penn
central
transp
new
york
city
argued
april
decided
june
new
york
city
landmarks
preservation
law
landmarks
law
enacted
protect
historic
landmarks
neighborhoods
precipitate
decisions
destroy
fundamentally
alter
character
landmarks
preservation
commission
commission
may
designate
building
landmark
particular
landmark
site
may
designate
area
historic
district
board
estimate
may
thereafter
modify
disapprove
designation
owner
may
seek
judicial
review
final
designation
decision
owner
designated
landmark
must
keep
building
exterior
good
repair
exterior
alterations
made
must
secure
commission
approval
two
ordinances
owners
landmark
sites
may
transfer
development
rights
landmark
parcel
proximate
lots
landmarks
law
grand
central
terminal
terminal
owned
penn
central
transportation
affiliates
penn
central
designated
landmark
block
occupies
landmark
site
appellant
penn
central
though
opposing
designation
commission
seek
judicial
review
final
designation
decision
thereafter
appellant
penn
central
entered
lease
appellant
ugp
properties
whereby
ugp
construct
multistory
office
building
terminal
commission
rejected
appellants
plans
building
destructive
terminal
historic
aesthetic
features
judicial
review
thereafter
sought
appellants
brought
suit
state
claiming
application
landmarks
law
taken
property
without
compensation
violation
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
arbitrarily
deprived
property
without
due
process
law
violation
fourteenth
amendment
trial
grant
relief
reversed
appeal
new
york
appeals
ultimately
concluding
taking
since
landmarks
law
transferred
control
property
city
restricted
appellants
exploitation
denial
due
process
use
terminal
permitted
appellants
shown
earn
reasonable
return
investment
terminal
even
terminal
proper
never
operate
reasonable
profit
income
penn
central
extensive
real
estate
holdings
area
must
realistically
imputed
terminal
development
rights
terminal
made
transferable
numerous
sites
vicinity
provided
significant
compensation
loss
rights
terminal
held
application
landmarks
law
terminal
property
constitute
taking
appellants
property
within
meaning
fifth
amendment
made
applicable
fourteenth
amendment
pp
wide
variety
contexts
government
may
execute
laws
programs
adversely
affect
recognized
economic
values
without
action
constituting
taking
instances
zoning
laws
state
tribunal
reasonably
concluded
health
safety
morals
general
welfare
promoted
prohibiting
particular
contemplated
uses
land
upheld
regulations
destroyed
adversely
affected
real
property
interests
many
instances
use
restrictions
served
substantial
public
purpose
upheld
taking
challenges
goldblatt
hempstead
hadacheck
sebastian
though
state
statute
substantially
furthers
important
public
policies
may
frustrate
distinct
expectations
constitute
taking
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
government
acquisitions
resources
permit
uniquely
public
functions
constitute
takings
causby
pp
deciding
whether
particular
governmental
action
effected
taking
character
action
nature
extent
interference
property
rights
city
tax
block
designated
landmark
site
focused
upon
rather
discrete
segments
thereof
consequently
appellants
establish
taking
simply
showing
denied
ability
exploit
superjacent
airspace
irrespective
remainder
appellants
parcel
pp
though
diminution
property
value
alone
may
result
zoning
law
establish
taking
appellants
concede
urge
regulation
individual
landmarks
different
applies
selected
properties
follow
landmark
laws
embody
comprehensive
plan
preserve
structures
historic
aesthetic
interest
discriminatory
like
reverse
spot
zoning
successfully
contended
designation
landmark
involves
matter
taste
therefore
inevitably
lead
arbitrary
results
judicial
review
available
reason
believe
less
effective
case
zoning
context
pp
landmarks
law
affects
landowners
severely
others
result
taking
often
case
general
welfare
zoning
legislation
contrary
appellants
contention
solely
burdened
unbenefited
landmarks
law
extensively
applied
enacted
basis
legislative
judgment
preservation
landmarks
benefits
citizenry
economically
improving
overall
quality
city
life
pp
landmarks
law
effects
appropriation
airspace
terminal
governmental
uses
zoning
law
appropriate
property
simply
prohibits
appellants
others
occupying
certain
features
space
allowing
appellants
gainfully
use
remainder
parcel
causby
supra
distinguished
landmarks
law
interfere
terminal
present
uses
prevent
penn
central
realizing
reasonable
return
investment
impose
drastic
limitation
appellants
ability
use
air
rights
terminal
appellants
claim
record
showing
smaller
harmonizing
structure
authorized
moreover
air
rights
made
transferable
parcels
vicinity
terminal
thus
mitigating
whatever
financial
burdens
appellants
incurred
pp
brennan
delivered
opinion
stewart
white
marshall
blackmun
powell
joined
rehnquist
filed
dissenting
opinion
burger
stevens
joined
post
daniel
gribbon
argued
cause
appellants
briefs
john
bolton
carl
helmetag
leonard
koerner
argued
cause
appellees
brief
allen
schwartz
kevin
sheridan
dorothy
miner
assistant
attorney
general
wald
argued
cause
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
brief
solicitor
general
mccree
assistant
attorney
general
moorman
peter
steenland
carl
strass
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
david
bonderman
frank
gilbert
national
trust
historic
preservation
et
al
paul
byard
ralph
menapace
terence
benbow
william
chanler
richard
pershan
francis
plimpton
whitney
north
seymour
bethuel
webster
committee
save
grand
central
station
et
al
louis
lefkowitz
attorney
general
samuel
hirshowitz
first
assistant
attorney
general
philip
weinberg
assistant
attorney
general
state
new
york
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
evelle
younger
attorney
general
clement
shute
robert
connett
assistant
attorneys
general
richard
jacobs
deputy
attorney
general
state
california
eugene
morris
real
estate
board
new
york
justice
brennan
delivered
opinion
question
presented
whether
city
may
part
comprehensive
program
preserve
historic
landmarks
historic
districts
place
restrictions
development
individual
historic
landmarks
addition
imposed
applicable
zoning
ordinances
without
effecting
taking
requiring
payment
compensation
specifically
must
decide
whether
application
new
york
city
landmarks
preservation
law
parcel
land
occupied
grand
central
terminal
taken
owners
property
violation
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
past
years
municipalities
enacted
laws
encourage
require
preservation
buildings
areas
historic
aesthetic
importance
nationwide
legislative
efforts
precipitated
two
concerns
first
recognition
recent
years
large
numbers
historic
structures
landmarks
areas
destroyed
without
adequate
consideration
either
values
represented
therein
possibility
preserving
destroyed
properties
use
economically
productive
ways
second
widely
shared
belief
structures
special
historic
cultural
architectural
significance
enhance
quality
life
buildings
workmanship
represent
lessons
past
embody
precious
features
heritage
serve
examples
quality
today
istoric
conservation
one
aspect
much
larger
problem
basically
environmental
one
enhancing
perhaps
developing
first
time
quality
life
people
new
york
city
responding
similar
concerns
acting
pursuant
new
york
state
enabling
act
adopted
landmarks
preservation
law
see
admin
code
ch
et
seq
city
acted
conviction
standing
new
york
city
tourist
center
world
capital
business
culture
government
threatened
legislation
enacted
protect
historic
landmarks
neighborhoods
precipitate
decisions
destroy
fundamentally
alter
character
city
believed
comprehensive
measures
safeguard
desirable
features
existing
urban
fabric
benefit
citizens
variety
ways
fostering
civic
pride
beauty
noble
accomplishments
past
protecting
enhancing
city
attractions
tourists
visitors
support
ing
stimul
ating
business
industry
strengthen
ing
economy
city
promoting
use
historic
districts
landmarks
interior
landmarks
scenic
landmarks
education
pleasure
welfare
people
city
new
york
city
law
typical
many
urban
landmark
laws
primary
method
achieving
goals
acquisitions
historic
properties
rather
involving
public
entities
decisions
affecting
properties
providing
