Replies

I would say that another interpretation would be that the aircraft has not been taken for the following reasons:

1) The city has taken no action to assume ownership of the aircraft
2) They have not be deprived of their rent. After all the aircraft are using that very rent right now.
3) The ONLY thing that they have been denied is access to the air - from the city's property.

It has been ruled that consequential injury does not constitute a taking. Similar deprivations such as impairing access to premises (the airport which is city property) were also ruled as not constituting a taking.

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. In this case that would be the expense associated with the relocation of the aircraft.

I've not known anyone to be sucessfull in going against established rulings. And I doubt the city lawyers would over look such rulings.

The case you make may hold some merit if in the rental contract such provisions are declared - but I doubt it.
Either way an interesting legal exercise. Sounds like it would be a good hypothetical case for a law class.