Meigs Field gone without warning

The Chicago Sun-Times ^ | April 1, 2003 | Bob Herguth and Dave McKinney

[Writer1]

In a stunning move decried by critics as "the epitome of arrogance," Mayor Daley closed down Meigs Field by tearing up its only runway--without warning pilots, air traffic controllers or many of his political allies.

A combative mayor said he was staving off possible terrorist attacks from the skies over the Loop, and that the quick action was necessary to avoid a protracted battle with Meigs supporters.

But to those supporters, Daley's motivation was clear: For years he has wanted the 80 or so acres for a park, and now he's shamelessly using these anxious times as an excuse to fulfill Daniel Burnham's vision for Chicago's lakefront.

"From our perspective, this is a pure and simple land grab,'' said Steve Whitney, founder of the Friends of Meigs Field. "It really has nothing to do with homeland security. It will make homeland security worse" because there no longer will be a manned control tower around.

"Creepy" was how the current president, Rachel Goodstein, described Daley's methods.

Around 11:30 p.m. Sunday--the airport is closed from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.--heavy equipment under police escort arrived at Meigs and began tearing into the 3,899-foot-long runway, carving huge "X's" and horizontal marks into the grooved asphalt to prevent aircraft from using the strip.

"If it was a fear of terrorists, he could have just closed us" without doing such damage, a Meigs controller said. "By doing this it makes it too expensive for the state or federal government to say, 'We'll buy it from you.' This guarantees him his park."

Even as critics prepared to sue the city to reopen Meigs, they conceded the city seems within its rights since it operates the airfield and it sits on Park District property. A Daley aide, while denying the motive behind closing Meigs was to build a park, said "it's safe to say it will eventually be a park."

The Federal Aviation Administration said it was "concerned" by the city's move. "Removing any centrally located airport such as Meigs from the national airspace system only diminishes capacity and puts added pressure on O'Hare and Midway airports," the agency said in a statement.

A top FAA official in Chicago was notified of Meigs' closing after being awakened by a 2 a.m. call from a city official, an FAA spokesman said.

[Writer1]

This is an example of domestic fascism, pure and simple. The mayor is out of control. This is an illegal taking. The owners need to be compenstation for the loss of the use of their aircraft. What's next?

[longshadow]

This is an example of domestic fascism, pure and simple.

Correction: attacking and destroying transportation infrastructure in a midnight raid is an act of terrorism.

Osama bin Daley should be arrested and prosecuted for commiting an act of terror during time of war.

[b fair]

I think if I had a plane stored here and they closed the airport like this, Chicago IS going to pay ALL costs to move the aircraft and restore it to airworthy condition.

But since I only fly rotor wings I don't need the runway!

[RonF]

First, you have violated one of the standards of this web site by changing the title of a posting. This is so that people can effectively search to prevent duplicate posts.

Second, the article itself never discussed the topic you used in the title, so the title is inaccurate.

Third, you have failed to establish your case. Daley II has already said that the City would pay the full costs of relocating those planes. Yes, he has inconvenienced those plane owners, but he seems as though he intends to find a way to compensate them for that. The "takings" clause only forbids the government to take private property if they don't compensate the owners for it. If it does, there's no violation. And it won't cost that much to compensate them for a few days inability to use those planes.

I'm not defending Daley II's actions, by the way. I'm just trying to defend the truth.

[merrin]

Even as critics prepared to sue the city to reopen Meigs, they conceded the city seems within its rights since it operates the airfield and it sits on Park District property.

I don't know enough about local Chicago issues to know whether Daley is right or wrong, but I do know that closing down a city-owned airort does not violate the takings clause.

[KansasCanadian]

Neil Bortz slipped up and called Daley a b*astard on his show this morning--Bortz flew into there on occasion

[lasereye]

It sounds like the owner is the city of Chicago.

[SENTINEL]

"The owners need to be compensated for the loss of the use of their aircraft."

They need to be compensated for the LOSS of their aircraft ! How are the the private aircraft owners going to get them out of there with no runway to take off from ?

All hail King Daley !!

[MinuteGal]

You read it here first. Richie Daley and his not-so-behind the scenes cronies want this land "for a park".....hah, hah....make that "for a lakefront CASINO"!