services
standards
controls
incentives
encourage
preservation
private
owners
users
law
place
special
restrictions
landmark
properties
necessary
feature
attainment
larger
objectives
major
theme
law
ensure
owners
properties
reasonable
return
investments
maximum
latitude
use
parcels
purposes
inconsistent
preservation
goals
operation
law
briefly
summarized
primary
responsibility
administering
law
vested
landmarks
preservation
commission
commission
broad
based
agency
assisted
technical
staff
commission
first
performs
function
critical
landmark
preservation
effort
identifying
properties
areas
special
character
special
historical
aesthetic
interest
value
part
development
heritage
cultural
characteristics
city
state
nation
see
commission
determines
giving
interested
parties
opportunity
heard
building
area
satisfies
ordinance
criteria
designate
building
landmark
situated
particular
landmark
site
designate
area
historic
district
commission
makes
designation
new
york
city
board
estimate
considering
relationship
designated
property
master
plan
zoning
resolution
projected
public
improvements
plans
renewal
area
involved
may
modify
disapprove
designation
owner
may
seek
judicial
review
final
designation
decision
thus
far
historic
districts
individual
landmarks
finally
designated
process
continuing
one
final
designation
landmark
results
restrictions
upon
property
owner
options
concerning
use
landmark
site
first
law
imposes
duty
upon
owner
keep
exterior
features
building
good
repair
assure
law
objectives
defeated
landmark
falling
state
irremediable
disrepair
see
second
commission
must
approve
advance
proposal
alter
exterior
architectural
features
landmark
construct
exterior
improvement
landmark
site
thus
ensuring
decisions
concerning
construction
landmark
site
made
due
consideration
public
interest
maintenance
structure
landowner
interest
use
property
see
event
owner
wishes
alter
landmark
site
three
separate
procedures
available
administrative
approval
may
obtained
first
owner
may
apply
commission
certificate
effect
protected
architectural
features
order
approving
improvement
alteration
ground
change
affect
architectural
feature
landmark
harmony
therewith
see
denial
certificate
subject
judicial
review
second
owner
may
apply
commission
certificate
appropriateness
see
certificates
granted
commission
concludes
focusing
upon
aesthetic
historical
architectural
values
proposed
construction
landmark
site
unduly
hinder
protection
enhancement
perpetuation
use
landmark
denial
certificate
subject
judicial
review
moreover
owner
denied
either
certificate
exterior
effect
certificate
appropriateness
may
submit
alternative
modified
plan
approval
final
procedure
seeking
certificate
appropriateness
ground
insufficient
return
see
provides
special
mechanisms
vary
depending
whether
landmark
enjoys
tax
exemption
ensure
designation
cause
economic
hardship
although
designation
landmark
landmark
site
restricts
owner
control
parcel
designation
also
enhances
economic
position
landmark
owner
one
significant
respect
new
york
city
zoning
laws
owners
real
property
developed
property
full
extent
permitted
applicable
zoning
laws
allowed
transfer
development
rights
contiguous
parcels
city
block
see
new
york
city
zoning
resolution
art
ch
definition
zoning
lot
ordinance
gave
owners
landmark
sites
additional
opportunities
transfer
development
rights
parcels
subject
restriction
floor
area
transferee
lot
may
increased
authorized
level
ordinance
permitted
transfers
landmark
parcel
property
across
street
across
street
intersection
law
governing
conditions
transfers
landmark
parcels
occur
liberalized
see
new
york
city
zoning
resolutions
apparently
ensure
landmarks
law
unduly
restrict
development
options
owners
grand
central
terminal
see
marcus
air
rights
transfers
new
york
city
law
contemp
prob
class
recipient
lots
expanded
include
lots
across
street
opposite
another
lot
lots
except
intervention
streets
street
intersections
series
extending
lot
occupied
landmark
building
provided
lots
ownership
new
york
city
zoning
resolution
emphasis
deleted
addition
amendment
permits
highly
commercialized
areas
like
midtown
manhattan
transfer
unused
development
rights
single
parcel
ibid
case
involves
application
new
york
city
landmarks
preservation
law
grand
central
terminal
terminal
terminal
owned
penn
central
transportation
affiliates
penn
central
one
new
york
city
famous
buildings
opened
regarded
providing
ingenious
engineering
solution
problems
presented
urban
railroad
stations
also
magnificent
example
french
style
terminal
located
midtown
manhattan
south
facade
faces
street
street
intersection
park
avenue
street
level
terminal
bounded
west
vanderbilt
avenue
east
commodore
hotel
north
building
although
office
tower
located
terminal
part
original
design
planned
tower
never
constructed
terminal
structure
penn
central
uses
railroad
station
rents
space
needed
railroad
purposes
variety
commercial
interests
terminal
one
number
properties
owned
appellant
penn
central
area
midtown
manhattan
others
include
barclay
biltmore
commodore
roosevelt
hotels
building
office
buildings
along
park
avenue
yale
club
least
eight
eligible
recipients
development
rights
afforded
terminal
virtue
landmark
designation
august
following
public
hearing
commission
designated
terminal
landmark
designated
city
tax
block
occupies
landmark
site
board
estimate
confirmed
action
september
although
appellant
penn
central
opposed
designation
commission
seek
judicial
review
final
designation
decision
january
appellant
penn
central
increase
income
entered
renewable
lease
sublease
agreement
appellant
ugp
properties
ugp
wholly
owned
subsidiary
union
general
properties
kingdom
corporation
terms
agreement
ugp
construct
multistory
office
building
terminal
ugp
promised
pay
penn
central
million
annually
construction
least
million
annually
thereafter
rentals
offset
part
loss
million
net
rentals
presently
received
concessionaires
displaced
new
building
appellants
ugp
penn
central
applied
commission
permission
construct
office
building
atop
terminal
two
separate
plans
designed
architect
marcel
breuer
apparently
satisfying
terms
applicable
zoning
ordinance
submitted
commission
approval
first
breuer
provided
construction
office
building
cantilevered
existing
facade
rest
roof
terminal
second
breuer
ii
revised
called
tearing
portion
terminal
included
street
facade
stripping
remaining
features
terminal
facade
constructing
office
building
commission
denied
certificate
exterior
effect
september
appellants
applied
certificate
appropriateness
proposals
four
days
hearings
witnesses
testified
commission
denied
application
proposals
commission
reasons
rejecting
certificates
respecting
breuer
ii
revised
summarized
following
statement
protect
landmark
one
tear
perpetuate
architectural
features
one
strip
record
breuer
preserved
existing
vertical
facades
present
structure
received
sympathetic
consideration
commission
first
focused
effect
proposed
tower
one
desirable
feature
created
present
structure
surroundings
dramatic
view
terminal
park
avenue
south
although
appellants
contended
building
already
destroyed
silhouette
south
facade
one
additional
tower
damage
might
even
provide
better
background
facade
commission
disagreed
stating
found
majestic
approach
south
still
unique
city
tower
atop
terminal
far
detrimental
south
facade
building
feet
away
moreover
commission
found
closer
vantage
points
building
towers
largely
cut
view
case
mass
top
terminal
planned
breuer
conclusion
commission
stated
fixed
rule
making
additions
designated
buildings
depends
done
balance
office
tower
flamboyant
facade
seems
nothing
aesthetic
joke
quite
simply
tower
overwhelm
terminal
sheer
mass
addition
four
times
high
existing
structure
reduce
landmark
status
curiosity
landmarks
divorced
settings
particularly
setting
dramatic
integral
part
original
concept
terminal
setting
great
example
urban
design
examples
plentiful
new
york
city
afford
lose
must
preserve
meaningful
way
alterations
additions
character
scale
materials
mass
protect
enhance
perpetuate
original
design
rather
overwhelm
appellees
appealed
new
york
appellate
division
reversed
app
div
appellate
division
held
restrictions
development
terminal
site
necessary
