Penn central transportation company v city of new york PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Penn central transportation company v city of new york PDF

Description

Title and Citation - Penn Central Transportation Company v City of New York 438 U.S. 104 (1978) Facts of the Case - Summary - 1965 NY - Landmarks Preservation Landmark - 1967 Preservation Commission designated the terminal a city landmark - Restrict property use - Cannot upgrade or improve without approval from landmark commission - Can’t impair historic or aesthetic aspects - Property owners must maintain the property to the commission's standards at their own expense - Owners planned to build a fifty story office towers above the tower - Commission denied both plans - Penn sued the commission - Their actions constitute a taking - Government has taken the airspace that was unused from the owner and that causes them to miss out on a lot of money so they are owed just compensation - Everyone is not being zoned equally → they are being targeted - Lower Court - Penn won at trial - Appellate reversed - Ny court of appeals upheld that Legal Question - Does a Fifth Amendment taking occur when a commission limits a property owner’s ability to profitably exploit its property? Holding - No Reasoning ( original intent, precedent, text of the constitution, theory of federalism) - Takings Clause - Prevents the government from forcing a private party to bear a public burden - Taking - Physically occupying property - Renders property completely useless - Must pay owner just compensation - Not a taking - Limitations that allow a reasonable use or ability to exploit one’s property - Reasonable beneficial use to the owner - Still have control of the station which was the original property bought

-

The airspace cannot be considered as a separate property - Look at the building and airspace as a whole

Prior cases - Lucas v South Carolina Coastal COuncil - Regulating land use v taking - Single family home on each beachfront - SC banned permanent residential ban - Fifth amendment taking requiring compensation - Trail court agreed, SC supreme court disagreed, US SC - When a land use regulation complete destroys the land’s economic value, is it a taking requiring just compensation Separate Opinions Critique and Analysis - Broader government authority of eminent domain - Fewer rights to private property owners Notes...