Court Opinion

ID: 9668854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:28:48.503091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:49.042945
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM M. TURPIN, Special Judge
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion reversing the *678trial court and upholding the regulation prohibiting student solo flying activities at Lambert.
The majority opinion distinguishes the regulation of aircraft traffic from motor vehicle traffic by saying it is different, the only difference being that motor vehicle traffic is commonly expected to be on the surface of the earth while aircraft traffic may be on the surface and in the air. Regulation is regulation, wherever the traffic is, if it is controlled. No one questions that motor vehicle traffic control may not be delegated by the Board of Aldermen. See § 304.120, RSMo 1969. Where is the difference? See also Cavanaugh v. Gerk, 313 Mo. 375, 280 S.W. 51 (banc 1926).
I do not believe that Section 2 of Ordinance No. 47223 brings this regulation within any of the exceptions mentioned in the majority opinion. As I read Section 2 the “management and operation” of the airport is limited to the physical properties of the airport and says nothing about the regulation of movement of aircraft traffic, on the ground surface or in the air. We cannot read into a regulation a valid delegation of authority by saying it is in the interests of the safety and general welfare of the public. It is not our province to rewrite laws or read into them that which is not there. This is properly a legislative function and only the Board of Aldermen may regulate traffic. The cases cited by the majority are authority also for my dissent.
Without additional comment, I do not believe we can say that by virtue of Section 2 of the ordinance that whatever power the city has, it has authority to delegate that power to the Airport Commission.
I do concur in affirming the judgment of the trial court in declaring Section 4 of the ordinance and the schedule of landing fees illegal and void, and the issuance of an injunction enjoining the City, the Corn-mission and others from enforcing the fees, but dissent as to upholding as a lawful delegation the regulation prohibiting student solo flying activities.