond this individual case, setting a precedent for how municipal infrastructural expansions might be regulated in relation to surrounding private properties, and how victims of such expansions might seek redress, although the Supreme Court did not comment on the statute of limitations issue raised by Cleveland, directing the Eighth District to resolve it, should the homeowners overcome this hurdle, they will finally have the chance to pursue their takings claim in trial court.
