Brief Fact Summary. The Respondent, New York City (Respondent), passed a regulation that prevented the Petitioner, Penn Central Transportation (Petitioner), from adding an office building structure to the top of Grand Central Station.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. If the restriction is reasonably related to a legitimate public interest, then it does not result in a taking. Diminution in property value alone does not establish a taking.
Issue. May a city place restrictions on the development of individual historic landmarks without effecting a taking requiring just compensation?
Held. Yes. The restrictions do not interfere with the present use of the Terminal. It still allows Petitioner to profit from the Terminal and obtain a “reasonable return” from its investment.
While these rights may well not have constituted just compensation if a taking had occurred, the rights nevertheless undoubtedly mitigate whatever financial burdens the law has imposed on appellants and, for that reason, are to be taken into account in considering the impact of regulation.View Full Point of Law