promote
legitimate
public
purpose
protecting
landmarks
therefore
appellants
sustain
constitutional
claims
proof
regulation
deprived
reasonable
beneficial
use
property
appellate
division
held
evidence
appellants
introduced
trial
statements
revenues
costs
purporting
show
net
operating
loss
years
prepared
instant
litigation
satisfied
burden
first
rejected
claim
statements
showed
terminal
operating
loss
view
appellants
improperly
attributed
railroad
operating
expenses
taxes
real
estate
operations
compounded
error
failing
impute
rental
value
vast
space
terminal
devoted
railroad
purposes
appellate
division
concluded
appellants
failed
establish
either
unable
increase
terminal
commercial
income
transforming
vacant
underutilized
space
use
unused
development
rights
terminal
profitably
transferred
one
nearby
sites
appellate
division
concluded
appellants
succeeded
showing
deprived
property
profitable
use
showing
establish
appellants
unconstitutionally
deprived
property
new
york
appeals
affirmed
summarily
rejected
claim
landmarks
law
taken
property
without
compensation
indicating
taking
since
law
transferred
control
property
city
restricted
appellants
exploitation
circumstance
appeals
held
appellants
attack
law
prevail
law
deprived
appellants
property
violation
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
whether
denial
substantive
due
process
turned
whether
restrictions
deprived
penn
central
reasonable
return
privately
created
privately
managed
ingredient
terminal
appeals
concluded
landmarks
law
effected
denial
due
process
landmark
regulation
permitted
use
made
terminal
half
century
appellants
failed
show
earn
reasonable
return
investment
terminal
even
terminal
proper
never
operate
reasonable
profit
income
penn
central
extensive
real
estate
holdings
area
include
hotels
office
buildings
must
realistically
imputed
terminal
development
rights
terminal
made
transferable
numerous
sites
vicinity
terminal
one
two
suitable
construction
office
buildings
valuable
appellants
provided
significant
perhaps
fair
compensation
loss
rights
terminal
observing
affirmance
present
record
analysis
fully
developed
counsel
level
new
york
judicial
system
appeals
directed
counsel
entitled
present
additional
submissions
light
opinion
may
usefully
develop
factors
discussed
appellants
chose
avail
opportunity
filed
notice
appeal
noted
probable
jurisdiction
affirm
ii
issues
presented
appellants
whether
restrictions
imposed
new
york
city
law
upon
appellants
exploitation
terminal
site
effect
taking
appellants
property
public
use
within
meaning
fifth
amendment
course
made
applicable
fourteenth
amendment
see
chicago
chicago
whether
transferable
development
rights
afforded
appellants
constitute
compensation
within
meaning
fifth
amendment
need
address
question
whether
taking
occurred
considering
appellants
specific
contentions
useful
review
factors
shaped
jurisprudence
fifth
amendment
injunction
shall
private
property
taken
public
use
without
compensation
question
constitutes
taking
purposes
fifth
amendment
proved
problem
considerable
difficulty
recognized
fifth
amendment
guarantee
designed
bar
government
forcing
people
alone
bear
public
burdens
fairness
justice
borne
public
whole
armstrong
quite
simply
unable
develop
set
formula
determining
justice
fairness
require
economic
injuries
caused
public
action
compensated
government
rather
remain
disproportionately
concentrated
persons
see
goldblatt
hempstead
indeed
frequently
observed
whether
particular
restriction
rendered
invalid
government
failure
pay
losses
proximately
caused
depends
largely
upon
particular
circumstances
case
central
eureka
mining
see
caltex
engaging
essentially
ad
hoc
factual
inquiries
decisions
identified
several
factors
particular
significance
economic
impact
regulation
claimant
particularly
extent
regulation
interfered
distinct
expectations
course
relevant
considerations
see
goldblatt
hempstead
supra
character
governmental
action
taking
may
readily
found
interference
property
characterized
physical
invasion
government
see
causby
interference
arises
public
program
adjusting
benefits
burdens
economic
life
promote
common
good
government
hardly
go
extent
values
incident
property
diminished
without
paying
every
change
general
law
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
accordingly
recognized
wide
variety
contexts
government
may
execute
laws
programs
adversely
affect
recognized
economic
values
exercises
taxing
power
one
obvious
example
second
decisions
dismissed
taking
challenges
ground
challenged
government
action
caused
economic
harm
interfere
interests
sufficiently
bound
reasonable
expectations
claimant
constitute
property
fifth
amendment
purposes
see
willow
river
power
interest
level
river
runoff
tailwaters
maintain
power
head
property
water
power
property
interest
exist
navigable
waters
see
also
demorest
city
bank
muhlker
harlem
sax
takings
police
power
yale
zoning
laws
generally
affect
existing
uses
real
property
taking
challenges
also
held
without
merit
wide
variety
situations
challenged
governmental
actions
prohibited
beneficial
use
individual
parcels
previously
devoted
thus
caused
substantial
individualized
harm
miller
schoene
illustrative
case
state
entomologist
acting
pursuant
state
statute
ordered
claimants
cut
large
number
ornamental
red
cedar
trees
produced
cedar
rust
fatal
apple
trees
cultivated
nearby
although
statute
provided
recovery
expense
incurred
removing
cedars
permitted
claimants
use
felled
trees
provide
compensation
value
standing
trees
resulting
decrease
market
value
properties
whole
unanimous
held
latter
omission
render
statute
invalid
held
state
might
properly
make
choice
preservation
one
class
property
since
apple
industry
important
state
involved
concluded
state
exceeded
constitutional
powers
deciding
upon
destruction
one
class
property
without
compensation
order
save
another
judgment
legislature
greater
value
public
hadacheck
sebastian
upheld
law
prohibiting
claimant
continuing
otherwise
lawful
business
operating
brickyard
particular
physical
community
ground
legislature
reasonably
concluded
presence
brickyard
inconsistent
neighboring
uses
see
also
central
eureka
mining
supra
government
order
closing
gold
mines
skilled
miners
available
mining
work
held
taking
atchison
public
utilities
railroad
may
required
share
cost
constructing
railroad
grade
improvement
walls
midland
carbon
law
prohibiting
manufacture
carbon
black
upheld
reinman
little
rock
law
prohibiting
livery
stable
upheld
mugler
kansas
law
prohibiting
liquor
business
upheld
goldblatt
hempstead
supra
recent
example
city
safety
ordinance
banned
excavations
water
table
effectively
prohibited
claimant
continuing
sand
gravel
mining
business
operated
particular
parcel
since
upheld
ordinance
taking
challenge
although
ordinance
prohibited
present
presumably
beneficial
use
property
like
regulations
miller
hadacheck
severely
affected
particular
owner
assumed
ordinance
prevent
owner
reasonable
use
property
since
owner
made
showing
adverse
effect
value
land
restriction
served
substantial
public
purpose
thus
held
taking
occurred
course
implicit
goldblatt
use
restriction
real
property
may
constitute
taking
reasonably
necessary
effectuation
substantial
public
purpose
see
nectow
cambridge
supra
cf
moore
east
cleveland
stevens
concurring
perhaps
unduly
harsh
impact
upon
owner
use
property
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
leading
case
proposition
state
statute
substantially
furthers
important
public
policies
may
frustrate
distinct
expectations
amount
taking
claimant
sold
surface
rights
particular
parcels
property
expressly
reserved
right
remove
coal
thereunder
pennsylvania
statute
enacted
transactions
forbade
mining
coal
caused
subsidence
house
unless
house
property
owner
underlying
coal
feet
improved
property
another
statute
made
commercially
impracticable
mine
coal
thus
nearly
effect
complete
destruction
rights
claimant
reserved
owners
surface
land
see
held
statute
invalid
effecting
taking
without
compensation
see
also
armstrong
government
complete
destruction
materialman
lien
certain
property
held
taking
hudson
water
mccarter
height
restriction
makes
property
wholly
useless
rights
property
prevail
public
interest
