Homeowners Preserve Lawsuit Over Cleveland Airport Expansion Harm

(CLEVELAND, OHIO) The Ohio Supreme Court has cleared the way for homeowners near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport to pursue damages against the City of Cleveland, ruling that their lawsuit over a failed expansion plan can move forward. In a decision issued in 2023, the state’s high court reversed a lower court’s summary judgment that had favored the city, opening the door to a trial for families who say they were harmed when the airport project stalled and a promised buyout effort stopped short.

The case centers on a neighborhood in Brook Park, where residents were drawn into a city-led plan to widen airfield capacity, then left waiting years as the project faded and the housing market shifted around them.

Background: the runway plan and the Residential Acquisition Program (RAP)

City officials first set the expansion in motion in 1999, citing expected growth in international travel and the need for a third runway at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. That runway would have cut through a residential area, and the plan foresaw clearing more than 300 homes to make room.

Rather than use eminent domain—the legal process allowing governments to take private property for public use with compensation—Cleveland reached a 2001 agreement with neighboring Brook Park to buy homes in stages. That deal, called the Residential Acquisition Program (RAP), grouped properties into phases and zones:

• Phase I homes were in Zones 1 through 6, sitting closest to the proposed runway footprint.
• The program emphasized voluntary sales, phased acquisitions, and a timeline tied to construction plans.

Initially, the RAP looked like a compromise to reduce conflict and litigation, allowing residents to sell to the city instead of facing eminent domain proceedings.

The shift after 9/11 and the partial halt

The ground shifted after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which sharply affected air travel demand and project forecasts. On June 27, 2003, Cleveland Mayor Jane Campbell wrote to Brook Park Mayor Mark Elliott explaining that “unforeseen events beyond Cleveland’s control,” including 9/11, had changed the need for the project.

Despite that messaging, the city continued buying some properties, which furthered expectations that the RAP would proceed. By 2007, however, Cleveland halted purchases unilaterally, leaving about 55 homeowners in Zones 5 and 6 in what Brook Park later described as “limbo.”

Consequences for residents included:

• Difficulty selling on the open market because of the neighborhood’s stigma as earmarked for clearance.
• Remaining in place while nearby homes were bought, boarded up, or demolished.
• Being caught between an anticipated runway that never arrived and an incomplete buyout program.

The legal battle: timeline and issues

• 2017: Brook Park sued Cleveland to enforce the original 2001 agreement.
• Cleveland argued the lawsuit was time-barred and invoked defenses such as impossibility.
• A trial court granted summary judgment for Cleveland, dismissing the case without a trial.
• The homeowners and Brook Park appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

In 2023, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected Cleveland’s defenses that the statute of limitations had expired and that doctrines like impossibility barred the claims. The court sent the case back for further proceedings, ruling that:

The court determined that homeowners’ claims could proceed.

This decision does not award damages, but it recognizes the homeowners’ right to seek compensation and requires a trial court to consider damages and remedies.

Central legal and factual issues now to be resolved

The case will likely examine:

• The 2001 RAP agreement terms and whether Cleveland’s partial performance created legal liability.
• The record of property purchases between 2001 and 2007 and how those purchases affected expectations.
• Testimony from homeowners—particularly those in Zones 5 and 6—about how the stalled plan influenced decisions about jobs, schools, and retirement.
• Housing market evidence, including sale prices during the RAP years, to measure any depreciation tied to the expansion’s shadow.

The imbalance—some families bought out while others were left behind—now sits at the heart of the lawsuit, which claims the city’s partial follow-through depressed property values and harmed those still waiting.

Broader implications

The case highlights larger challenges when governments plan major infrastructure around uncertain forecasts:

• After 9/11, many airport expansion plans nationwide were re-evaluated; budgets tightened and traffic projections changed.
• The Ohio Supreme Court concluded that a city’s commitments made in a program like the RAP do not simply disappear when a project becomes uncertain.
• The ruling signals to other local governments that property deals tied to large projects should include contingency plans if projects slow or stop.

Analysis by VisaVerge.com suggests the decision underscores how government-backed property programs can expose cities to financial risk when plans change and communities are left in the middle.

Next steps and possible outcomes

As the case returns to the lower court, both sides will likely:

1. Revisit the 2001 agreement’s terms and the intent behind phasing and zones.
2. Present evidence about the purchases and communications between 2001–2007.
3. Call homeowners to testify about the practical impacts of the stalled RAP on their lives.

Potential defenses and strategies:

• Cleveland may argue the 2007 halt was compelled by budget constraints and changed circumstances after 9/11, seeking to limit or narrow damages.
• Homeowners will likely press for full compensation tied to the broken expectations created by RAP.

If the homeowners prevail, the outcome could reshape how local governments design and manage buyout programs—especially when they choose voluntary, phased acquisitions over broad eminent domain takings.

What began as an airfield capacity plan has become a long-running test of trust between a city and a neighborhood. With the Ohio Supreme Court’s reversal, residents in the zones mapped for a runway that never came now have a path to seek relief.

For official reference on the court’s process and opinions, readers can review the Supreme Court of Ohio’s published decisions at the Supreme Court of Ohio Opinions & Announcements.