holding airport's proposed lease terms to one party must be reasonable relative to the terms in similar leases of other similarly situated parties
How later courts described this case
- holding airport's proposed lease terms to one party must be reasonable relative to the terms in similar leases of other similarly situated parties
- "Key to our affirmance [of the FAA] is the fact that the City's contemporaneous treatment of the [two FBOs] differed so markedly." (Emphasis added.)
- proceeding did not include any live testimony or opportunity for cross-examination
- “[0]ur affirmance of the hearing officer’s findings and order is not a signal to cities and potential lessees of municipal property that all municipal leases must be identical.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Despite the majority’s insistence that we do not trench upon a municipality’s right to determine — in the light of time and changed economics and municipal policies— changes in controlling policies, that is the effect of this decision. What happened years ago; how someone was treated years ago; what factors were thought significantly relevant years ago cannot be the measure against which to determine today’s decision. To hold otherwise is to deny life in which for children, for adults, for government, for society we learn from the past and, learning, adapt the lessons of the past to the future.
I therefore respectfully dissent.