compensation
required
see
generally
michelman
property
utility
fairness
comments
ethical
foundations
compensation
law
harv
rev
finally
government
actions
may
characterized
acquisitions
resources
permit
facilitate
uniquely
public
functions
often
held
constitute
takings
causby
illustrative
holding
direct
overflights
claimant
land
destroyed
present
use
land
chicken
farm
constituted
taking
causby
emphasized
government
merely
destroyed
property
using
part
flight
planes
see
also
griggs
allegheny
county
overflights
held
taking
portsmouth
military
installations
repeated
firing
guns
claimant
land
taking
cress
repeated
floodings
land
caused
water
project
taking
see
ymca
damage
caused
building
federal
officers
seeking
protect
building
attacked
rioters
held
taking
see
generally
michelman
supra
sax
takings
police
power
yale
contending
new
york
city
law
taken
property
violation
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
appellants
make
series
arguments
tailored
facts
case
essentially
urge
substantial
restriction
imposed
pursuant
landmark
law
must
accompanied
compensation
constitutional
considering
emphasize
dispute
recognized
number
settings
cities
may
enact
restrictions
controls
enhance
quality
life
preserving
character
desirable
aesthetic
features
city
see
new
orleans
dukes
young
american
mini
theatres
village
belle
terre
boraas
berman
parker
welch
swasey
appellants
contest
new
york
city
objective
preserving
structures
areas
special
historic
architectural
cultural
significance
entirely
permissible
governmental
goal
also
dispute
restrictions
imposed
parcel
appropriate
means
securing
purposes
new
york
city
law
finally
appellants
challenge
specific
factual
premises
decision
accept
present
purposes
parcel
land
occupied
grand
central
terminal
must
present
state
regarded
capable
earning
reasonable
return
transferable
development
rights
afforded
appellants
virtue
terminal
designation
landmark
valuable
even
valuable
rights
construct
terminal
appellants
view
none
factors
derogate
claim
new
york
city
law
effected
taking
first
observe
airspace
terminal
valuable
property
interest
citing
causby
supra
urge
landmarks
law
deprived
gainful
use
air
rights
terminal
irrespective
value
remainder
parcel
city
taken
right
superjacent
airspace
thus
entitling
compensation
measured
fair
market
value
air
rights
apart
disagreement
appellants
characterization
effect
new
york
city
law
see
infra
submission
appellants
may
establish
taking
simply
showing
denied
ability
exploit
property
interest
heretofore
believed
available
development
quite
simply
untenable
rule
erred
upholding
laws
restricting
development
air
rights
see
welch
swasey
supra
also
approving
prohibiting
subjacent
see
goldblatt
hempstead
lateral
see
gorieb
fox
development
particular
parcels
taking
jurisprudence
divide
single
parcel
discrete
segments
attempt
determine
whether
rights
particular
segment
entirely
abrogated
deciding
whether
particular
governmental
action
effected
taking
focuses
rather
character
action
nature
extent
interference
rights
parcel
whole
city
tax
block
designated
landmark
site
secondly
appellants
focusing
character
impact
new
york
city
law
argue
effects
taking
operation
significantly
diminished
value
terminal
site
appellants
concede
decisions
sustaining
regulations
like
new
york
city
law
reasonably
related
promotion
general
welfare
uniformly
reject
proposition
diminution
property
value
standing
alone
establish
taking
see
euclid
ambler
realty
diminution
value
caused
zoning
law
hadacheck
sebastian
diminution
value
cf
eastlake
forest
city
enterprises
taking
issue
contexts
resolved
focusing
uses
regulations
permit
see
also
goldblatt
hempstead
supra
appellants
moreover
also
dispute
showing
diminution
property
value
establish
taking
restriction
imposed
result
legislation
see
generally
maher
new
orleans
appellants
argue
new
york
city
regulation
individual
landmarks
fundamentally
different
zoning
legislation
controls
imposed
new
york
city
law
apply
individuals
selected
properties
stated
baldly
appellants
position
appears
means
ensuring
selected
owners
singled
endure
financial
hardship
reason
hold
restriction
imposed
individual
landmarks
pursuant
new
york
city
scheme
taking
requiring
payment
compensation
agreement
argument
course
invalidate
new
york
city
law
comparable
landmark
legislation
nation
find
merit
true
appellants
emphasize
legislation
zoning
laws
regulate
properties
within
given
physical
communities
whereas
landmark
laws
apply
selected
parcels
contrary
appellants
suggestions
landmark
laws
like
discriminatory
reverse
spot
zoning
decision
arbitrarily
singles
particular
parcel
different
less
favorable
treatment
neighboring
ones
see
rathkopf
law
zoning
planning
ed
contrast
discriminatory
zoning
antithesis
control
part
comprehensive
plan
new
york
city
law
embodies
comprehensive
plan
preserve
structures
historic
aesthetic
interest
wherever
might
found
city
noted
landmarks
historic
districts
designated
pursuant
plan
equally
without
merit
related
argument
decision
designate
structure
landmark
inevitably
arbitrary
least
subjective
basically
matter
taste
reply
brief
appellants
thus
unavoidably
singling
individual
landowners
disparate
unfair
treatment
argument
particularly
hollow
ring
case
appellants
seek
judicial
review
either
designation
denials
certificates
appropriateness
exterior
effect
even
suggest
commission
decisions
concerning
terminal
sense
arbitrary
unprincipled
event
landmark
owner
right
judicial
review
commission
decision
quite
simply
basis
whatsoever
conclusion
courts
greater
difficulty
identifying
arbitrary
discriminatory
action
context
landmark
regulation
context
classic
zoning
indeed
context
next
appellants
observe
new
york
city
law
differs
zoning
laws
ordinances
landmarks
law
impose
identical
similar
restrictions
structures
located
particular
physical
communities
follows
argue
new
york
city
law
inherently
incapable
producing
fair
equitable
distribution
benefits
burdens
governmental
action
characteristic
zoning
laws
legislation
maintain
constitutional
requirement
compensation
afforded
course
true
landmarks
law
severe
impact
landowners
others
mean
law
effects
taking
legislation
designed
promote
general
welfare
commonly
burdens
others
owners
brickyard
hadacheck
cedar
trees
miller
schoene
gravel
sand
mine
goldblatt
hempstead
uniquely
burdened
legislation
sustained
cases
similarly
zoning
laws
often
affect
property
owners
severely
others
held
invalid
account
example
property
owner
euclid
wished
use
property
industrial
purposes
affected
far
severely
ordinance
neighbors
wished
use
land
residences
event
appellants
repeated
suggestions
solely
burdened
unbenefited
factually
inaccurate
contention
overlooks
fact
new
york
city
law
applies
vast
numbers
structures
city
addition
terminal
structures
contained
historic
districts
individual
landmarks
many
close
terminal
unless
reject
judgment
new
york
city
council
preservation
landmarks
benefits
new
york
citizens
structures
economically
improving
quality
life
city
whole
unwilling
conclude
owners
terminal
sense
benefited
landmarks
law
doubtless
appellants
believe
burdened
benefited
law
must
true
property
owners
miller
hadacheck
euclid
goldblatt
appellants
final
attack
us
treat
law
instance
like
causby
government
acting
enterprise
capacity
appropriated
part
property
strictly
governmental
purpose
apart
fact
causby
case
invasion
airspace
destroyed
use
farm
beneath
new
york
city
law
nowise
impaired
present
use
terminal
landmarks
law
neither
exploits
appellants
parcel
city
purposes
facilitates
arises
entrepreneurial
operations
city
situation
remotely
like
causby
airspace
property
flight
pattern
military
aircraft
landmarks
law
effect
simply
prohibit
appellants
anyone
else
occupying
portions
airspace
terminal
permitting
appellants
use
remainder
parcel
gainful
fashion
appropriation
property
government
uses
zoning
law
prohibiting
aesthetic
reasons
two
adult
theaters
within
specified
area
see
young
american
mini
theatres
safety
regulation
prohibiting
excavations
certain
level
see
goldblatt
hempstead
rejection
appellants
broad
arguments
however
end
inquiry
thus
far
established
new
york
city
law
rendered
invalid
failure
provide
compensation
whenever
landmark
owner
restricted
