Property: Not Everything Is Relative Anymore: A New Rule but Little Guidance in Airport Zoning Regulation Takings Claims--Decook V. Rochester Int'l Airport Joint Zoning Bd

THE SUPREME COURT 30 (1998) (suggesting regulatory takings law is "incoherent and muddled"); Allison Dunham, Griggs v. Allegheny County in Perspective: Thirty Years of Supreme Court Expropriation Law, 1962 SUP.CT.REV.63, 63 (1962) (calling takings law the "crazy-quilt pattern of Supreme Court doctrine"); James E. Krier, The Takings-Puzzle Puzzle, 38 WM. & MARY L. REV.1143, 1143 (1997) ("Regulatory takings are widely regarded as a puzzle.");William Michael Treanor, The Armstrong Principle, the Narratives of Takings, and Compensation Statutes, 38 WM. & MARY L. REV.1151, 1151 (1997) (noting that the Takings Clause "is famous for inspiring disagreement").3. See MINN.STAT.§ 360.062(a) (2010) (codifying the existence of dangers to lives and property of those in and around an airport); MINN.R. 8800.2400,subpt.6(E)(1) (2011) (describing the interests airport safety zoning balances); DeCook v. Rochester Int'l Airport Joint Zoning Bd., 796 N.W.2d 299, 307 n.5 (Minn.2011) ("Airport runway safety zoning is arguably sui generis . . ..").See generally 1 DUNNELL MINN.DIGEST AERONAUTICS § 6.01 (5th ed.2002) (discussing the policy bases for airport zoning standards).4. 796 N.W.2d.299 (Minn.2011). 5. See infra Part II. 6. See infra Part III. 7. See infra Part IV.