Penn Central Transportation V New York City
Penn Central Transportation V New York City
543)
HELD:
1. No. The 5th Amendments guarantee is designed to bar Government from forcing some
people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be
borne by the public as a whole. Petitioners contend that their property is taken because
they were denied the ability to exploit their property interest cannot be sustained. The
Court opined that a taking may more readily be found when the interference with the
property can be characterized as a physical invasion by the government.
The landmark laws are not like discriminatory zoning. The New York law embodies a
comprehensive plan to preserve the structures of historic or aesthetic interest wherever
they may be found in the city, and there are over 400 landmarks and 31 historic districts
which was designated pursuant to the plan. There was no evidence that the decision to
designate the structure as a landmark is arbitrary, or at the very least subjective. The
Court also noted that legislation designed to promote the general welfare commonly
burdens some more than the others, but that fact does not necessarily invalidate the
law. Petitioners contention that they are solely burdened and unbenefited is inaccurate.
The law applies to vast numbers of structures in the city, in addition to the terminal.
2. No. The New York City law does not interfere in any way with the present uses of the
terminal. The designation as a landmark contemplates the continued use of the property
precisely as it has been used for the past 65 years. The law does not interfere with what
must be regarded as the primary use of the property. The restrictions imposed are
substantially related to the promotion of the general welfare. At the same time, it permits
reasonable beneficial use of the site and affords appellants opportunities to further
enhance the Terminal proper and other properties.