exploitation
property
interests
air
rights
greater
extent
provided
applicable
zoning
laws
must
consider
whether
interference
appellants
property
magnitude
must
exercise
eminent
domain
compensation
sustain
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
inquiry
may
narrowed
question
severity
impact
law
appellants
parcel
resolution
turn
requires
careful
assessment
impact
regulation
terminal
site
unlike
governmental
acts
goldblatt
miller
causby
griggs
hadacheck
new
york
city
law
interfere
way
present
uses
terminal
designation
landmark
permits
contemplates
appellants
may
continue
use
property
precisely
used
past
years
railroad
terminal
containing
office
space
concessions
law
interfere
must
regarded
penn
central
primary
expectation
concerning
use
parcel
importantly
record
must
regard
new
york
city
law
permitting
penn
central
profit
terminal
also
obtain
reasonable
return
investment
appellants
moreover
exaggerate
effect
law
ability
make
use
air
rights
terminal
two
respects
first
simply
maintained
record
appellants
prohibited
occupying
portion
airspace
terminal
commission
actions
denying
applications
construct
office
building
excess
stories
terminal
may
indicate
refuse
issue
certificate
appropriateness
comparably
sized
structure
nothing
commission
said
done
suggests
intention
prohibit
construction
terminal
commission
report
emphasized
whether
construction
allowed
depended
upon
whether
proposed
addition
harmonize
scale
material
character
terminal
record
since
appellants
sought
approval
construction
smaller
structure
know
appellants
denied
use
portion
airspace
terminal
second
extent
appellants
denied
right
build
terminal
literally
accurate
say
denied
use
even
air
rights
ability
use
rights
abrogated
made
transferable
least
eight
parcels
vicinity
terminal
one
two
found
suitable
construction
new
office
buildings
although
appellants
others
argued
new
york
city
transferable
program
far
ideal
new
york
courts
supportably
found
least
case
terminal
rights
afforded
valuable
rights
may
well
constituted
compensation
taking
occurred
rights
nevertheless
undoubtedly
mitigate
whatever
financial
burdens
law
imposed
appellants
reason
taken
account
considering
impact
regulation
cf
goldblatt
hempstead
record
conclude
application
new
york
city
landmarks
law
effected
taking
appellants
property
restrictions
imposed
substantially
related
promotion
general
welfare
permit
reasonable
beneficial
use
landmark
site
also
afford
appellants
opportunities
enhance
terminal
site
proper
also
properties
affirmed
footnotes
buildings
listed
historic
american
buildings
survey
begun
federal
government
destroyed
see
costonis
chicago
plan
incentive
zoning
preservation
urban
landmarks
harv
rev
citing
huxtable
bank
building
plan
sets
debate
progress
times
section
see
admin
code
gilbert
introduction
precedents
future
law
contemp
prob
quoting
address
robert
stipe
conference
preservation
law
washington
may
unpublished
text
pp
see
mun
law
mckinney
declares
public
policy
state
new
york
preserve
structures
areas
special
historical
aesthetic
interest
value
authorizes
local
governments
impose
reasonable
restrictions
perpetuate
structures
areas
consensus
widespread
public
ownership
historic
properties
urban
settings
neither
feasible
wise
public
ownership
reduces
tax
base
burdens
public
budget
costs
acquisitions
maintenance
results
preservation
public
buildings
museums
similar
facilities
rather
economically
productive
features
urban
scene
see
wilson
winkler
response
state
legislation
historic
preservation
law
contemp
prob
see
costonis
supra
wilson
winkler
supra
rankin
operation
interpretation
new
york
city
landmark
preservation
law
law
contemp
prob
ordinance
creating
commission
requires
include
least
three
architects
one
historian
qualified
field
one
city
planner
landscape
architect
one
realtor
least
one
resident
city
five
boroughs
charter
addition
ordinance
requirements
concerning
composition
commission
according
former
chairman
prudent
tradition
commission
include
one
two
lawyers
preferably
experience
municipal
government
several
laymen
specialized
qualifications
concern
good
city
goldstone
aesthetics
historic
districts
law
contemp
prob
landmark
improvement
part
thirty
years
old
older
special
character
special
historical
aesthetic
interest
value
part
development
heritage
cultural
characteristics
city
state
nation
designated
landmark
pursuant
provisions
chapter
landmark
site
improvement
parcel
part
thereof
situated
landmark
abutting
improvement
parcel
part
thereof
used
constituting
part
premises
landmark
situated
designated
landmark
site
pursuant
provisions
chapter
historic
district
area
contains
improvements
special
character
special
historical
aesthetic
interest
value
represent
one
periods
styles
architecture
typical
one
eras
history
city
cause
area
reason
factors
constitute
distinct
section
city
designated
historic
district
pursuant
provisions
chapter
act
also
provides
designation
scenic
landmark
see
interior
landmark
see
see
landmarks
preservation
commission
city
new
york
landmarks
historic
districts
although
appellants
correct
noting
designated
landmarks
publicly
owned
vast
majority
like
grand
central
terminal
privately
owned
structures
owner
parcel
denied
certificates
appropriateness
proposed
alteration
shows
earning
reasonable
return
property
present
state
commission
city
agencies
must
assume
burden
developing
plan
enable
landmark
owner
earn
reasonable
return
landmark
site
plan
may
include
need
limited
partial
complete
tax
exemption
remission
taxes
authorizations
alterations
construction
reconstruction
appropriate
inconsistent
purposes
law
owner
free
accept
reject
plan
devised
commission
approved
city
agencies
accepts
plan
proceeds
operate
property
pursuant
plan
rejects
plan
commission
may
recommend
city
proceed
eminent
domain
acquire
protective
interest
landmark
city
within
specified
time
period
commission
must
issue
notice
allowing
property
owner
proceed
alteration
improvement
originally
proposed
application
certificate
appropriateness
structures
treated
somewhat
differently
become
eligible
special
treatment
four
preconditions
satisfied
owner
previously
entered
agreement
sell
parcel
contingent
upon
issuance
certificate
approval
property
exists
time
request
capable
earning
reasonable
return
structure
longer
suitable
past
present
purposes
prospective
buyer
intends
alter
landmark
structure
event
owner
demonstrates
property
present
state
earning
reasonable
return
commission
must
either
find
another
buyer
allow
sale
construction
proceed
remedy
available
owners
landmarks
case
bar
illustrates
see
infra
owner
files
suit
establishes
incapable
earning
reasonable
return
site
present
state
afforded
judicial
relief
similarly
landmark
owner
enjoys
tax
exemption
demonstrated
landmark
structure
restricted
totally
inadequate
owner
legitimate
needs
law
held
invalid
applied
parcel
see
lutheran
church
city
new
york
obtain
approval
proposed
transfer
landmark
owner
must
follow
following
procedure
first
must
obtain
permission
commission
examine
plans
development
transferee
lot
determine
whether
planned
construction
compatible
landmark
second
must
obtain
approbation
new
york
city
planning
commission
focus
effects
transfer
occupants
buildings
vicinity
transferee
lot
whether
landmark
owner
preserve
landmark
finally
matter
goes
board
estimate
final
authority
grant
deny
application
see
also
costonis
supra
terminal
present
foundation
includes
columns
built
express
purpose
supporting
proposed
tower
commission
report
stated
grand
central
station
one
great
buildings
america
evokes
spirit
unique
city
combines
distinguished
architecture
brilliant
engineering
solution
wedded
one
fabulous
railroad
terminals
time
monumental
scale
great
building
functions
well
today
built
style
represents
best
french
beaux
arts
record
appellants
also
submitted
plan
denominated
breuer
ii
commission
however
appellants
learned
breuer
ii
violated
existing
easements
substituted
breuer
ii
revised
breuer
ii
commission
evaluated
appropriateness
breuer
ii
revised
discussing
breuer
commission
also
referred
number
instances
approved
additions
landmarks
office
reception
wing
added
gracie
mansion
school
church
house
added
street
side
first
presbyterian
church