Leni

[Sloth]

I think the mayor flew into the Sears Tower one too many times in Flight Simulator.

[Falcon4.0]

Considering that airports fall under Federal Jurisdiction, I'd say he has committed several Federal Crimes.

[OldFriend]

You are too defending the sneaky middle of the night actions of your boy, Daley!

[fight_truth_decay]

Good will be a park to be enjoyed by all now. Great extension for biking, blading, jogging etc...maybe another Buckingham.

Beautiful!..dialog on this subject has been going on for years now ... way to long. Most want it as a park. Huraaaaah!

Plenty of small airports available in the western suburbs.
Plus we don't need any small planes targeting those civilians on the streets downtown rush-hour. It is a threat after 9/11.

Just my opinion. Sorry.

F_T_D

[fight_truth_decay]

Thank you for your input this was also posted yesterday.

[RonF]

The planes will be able to take off from the taxiway, which goes the full length of the runway. While a skillful pilot could take off from that taxiway, the crosswinds that prevail there would generally prevent someone from landing on the taxiway. Once all the planes are gone, they'll dig up that taxiway, too. Failing that, they can barge them over to the lakeshore, dismount the wings, and move them by truck.

[IncPen]

Daley closed the airport because he lives just across Lake Shore Drive, in Burnham Park, and disliked the noise of the planes.

That's it.

If he puts a casino there, he's an even bigger schmuck.

[RonF]

The airport is owned and operated by the City of Chicago. The FAA has the responsibility to regulate the airport's operations, but has no authority to regulate whether or not it will operate at all. The FAA has already said that Daley has violated no Federal statutes.

[fight_truth_decay]

your boy?

We just offer a different opinion. Should have been done years ago. But I can see the otherside addressed who are the actual owners of said planes. This is not new news..the future of the field was eventually going this way. Owners will be compensated

Is there room enough for another sports stadium? ;) Just kiddin'.

[RonF]

He ain't my boy, I live in the 'burbs. What has basically happened here is that Daley II has acted in what he is publicly stating is his best judgement for Chicago, and that he is willing to take the heat and the costs for it. I will bet any amount of money that Daley gets away with this. It was quite high-handed, and quite undemocratic for him to do this. He quite obviously sought to present the Friends of Meigs with a fait accompli, to forstall any lawsuits from stopping him. But not enough people care about Meigs Field. More people would be just as glad to have it as a park. Now, making it a casino is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. It would mean a high source of revenue that would a) enable Daley II to throw lots of contracts, etc., towards his buddies and allies, and b) provide a revenue stream that would disproportionately affect non-residents. I haven't seen this come up yet officially, but I bet it gets proposed. Soon.

[SENTINEL]

If the FAA will allow them to take off from the taxiway ( and I'm skeptical ), It seems like this might not be so unconstitutional afterall.

[justshutupandtakeit]

This airport belonged to the City thus, Daley had every right to do this. Takings have nothing to do with it.

It seems to have universally infuriated everyone, though. LoL. Even non-airheads.

[LauraJean]

One of the air traffic controllers called up this morning on Don Wade and Roma. He said it was too dangerous to take off from the taxiway.
By the way one the libraians I work with was upset because another one orderd a book for his collection. His remark was ''what's she going to do next. Tear up another Midway.''

[fight_truth_decay]

And the rest of the story not reported here in Midnight Raid!

Sixteen airplanes are stranded there, and may have to be trucked to another site..the action, while unusual, appears to be legal because all federal loans to build the facility have been repaid and the decision to keep it open lies with the city. Past research indicates that the law hasn't been broken.

While popular with enthusiasts and business charters, Meigs Field has not had regular commercial flights for years.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63428-2003Mar31.html

[RogueIsland]

This airport belonged to the City thus, Daley had every right to do this.

At one time it was within the rights of Samurai to behead peasants who "offended" them, too. Didn't make it any less an abuse of power.

[IronJack]

One of the Left's tactics: Always present a controversial proposal as a fait accompli. Let inertia do for you what conscience cannot. Or, in simpler terms, it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

[Sender]

Illinois belongs in the same category with the Axis of Weasels.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Identify your STATE Senator/Representative.

