MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1587105330

Local Airport Regulation: The Constitutional Tension between Police Power, Preemption & Takings

2002· article· en· W1587105330 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Stephen Dempsey

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEminent domainJust compensationCommerce ClauseFederalismFederal preemptionDormant Commerce ClauseBusinessLawJurisdictionLegislationLegislatureLocal governmentConstitutionPolitical sciencePublic administrationPrivate propertyWelfare
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Airports impose significant environmental costs and economic benefits on their surrounding communities. In an effort to ameliorate those costs, local governments sometimes are inspired to attempt to regulate them away, or at least subdue them via regulation. The difficulty is that the local airports are part of the national air transportation system that falls within the domain of the federal government. This system poses a conflict between state and local authorities, exercising police power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens, on the one hand, and federal environmental and aviational regulation, on the other.Prior to 1972, local police power regulation or common law actions were the principal means of arresting airport noise pollution. But with promulgation of federal noise control legislation, the inherent police power of the states collided with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as the federal government has sought to regulate air transportation and its environmental consequences under the Commerce Clause. Courts have therefore been forced to draw lines dividing state and federal jurisdiction in this arena.Beyond issues of conflicting state and federal law, airport operators or proprietors can also be subject to state nuisance and inverse condemnation litigation. This brings another Constitutional provision into play - the Takings Clause - that prohibits governmental confiscation of private property without just compensation. Inverse condemnation has mandated compensation by airport operators for the acquisition of avigation easements from residents bombarded by aircraft noise. Bearing in mind this reality, both the federal judiciary and the legislature have been far more deferential to the regulatory efforts of local airport proprietors and municipal governments that own and operate airports.Municipalities that own and operate airports have far more regulatory power over airport operations than municipalities that do not. In the former case, the municipality exercises authority as airport proprietor and seeks to protect its legitimate interest in avoiding trespass, nuisance, and inverse condemnation liability; in the latter case, the municipality seeks to exert its inherent police powers to protect local safety and health. It is the latter function that courts have held is preempted by federal legislation over noise and air transportation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.018
Scholarly communication0.0150.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicInternational Law and Aviation→French-language works237,207→