examples
harmonize
scale
material
character
structures
adjoin
new
watch
tower
bible
tract
society
building
brooklyn
heights
though
completely
modern
idiom
respects
qualities
surroundings
enhance
brooklyn
heights
historic
district
butterfield
house
enhances
west
street
breuer
whitney
museum
madison
avenue
locale
record
see
real
prop
tax
law
et
seq
mckinney
supp
although
suggested
regulation
private
property
protect
landmark
values
unconstitutional
compensation
afforded
also
appeared
rely
upon
findings
first
cost
penn
central
operating
terminal
building
exclusive
purely
railroad
operations
exceeded
revenues
received
concessionaires
tenants
terminal
second
special
transferable
development
rights
afforded
penn
central
owner
landmark
site
provide
compensation
plaintiffs
minimize
harm
suffered
plaintiffs
due
designation
terminal
landmark
statements
appear
reflected
costs
maintaining
exterior
architectural
features
terminal
good
repair
required
law
apparent
case
therefore
existence
duty
keep
property
presumably
always
factored
inquiry
concerning
constitutionality
landmark
restrictions
appellate
division
also
rejected
claim
agreement
penn
central
metropolitan
transit
authority
connecticut
transit
authority
provided
basis
invalidating
application
landmarks
law
record
reflected
penn
central
given
serious
consideration
transferring
rights
either
biltmore
hotel
roosevelt
hotel
appeals
suggested
calculating
value
property
upon
appellants
entitled
earn
reasonable
return
publicly
created
components
value
property
elements
value
attributable
efforts
organized
society
social
complex
terminal
located
excluded
however
since
record
upon
appeals
decided
case
recognized
contain
basis
segregating
privately
created
publicly
created
elements
value
terminal
site
since
judgment
appeals
event
rests
upon
bases
support
affirmance
see
infra
page
occasion
address
question
whether
permissible
feasible
separate
social
increments
value
property
see
costonis
disparity
issue
context
grand
central
terminal
decision
harv
rev
statement
issues
distillation
four
questions
presented
jurisdictional
statement
social
cultural
desirability
preserving
historical
landmarks
government
regulation
derogate
constitutional
requirement
compensation
paid
private
property
taken
public
use
penn
central
entitled
compensation
large
unmeasurable
portion
value
rights
construct
office
building
grand
central
terminal
said
created
efforts
society
organized
entity
finding
penn
central
failed
establish
possibility
without
exercising
development
rights
earning
reasonable
return
remaining
properties
benefit
way
operations
grand
central
terminal
warrant
conclusion
compensation
need
paid
taking
rights
possibility
accorded
penn
central
regulation
realizing
value
time
transferring
terminal
development
rights
buildings
procedure
conceded
defective
severely
limited
procedurally
complex
speculative
requires
ultimate
discretionary
approval
governmental
authorities
meet
constitutional
requirements
compensation
applied
landmarks
jurisdictional
statement
implicit
opinion
embrace
proposition
taking
never
occur
unless
government
transferred
physical
control
portion
parcel
jurisdictional
statement
brief
appellants
state
appellants
seeking
review
new
york
courts
determination
penn
central
earn
reasonable
return
investment
terminal
although
appellants
suggest
reply
brief
factual
conclusions
new
york
courts
sustained
unless
accept
rationale
new
york
appeals
see
reply
brief
appellants
apparent
findings
concerning
penn
central
ability
profit
terminal
depend
way
appeals
rationale
cases
dispose
contention
might
based
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
full
use
air
rights
bound
expectations
appellants
governmental
deprivation
rights
invariably
irrespective
impact
restriction
value
parcel
whole
constitutes
taking
similarly
welch
goldblatt
gorieb
illustrate
fallacy
appellants
related
contention
taking
must
found
occurred
whenever
restriction
may
characterized
imposing
servitude
claimant
parcel
although
new
york
appeals
contrasted
new
york
city
landmarks
law
zoning
legislation
stated
one
point
landmark
laws
general
community
plan
also
emphasized
implementation
objectives
landmarks
law
constitutes
acceptable
reason
singling
one
particular
parcel
different
less
favorable
treatment
therefore
understand
new
york
appeals
disagree
characterization
law
property
owner
challenges
application
zoning
ordinance
property
judicial
inquiry
focuses
upon
whether
challenged
restriction
reasonably
deemed
promote
objectives
community
plan
include
consideration
treatment
similar
parcels
see
generally
nectow
cambridge
property
owner
challenges
landmark
designation
restriction
arbitrary
discriminatory
similar
inquiry
presumably
occur
appellants
attempt
distinguish
cases
ground
government
prohibiting
noxious
use
land
present
case
contrast
appellants
proposed
construction
terminal
beneficial
observe
uses
issue
hadacheck
miller
goldblatt
perfectly
lawful
involved
blameworthiness
moral
wrongdoing
conscious
act
dangerous
induce
society
shift
cost
pa
rt
icular
individual
sax
takings
police
power
yale
cases
better
understood
resting
supposed
noxious
quality
prohibited
uses
rather
ground
restrictions
reasonably
related
implementation
policy
unlike
historic
preservation
expected
produce
widespread
public
benefit
applicable
similarly
situated
property
correlatively
asserted
destruction
fundamental
alteration
historic
landmark
harmful
suggestion
beneficial
quality
appellants
proposed
construction
established
fact
construction
consistent
applicable
zoning
laws
ignores
development
sensibilities
ideals
reflected
landmark
legislation
like
new
york
city
cf
west
bros
brick
alexandria
appeal
dismissed
want
substantial
federal
question
designated
landmarks
historic
districts
scenic
landmarks
manhattan
streets
see
landmarks
preservation
commission
landmarks
historic
districts
course
true
fact
duties
imposed
zoning
legislation
apply
throughout
particular
physical
communities
provides
assurances
arbitrariness
applicability
landmarks
law
large
number
parcels
city
view
provides
comparable
identical
assurances
appellants
course
argue
length
transferable
development
rights
valuable
constitute
compensation
brief
appellants
counsel
appellants
admitted
oral
argument
commission
suggested
example
approve
office
tower
along
lines
part
original
plan
terminal
see
tr
oral
arg
see
costonis
supra
emphasize
holding
today
present
record
turn
based
penn
central
present
ability
use
terminal
intended
purposes
gainful
fashion
city
conceded
oral
argument
appellants
demonstrate
point
future
circumstances
changed
terminal
ceases
economically
viable
appellants
may
obtain
relief
see
tr
oral
arg
justice
rehnquist
chief
justice
justice
stevens
join
dissenting
one
million
buildings
structures
city
new
york
appellees
singled
designation
official
landmarks
owner
building
might
initially
pleased
property
chosen
distinguished
committee
architects
historians
city
planners
singular
distinction
may
well
discover
appellant
penn
central
transportation
landmark
designation
imposes
upon
substantial
cost
little
offsetting
benefit
except
honor
designation
question
case
whether
cost
associated
city
new
york
desire
preserve
limited
number
landmarks
within
borders
must
borne
taxpayers
whether
instead
imposed
entirely
owners
individual
properties
superficial
sense
word
case
said
involve
zoning
typical
zoning
restrictions
may
true
limit
prospective
uses
piece
property
diminish
value
property
abstract
may
used
forbidden
purposes
abstract
decrease
value
likely
least
partially
offset
increase
value
flows
similar
restrictions
use
neighboring
properties
property
owners
designated
area
placed
restrictions
benefit
municipality
whole
also
common
benefit
one
another
words
justice
holmes
speaking
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
average
reciprocity
advantage
relatively
individual
buildings
separated
one
another
singled
treated
differently
surrounding
buildings
reciprocity
exists
cost
property
owner
results
imposition
restrictions
applicable
property
neighbors
may
substantial
case
several
million
dollars
comparable
reciprocal
benefits
cost
associated
landmark
legislation
likely
completely
different
