It is hereby found that an airport hazard endangers the lives and property of users of the airport and of occupants of land and other persons in its vicinity, and also, if of the obstruction type, in effect reduces the size of the area available for the landing, taking off and maneuvering of aircraft, thus tending to destroy or impair the utility of the airport and the public investment therein. Accordingly, it is hereby declared:
1. That the creation or establishment of an airport hazard is a public nuisance and an injury to the community served by the airport in question.
2. That it is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare that the creation or establishment of airport hazards be prevented.
3. That this should be accomplished, to the extent legally possible, by proper exercise of the police power.
4. That the prevention of the creation or establishment of airport hazards, and the \n Tue Dec 09 22:14:56 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 329 (23, 0) §329.2, AIRPORT ZONING 2\n\nelimination, removal, alteration, mitigation, or marking and lighting of existing airport hazards are public purposes for which municipalities may raise and expend public funds, as an incident to the operation of airports, to acquire land or property interests therein. [C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §329.2] See §657.2(8) \n
Notes of Decisions
Robert Milligan v. City of Red Oak, Iowa, 230 F.3d 355 (8th Cir. 2000).
· cites it 2× “See Iowa Code § 329.2 (1999). 3 The city’s stated purpose *360 in acquiring a negative easement over Mil-ligan’s land, to avoid the creation of an airport safety hazard, is a public purpose and provides a basis for a condemnation action under both federal and Iowa law.”
State v. Bates, 305 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 1981).
“5 (acquisition of land for screening or removal of certain junkyards); § 329.2(4) (elimination of existing airport hazards).”
Loren Danner & Pan Danner v. Carroll Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment (Iowa 2019).
“In June, the district court ruled on the commission’s nuisance claim and concluded “that the grain leg violated state and local zoning ordinances and constituted a nuisance and an airport hazard under Iowa Code sections 329.2 and 657.2(8) (2015).” Carroll Airport Comm’n v.”
Loren Danner & Pan Danner v. Carroll Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment (Iowa 2019).
“In June, the district court ruled on the commission’s nuisance claim and concluded “that the grain leg violated state and local zoning ordinances and constituted a nuisance and an airport hazard under Iowa Code sections 329.2 and 657.2(8) (2015).” Carroll Airport Comm’n v.”
— Iowa Code § 329.2(4) — 1 case
State v. Bates, 305 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 1981).
“5 (acquisition of land for screening or removal of certain junkyards); § 329.2(4) (elimination of existing airport hazards).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.