[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.

[OldFriend]

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

[fight_truth_decay]

Thank you for your input this was also posted yesterday.

[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.