order
magnitude
results
imposition
normal
zoning
restrictions
unlike
regime
affected
latter
landowner
simply
prohibited
using
property
certain
purposes
allowed
use
purposes
preservation
scheme
adopted
new
york
property
owner
affirmative
duty
preserve
property
landmark
expense
suggest
traditional
zoning
results
limitation
use
property
zoned
new
york
city
landmark
preservation
scheme
likewise
upheld
represents
ultimate
treating
alike
things
different
rubric
zoning
yet
sufficed
avoid
proposition
fifth
amendment
bars
government
forcing
people
alone
bear
public
burdens
fairness
justice
borne
public
whole
armstrong
see
discussion
infra
august
grand
central
terminal
designated
landmark
objections
owner
penn
central
immediately
upon
designation
penn
central
like
owners
landmark
site
placed
affirmative
duty
backed
criminal
fines
penalties
keep
exterior
portions
landmark
good
repair
even
burdensome
however
strict
limitations
thereupon
imposed
penn
central
use
property
time
grand
central
designated
landmark
penn
central
precarious
financial
condition
effort
increase
sources
revenue
penn
central
entered
lease
agreement
appellant
ugp
properties
ugp
construct
operate
multistory
office
building
cantilevered
terminal
building
period
construction
ugp
pay
penn
central
million
per
year
upon
completion
ugp
rent
building
years
option
another
years
guaranteed
minimum
rental
million
per
year
record
clear
proposed
office
building
full
compliance
new
york
zoning
laws
height
limitations
landmarks
preservation
law
however
appellants
construct
proposed
office
building
unless
appellee
landmarks
preservation
commission
issued
either
certificate
exterior
effect
certificate
appropriateness
although
appellants
architectural
plan
preserved
facade
terminal
landmarks
preservation
commission
refused
approve
construction
fifth
amendment
provides
part
shall
private
property
taken
public
use
without
compensation
literal
sense
actions
appellees
violated
constitutional
prohibition
city
new
york
declared
grand
central
terminal
landmark
penn
central
used
air
rights
terminal
build
multistory
office
building
apparent
value
several
million
dollars
per
year
today
terminal
modified
form
including
erection
additional
stories
without
permission
landmark
preservation
commission
permission
appellants
despite
attempts
far
unable
obtain
taking
clause
fifth
amendment
always
read
literally
however
constitutionality
appellees
actions
requires
closer
scrutiny
interpretation
three
key
words
taking
clause
property
taken
compensation
appellees
dispute
valuable
property
rights
destroyed
frequently
emphasized
term
property
used
taking
clause
includes
entire
group
rights
inhering
citizen
ownership
general
motors
term
used
vulgar
untechnical
sense
physical
thing
respect
citizen
exercises
rights
recognized
law
instead
denote
group
rights
inhering
citizen
relation
physical
thing
right
possess
use
dispose
constitutional
provision
addressed
every
sort
interest
citizen
may
possess
emphasis
added
appellees
thus
destroyed
literal
sense
taken
substantial
property
rights
penn
central
term
taken
might
narrowly
interpreted
include
physical
seizures
property
rights
construction
phrase
narrow
courts
held
deprivation
former
owner
rather
accretion
right
interest
sovereign
constitutes
taking
see
also
lynah
dugan
rank
every
destruction
injury
property
governmental
action
held
taking
constitutional
sense
armstrong
however
end
inquiry
examination
two
exceptions
destruction
property
constitute
taking
demonstrates
compensable
taking
occurred
early
recognized
government
prevent
property
owner
using
property
injure
others
without
compensate
owner
value
forbidden
use
prohibition
simply
upon
use
property
purposes
declared
valid
legislation
injurious
health
morals
safety
community
sense
deemed
taking
appropriation
property
public
benefit
legislation
disturb
owner
control
use
property
lawful
purposes
restrict
right
dispose
declaration
state
use
one
certain
forbidden
purposes
prejudicial
public
interest
power
prohibiting
use
individuals
property
prejudicial
health
morals
safety
public
consistently
existence
safety
organized
society
burdened
condition
state
must
compensate
individual
owners
pecuniary
losses
may
sustain
reason
permitted
noxious
use
property
inflict
injury
upon
community
mugler
kansas
nuisance
exception
taking
guarantee
coterminous
police
power
question
whether
forbidden
use
dangerous
safety
health
welfare
others
thus
curtin
benson
held
government
prohibiting
owner
property
within
boundaries
yosemite
national
park
grazing
cattle
property
taken
owner
property
assumed
government
constitutionally
require
owner
fence
land
take
action
prevent
cattle
straying
onto
others
land
without
compensating
laws
might
considered
strictly
regulations
use
property
using
injury
result
others
effect
making
owner
land
herd
cattle
land
making
responsible
neglect
appellees
prohibiting
nuisance
record
clear
proposed
addition
grand
central
terminal
full
compliance
zoning
height
limitations
health
safety
requirements
instead
appellees
seeking
preserve
believe
outstanding
example
beaux
arts
architecture
penn
central
prevented
developing
property
basically
good
job
done
designing
building
city
new
york
unadorned
admiration
design
decided
owners
building
must
preserve
unchanged
benefit
sightseeing
new
yorkers
tourists
unlike
regulations
appellees
actions
merely
prohibit
penn
central
using
property
narrow
set
noxious
ways
instead
appellees
placed
affirmative
duty
penn
central
maintain
terminal
present
state
good
repair
appellants
free
use
property
see
fit
within
broad
outer
boundaries
must
strictly
adhere
past
use
except
appellees
conclude
alternative
uses
detract
landmark
penn
central
may
continue
use
terminal
presently
designed
appellees
otherwise
exercise
complete
dominion
control
surface
land
causby
must
compensate
owner
loss
ibid
property
taken
constitutional
sense
inroads
made
upon
owner
use
extent
private
parties
servitude
acquired
dickinson
see
also
dugan
rank
supra
even
government
prohibits
noninjurious
use
ruled
taking
take
place
prohibition
applies
broad
cross
section
land
thereby
secure
average
reciprocity
advantage
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
reason
zoning
constitute
taking
zoning
times
reduces
individual
property
values
burden
shared
relatively
evenly
reasonable
conclude
whole
individual
harmed
one
aspect
zoning
benefited
another
however
multimillion
dollar
loss
imposed
appellants
uniquely
felt
offset
benefits
flowing
preservation
landmarks
new
york
city
appellees
imposed
substantial
cost
less
one
one
percent
buildings
new
york
city
general
benefit
people
exactly
imposition
general
costs
individuals
taking
protection
directed
fifth
amendment
prevents
public
loading
upon
one
individual
share
burdens
government
says
surrenders
public
something
different
exacted
members
public
full
equivalent
shall
returned
monongahela
navigation
fifth
amendment
guarantee
private
property
shall
taken
public
use
without
compensation
designed
bar
government
forcing
people
alone
bear
public
burdens
fairness
justice
borne
public
whole
armstrong
justice
holmes
pointed
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
question
bottom
eminent
domain
case
upon
loss
changes
desired
fall
benefits
appellees
believe
flow
preservation
grand
central
terminal
accrue
citizens
new
york
city
reason
believe
appellants
enjoy
substantially
greater
share
benefits
cost
preserving
grand
central
terminal
spread
evenly
across
entire
population
city
new
york
burden
per
person
cents
per
year
minor
cost
appellees
surely
concede
benefit
accrued
instead
however
appellees
impose
entire
cost
several
million
dollars
per
year
penn
central
precisely
sort
discrimination
fifth
amendment
prohibits
appellees
response
argue
taking
occurs
property
owner
denied
reasonable
value
property
frequently
held
even
destruction
property
rights
otherwise
constitute
taking
inability
owner
make
reasonable
return
property
requires
compensation
fifth
amendment
see
lynah
converse
true
taking
become
noncompensable
exercise
police
power
simply
government
grace
allows
owner
make
reasonable
use
property
character
invasion
amount
damage
resulting
long
damage
substantial
determines
question
whether
