Washington Eminent Domain Lawyer | Sea-Tac Third Runway Causing Problems

It's sad but true, that in this day and age, sometimes life just isn't fair. Sometimes the rules work against you, and sometimes, despite your best efforts, you've just drawn the short straw. That is what appears to have happened for numerous residents affected by the new third airport runway just put into service by the Port of Seattle at Sea-Tac airport in between Seattle and Tacoma, Washington.

I stumbled upon this blog entry, which detailed a meeting between numerous land owners and a few attorneys (specializing in class actions and not property or land use law, I might point out) to discuss the problems they've been experiencing and see if there is anything to be done about it. From that meeting I think they identified two possible causes of action they believe may be available to them - inverse condemnation and nuisance. Whatever the case, it appears that at least they are resigned to the fact that the runway is here to stay.

Although I am not a Washington eminent domain lawyer just yet, I am familiar with inverse condemnation (essentially eminent domain without the government wanting to pay for the land) and nuisance law generally. And I hate to say this, but I think the landowners are going to have a hard time winning this action, particularly when it comes to the inverse condemnation claim.

As just a little background, Washington inverse condemnation is a cause of action whereby a landowner asserts that a governmental entity (in this case the Port of Seattle) has, through its actions, deprived the property owner of all useful uses of the property, rendering it worthless. In this case, the landowners believe that the Port of Seattle, by installing the third runway at Sea-Tac Airport, have deprived them of all uses of their property. They mention noise and jet fuel particles as the two primary reasons for their claims (I never knew jet fuel left particles). The problem in this case, however, is that it doesn't appear as though they have any evidence that their property is useless. It is still being used for its highest and best use - residential housing - and still has people inhabiting it. Though the value may have dropped, even tremendously, because of the third runway, their property is not useless, and the owners have not been deprived of use of their property (technically, remember, this is through the rule of law, not the rule of common sense - they don't always match up).

Nuisance, straight from Wikipedia, is, under the common law, the theory that persons in possession of real property (either land owners or tenants) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. If a neighbor interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance. The kicker, however, is that the quiet enjoyment must rise above the merely aesthetic, and must be an expected part of the quiet enjoyment of the property. Here, the property owners again refer to noise and jet fuel particles as the basis for their Seattle inverse condemnation action or their Tacoma inverse condemnation action. The problem I see here is that their houses have always been near an airport, and they must have purchased the house knowing that airplanes would probably be flying overhead. Were they ready for the volume of planes or the additional runway? Probably not. But that is going to be the Port of Seattle's argument, and from a legal standpoint it is at least decent.

I don't know what is going to happen when SeaTac residents sue the Port of Seattle over their third runway, but I'm sure it will happen eventually. Although this isn't technically about Washington eminent domain, it is close enough I thought I'd throw it in here and talk about it. Inverse condemnation and eminent domain run hand in hand. I am rooting for the landowners here, but as I mentioned in the opening paragraph, sometimes life just isn't fair.

If your property is being taken by the government in Washington State, whether it be Seattle, Renton, Spokane, Kennewick, Olympia, Tacoma, Federal Way, Kent, Everett, Woodinville, Redmond, Kirkland, Yakima, Bellevue, Auburn, Puyallup, Vancouver, Mukilteo, Edmonds, West Seattle, or Pullman, you need someone working on your side.