Enter your zipcode.

May reqiure street address, ie. Split district issue

Next choice - Congress, State, Local. Select “State” and press GO.

* Click here for Senator/Representative *

http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials

Write your editor or letter to your local newspaper.

Enter your zipcode.

* Click here for local newspapers *

http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/media/.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[SENTINEL]

I knew it....Enter the bureaucrat. This collateral damage is unconstitutional, and Daley can claim it was the Feds that caused the problem.

Next he'll tell the folks to spend the tens of thousands to have their aircraft disassembled and transported. Don't forget the recertification process. Turn in your reciepts and we'll review them, he'll say.

Outrageous !

[fight_truth_decay]

Too late !

[Maximum Leader]

You're right. The one thing that could leave the city open to a lawsuit is the cost of moving the planes. Since Daley said the city would pay for the cost of moving the planes, there's really nothing wrong with what he did.

You can argue it's a stupid decision, but the mayor is responsible for Chicago's public safety and if he thinks closing the airport makes the city safer, it's his call.

[taxcontrol]

Please explain how this was an "illegal taking".

Property in question belongs to the city (y/n)?
Run ways in question belong to the the city (y/n)?

Granted the owners of any aircraft stranded at the airport might have a claim for the fair market value of the aircraft or costs for relocating their aircraft.

Those who have rented facilities at the airfield could also be due compensation if the action violated any contractal terms.


But I still fail to see where there was a taking of anything.

[fight_truth_decay]

No matter what anyone says about the present day Daley (not dad's years)on how he gets things done..the city has turned into a beautiful place to live, work and play. I look at how it benefits the whole city and not just a few.

My kind of town..Chicago is..My kind of town!

[Zorrito]

Drunk or sober, Mayor Daily is always a Democrat. What else can you expect from him?

[taxcontrol]

Federal Jurisdiction and City ownership are two different things.

The FAA defines how airports shall operate. The FAAs jurisdiction was lost when the location ceased to be an airport.

[Question_Assumptions]

A combative mayor said he was staving off possible terrorist attacks from the skies over the Loop, and that the quick action was necessary to avoid a protracted battle with Meigs supporters.

Leftist thugs never let the voice of the people or democracy get in their way. Just imagine what methods this thug would justify using in a less free country to get his way. This is why leftists must be kept out of power.

[xdem]

Aircraft owners paid for space to park their aircraft. There's been no word that they will be refunded their rental fees. That, at minimum, is a unjust taking.

Plus the aircraft owners are without use of their aircraft for a long period. That, also, is a unjust taking.

[mhking]

The apple didn't fall too far from the tree....

[Darheel]

If this was the willful destruction of FAA-regulated property, it seems that the Office of Homeland Security should be contacted, and investigation opened, and a criminal warrant be issued immediately for a Grand Jury hearing in the local district and federal courts. I'm not a lawyer, but speed is of the essence to preserve evidence, and yes I think it's fascism, ala Chritien.

[Falcon4.0]

Yes, but interference of an airport is a violation isn't it? (i.e.) Destroying an active runway which is by law still open to aircraft without notifying the nearest Flight Service and or issuing a "Notice to Airman" (NOTAM).
Just asking. Please don't beat me?

[taxcontrol]

No, failure to comply with a contract condiction (rental agreement) is not a "taking".

Taking is a legal term that means property was seized improperly or with out the owners permission.

Leaving aircraft owners with a usable aircraft is also NOT a taking. The city did not seize the aircraft.

Perhaps a nit pick on terminology

[taxcontrol]

FAA does not regulat property. FAA regulates the operations of airports. Further, the FAA HAS ALREADY STATED that no laws were broken.

Yes, there was a administrative regulation that requires airport to notify when their runways are not able to receive aircraft.

And yes, the filing came late. But it was filed and no accident resulted from the late filing. Further, the airport is no longer in operation.

Do you know what is the most drastic thing the FAA can do to an airport - shut it down. The city already did that. Nothing left for the FAA here to do.

I feel sorry for the folks who wanted the airport to stay open - but there is NO LEGAL ISSUE here.

[taxcontrol]

See my #41.