taking
cress
causby
see
also
goldblatt
hempstead
appellees
apparently
recognizing
constraints
imposed
landmark
site
constitute
taking
fifth
amendment
purposes
leave
property
owner
notes
ante
property
owner
may
theoretically
transfer
previous
right
develop
landmark
property
adjacent
properties
control
appellees
coined
system
transfer
development
rights
tdr
terms
used
taking
clause
compensation
strictest
meaning
fifth
amendment
allow
simply
approximate
compensation
requires
full
perfect
equivalent
property
taken
monongahela
navigation
adjective
omitted
provision
simply
property
taken
without
compensation
natural
import
language
compensation
equivalent
property
made
emphatic
adjective
view
combination
two
words
doubt
compensation
must
full
perfect
equivalent
property
taken
ibid
legislature
may
determine
private
property
needed
public
purposes
question
political
legislative
character
taking
ordered
question
compensation
judicial
rest
public
taking
property
congress
legislature
representative
say
compensation
shall
paid
even
shall
rule
compensation
constitution
declared
compensation
shall
paid
ascertainment
judicial
inquiry
monongahela
navigation
supra
many
defects
new
york
city
program
development
rights
transfers
detailed
elsewhere
area
transfer
permitted
severely
limited
complex
procedures
required
obtain
transfer
permit
ii
years
ago
justice
holmes
speaking
warned
courts
danger
forgetting
strong
public
desire
improve
public
condition
enough
warrant
achieving
desire
shorter
cut
constitutional
way
paying
change
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
opinion
case
demonstrates
danger
thus
foreseen
abated
city
new
york
precarious
financial
state
may
believe
costs
landmark
preservation
easily
borne
corporations
penn
central
overburdened
individual
taxpayers
new
york
concerns
allow
us
ignore
past
precedents
construing
eminent
domain
clause
end
desire
improve
public
condition
indeed
achieved
shorter
cut
constitutional
way
paying
change
large
percentage
designated
landmarks
public
structures
brooklyn
bridge
city
hall
statue
liberty
municipal
asphalt
plant
thus
raise
fifth
amendment
taking
questions
see
landmarks
preservation
commission
city
new
york
landmarks
historic
districts
supplement
although
refers
new
york
ordinance
comprehensive
program
preserve
historic
landmarks
ante
ordinance
limited
historic
buildings
gives
little
guidance
landmarks
preservation
commission
selection
landmark
sites
section
landmarks
preservation
law
set
forth
admin
code
ch
requires
selected
landmark
least
years
old
possess
special
character
special
historical
aesthetic
interest
value
part
development
heritage
cultural
characteristics
city
state
nation
even
new
york
appeals
conceded
zoning
case
zoning
restrictions
operate
advance
comprehensive
community
plan
common
good
property
owner
zone
benefited
restricted
exploitation
presumably
without
discrimination
except
permitted
continuing
nonconforming
uses
restrictions
may
designed
maintain
general
character
area
assure
orderly
development
objectives
inuring
benefit
property
owners
acting
individually
find
difficult
impossible
achieve
case
involve
landmark
regulation
historic
district
historic
districting
traditional
zoning
owners
although
burdened
restrictions
also
benefit
extent
furtherance
general
community
plan
restrictions
alteration
individual
landmarks
designed
general
community
plan
landmark
restrictions
designed
prevent
alteration
demolition
single
piece
property
extent
restrictions
resemble
discriminatory
zoning
restrictions
properly
condemned
guarantee
private
property
shall
taken
public
use
without
compensation
applicable
fourteenth
amendment
although
state
legislature
may
prescribe
form
procedure
observed
taking
private
property
public
use
due
process
law
provision
made
compensation
chicago
chicago
opinion
touches
base
least
attempts
touch
base
major
eminent
domain
cases
decided
use
however
anything
meticulous
citing
caltex
example
ante
language
remotely
applicable
eminent
domain
stated
terms
destruction
respondents
terminals
trained
team
engineers
face
impending
seizure
enemy
particular
penn
central
increase
height
terminal
previously
held
air
rights
area
land
property
purposes
fifth
amendment
see
causby
air
rights
taken
airplanes
griggs
allegheny
county
portsmouth
harbor
land
hotel
firing
projectiles
summer
resort
constitute
taking
see
also
butler
frontier
telephone
stringing
telephone
wire
across
property
constitutes
taking
course
irrelevant
appellees
interfered
destroyed
property
rights
penn
central
yet
physically
used
fifth
amendment
must
applied
reference
uses
property
suitable
regard
existing
business
wants
community
may
reasonably
expected
immediate
future
boom
patterson
emphasis
added
construction
pervert
constitutional
provision
restriction
upon
rights
citizen
rights
stood
common
law
instead
government
make
authority
invasion
private
right
pretext
public
good
warrant
laws
practices
ancestors
cases
cited
proposition
legislation
severely
affects
landowners
others
effect
taking
involved
noxious
uses
property
see
hadacheck
miller
schoene
goldblatt
see
ante
monongahela
navigation
monangahela
company
expended
large
sums
money
improving
monongahela
river
means
locks
dams
condemned
property
use
held
full
compensation
awarded
suppose
improvement
navigable
stream
deemed
essential
construct
canal
locks
order
pass
around
rapids
falls
power
congress
condemn
whatever
land
may
necessary
canal
question
equal
necessity
paying
full
compensation
private
property
taken
little
doubt
rationale
however
government
wishes
preserve
canal
system
public
use
need
condemn
property
need
merely
order
preserved
present
form
kept
good
repair
appellants
concede
preservation
buildings
historical
aesthetic
importance
permissible
objective
state
action
brief
appellants
cf
berman
parker
gettysburg
electric
reasons
noted
text
historic
zoning
undertaken
cities
new
orleans
may
well
require
compensation
fifth
amendment
true
police
power
embraces
regulations
designed
promote
public
convenience
general
welfare
merely
interest
public
health
safety
morals
particular
individuals
singled
bear
cost
advancing
public
convenience
imposition
must
bear
reasonable
relation
evils
eradicated
advantages
secured
moneys
raised
general
taxation
may
constitutionally
applied
purposes
individual
taxed
may
receive
benefit
indeed
suffer
serious
detriment
assessments
public
improvements
laid
upon
particular
property
owners
ordinarily
constitutional
based
benefits
received
fact
landmarks
preservation
commission
may
allowed
additions
relatively
landmarks
comfort
appellants
ante
comfort
commission
refuses
allow
appellants
construct
additional
stories
belief
construction
aesthetic
ante
difficult
conceptual
legal
problems
posed
rule
taking
occurs
property
owner
denied
reasonable
return
property
must
define
reasonable
return
variety
types
property
farmlands
residential
properties
commercial
industrial
areas
must
define
particular
property
unit
examined
example
case
appellees
viewed
restricted
penn
central
use
air
rights
return
denied
see
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
little
resolve
questions
opinion
thus
one
point
implies
question
whether
restrictions
unduly
harsh
impact
upon
owner
use
property
ante
another
point
question
phrased
whether
penn
central
obtain
reasonable
return
investment
ante
yet
another
point
question
becomes
whether
landmark
economically
viable
ante
suggests
ante
appellees
held
taken
property
rights
landmark
owners
new
york
city
landmarks
preservation
law
comparable
landmark
legislation
nation
must
fall
assumes
course
tdr
compensation
property
rights
destroyed
also
ignores
fact
many
cities
nation
chosen
preserve
landmarks
purchasing
condemning
restrictive
easements
facades
landmarks
apparently
quite
satisfied
results
see
rev
stat
md
ann
code
art
code
richmond
city
code
et
seq
british
national
trust
effectively
used
restrictive
easements
preserve
landmarks
since
see
national
trust
act
edw
geo
ch
lvii
cities
found
tax
incentives
also
effective
means
encouraging
private
preservation
landmark
sites
see
stat
rev
ch
code
new
york
city
landmarks
preservation
law
departs
drastically
traditional
constitutional
means
preserving
landmarks