There, the conceivable public purpose was economically revitalization of a struggling city.Įminent domain is the paradigm example of a taking. Kelo held that a state could use eminent domain to take property from a private individual and redistribute it to another individual as long as that taking is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose. City of New London, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of eminent domain and expanded its scope. Of course, where the government employs eminent domain, it must pay the former property owner just compensation. Eminent domain is the government’s authority to expropriate property without the owner’s consent in certain circumstances. The power of eminent domain is a clear instance of government takings. ![]() The Fifth Amendment provides that “private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Where the government takes property without such compensation, this is an unconstitutional taking. ![]() The Supreme Court declined to hear this case. The landlords petitioned the Supreme Court asking them to decide on this question. ![]() The Second Circuit has repeatedly held that these laws do not qualify as a government taking. New York sits within the jurisdiction of The Second Circuit Court of Appeals. To challenge the limitations on rent increases, a group of landlords brought a lawsuit claiming that New York City’s rent-stabilization laws are an unconstitutional government taking of their property. To address this concern, the City has a Rent Guidelines Board which regulates how much the rent for rent-stabilized apartments can increase each year. The previous owner had granted appellees Teleprompter Corp.Rent in New York City is famously high. 2 * Appellant Jean Loretto purchased a five-story apartment building located at 303 West 105th Street, New York City, in 1971. Because we conclude that such a physical occupation of property is a taking, we reverse. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that this appropriation does not amount to a taking. In this case, the cable installation occupied portions of appellant's roof and the side of her building. New York law provides that a landlord must permit a cable television company to install its cable facilities upon his property. 1 This case presents the question whether a minor but permanent physical occupation of an owner's property authorized by government constitutes a "taking" of property for which just compensation is due under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. analysis governing a State's power to require landlords to comply with building codes. ![]() The New York statute does not purport to give the Physical occupation of one type of property but not another is no less a physical occupation. The fact that the New York statute applies only to buildings used as rental property does not make it simply a regulation of the use of real property. There is no constitutional difference between a crossover and noncrossover installation, since portions of the installation necessary for both types of install ation permanently appropriated appellant's property. (c) Here, the cable installation on appellant's building constituted a taking under the traditional physical occupation test, since it involved a direct physical attachment of plates, boxes, wires, bolts, and screws to the building, completely occupying space immediately above and upon the roof and along the building's exterior wall. And constitutional protection for the rights of private property cannot be made to depend on the size of the area permanently occupied. Of property, since the owner may have no control over the timing, extent, or nature of the invasion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |