Case brief summary
A law limiting property use only counts as a taking needing payment if it goes too far, based on lost value, remaining reasonable use, and whether it's a physical takeover versus normal regulation.
Facts
New York declared Grand Central Terminal a protected landmark, requiring upkeep and approval for changes. When Penn Central wanted to build an office tower above it, the city refused, though owners could sell unused building rights elsewhere.
Procedural history
Penn Central sued, claiming the landmarks law took their property unfairly. A trial court agreed, but New York's appeals courts reversed, ruling no unconstitutional taking occurred.
Issue
Does applying New York City's landmarks law to Grand Central Terminal count as the government taking private property, which would require the city to pay the owner for it under the Fifth Amendment?
Holding
The Supreme Court held that applying the landmarks law to Grand Central Terminal did not take Penn Central's property in the constitutional sense, so no payment was required.
Reasoning
The Court looked at the whole property, not just the airspace, weighing economic harm, effect on plans, and physical seizure. Since Penn Central could still earn reasonable returns and sell development rights, no taking occurred.
Opinions
Majority (Brennan): The landmarks law applied to Grand Central Terminal is a valid land use rule that leaves the owner a reasonable return, so it is not an unconstitutional taking.
Dissent (Rehnquist): The law singles out a few owners like Penn Central to bear a public benefit's cost alone, destroying valuable rights without fair payment in return.