Granted it would have been better for the airfield to first notify the FAA then take the runways out of commission.

[Writer1]

Dear All,

The Constitution prohibits the government from denying individuals their rights to life, liberty and property without due process of law.

Fifth amendment prohibits takings without compensation.

Daley must compenstate the owners by law.

That's my take -- and I am a lawyer.

[Mr_Magoo]

but there is NO LEGAL ISSUE here.

Did Daily file an Environmental Impact Statement?

Did he take into account the damage to the habitat of the endangered Chicago Cockroach?

Does his violation of the O'Hare Expansion Plan that called for Meigs to remain open cause the entire O'Hare Expansion plan to be Null and Void?

[Mr_Magoo]

My letter to Senator Fitzgerald:

During the overnight period of March 30 - March 31, Mayor Daily bulldozed the runway at Meigs Fld. This disturbs me greatly. I am of the understanding that part of the agreement between Daily and Ryan ( that is being debated in the Senate) was that Meigs was to remain open to general avation.

I am of the opinion that because Daily has violated that agreement, the O'Hare Expansion Agreement is now Null and Void. NO Federal funds should be released to the city of Chicago for O'Hare Expansion without Meigs being restored at the Mayor's expence first.

Not to mention that the Mayor did this excavation without first filing an Environmental Impact Statement.

Please do what you can to overturn this travisty.

Thank you,

Magoo

[taxcontrol]

The Constitution prohibits the government from denying individuals their rights to life, liberty and property without due process of law.

Fifth amendment prohibits takings without compensation.

Daley must compenstate the owners by law.

That's my take -- and I am a lawyer.

---

I'm not a lawyer - I have always represented myself in court.

But would recommend you consider the follow

Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 551 (1871). The Fifth Amendment ''has never been supposed to have any bearing upon, or to inhibit laws that indirectly work harm and loss to individuals,'' the Court explained.

Meyer v. City of Richmond, 172 U.S. 82 (1898).


Also consider the following from Findlaw:

Government Activity Not Directed at the Property .--The older cases proceeded on the basis that the requirement of just compensation for property taken for public use referred only to ''direct appropriation, and not to consequential injuries resulting from the exercise of lawful power.'' 236

Accordingly, a variety of consequential injuries were held not to constitute takings: damage to abutting property resulting from the authorization of a railroad to erect tracts, sheds, and fences over a street; 237

similar deprivations, lessening the circulation of light and air and impairing access to premises, resulting from the erection of an elevated viaduct over a street, or resulting from the changing of a grade in the street. 238

Nor was government held liable for the extra expense which the property owner must obligate in order to ward off the consequence of the governmental action, such as the expenses incurred by a railroad in planking an area condemned for a crossing, constructing gates, and posting gatemen, 239 or by a landowner in raising the height of the dikes around his land to prevent their partial flooding consequent to private construction of a dam under public licensing. 240

[OldFriend]

It's not about sex, it's about the constitution.

[OldFriend]

Sneaking around in the night smells to high heaven. If he couldn't convince his city that his position was correct then he wasn't a good leader.

[fight_truth_decay]

.."legal because all federal loans to build the facility have been repaid and the decision to keep it open lies with the city. Past research indicates that the law hasn't been broken."..you also rewrote the headline to this piece with no touch on the facts nor offered any other facts which are a prominent part of the story. First, I thought this was a hit piece by this newspaper until I realized the news source did not author this piece to fit the headline....going back to Ron in post #4.

You left out the compensation in the piece and other legal references. There were many stories written on Daley's "sneaking around in the night" surfacing yesterday through today.

One does not have to sneak in the night in Chicagoland. The light pollution never presents a darkness to sneak around in. If you are a resident of Chicagoland and/or have visted the major cities around this country, you have to agree Chicago is one of the most beautiful. But, I will hand it to you, Writer1; you have brought a good piece of news-spin to the table for discussion. However, I see no case here.

Again if you are inconvenienced by this action by the City, my sympathy. This has been and will continue to be a passionate partisan debate.

Respectfully

f_t_d

[bert]

His brother tried to overthrow the US government by stealing the election for the Presidency. What's one runway when compared to that?

The Daley brother should go visit their mother.