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
> No, failure to comply with a contract condiction (rental agreement) is not a "taking".
Generally, yes. So why is this a taking? Because aircraft owners have been deprived, possibly only temporarily, of the use of their aircraft for the eventual purpose of building a park. I'll agree that most previous cases have been about real estate, not temporary loss of access to vehicles.
They have also been deprived of the rent they paid to store their aircraft at the airport.
If the aircraft have to be disassembled, and are not re-certifiable, they will be an even more complete taking, involving the future use of the aircraft, again for the purpose of building a park.
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pi210.html http://www.nyu.edu/pages/elc/landuse/takings.htm