Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1978

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City

438 U.S. 104 | 98 S. Ct. 2646 | 57 L. Ed. 2d 631 | 1978 U.S. LEXIS 39

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case established the modern, fact-specific regulatory-takings framework: a landmark restriction was not a taking because Penn Central retained economically viable use of Grand Central Terminal, its investment-backed expectations were not sufficiently frustrated, and the City had not physically appropriated the property.

Background

New York City designated Grand Central Terminal and the block on which it sits as a landmark under its Landmarks Preservation Law. The law required Commission approval for exterior alterations or new construction on a landmark site. Penn Central, seeking additional revenue, leased airspace above the Terminal to a developer that proposed a 55-story office tower or, alternatively, a 53-story tower requiring substantial demolition and alteration of the Terminal. Although the plans complied with ordinary zoning rules, the Landmarks Preservation Commission rejected both proposals as incompatible with the Terminal's historic and architectural character.

The law nevertheless allowed Penn Central to continue operating the Terminal as a railroad station with offices and concessions. It also gave the company transferable development rights (TDRs), permitting unused development potential from the Terminal site to be transferred to specified nearby parcels. Penn Central did not submit a smaller or modified proposal after the denials. Instead, it sued, arguing that the landmark restrictions took its property without just compensation.

The trial court ruled for Penn Central, but the Appellate Division reversed. It concluded that Penn Central had not shown that the Terminal could not earn a reasonable return or that its transferable development rights lacked value. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the law did not transfer control of the property to the City and that Penn Central retained a reasonable return and valuable transferable rights. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether applying New York City's Landmarks Preservation Law to Grand Central Terminal effected a regulatory taking requiring just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Holding

No. On the record before the Court, the landmark restrictions did not effect a taking of Penn Central's property.

Reasoning

The Court rejected any categorical formula for regulatory takings. Whether regulation goes far enough to require compensation depends on an ad hoc, factual inquiry. The especially important considerations are the regulation's economic impact, the degree to which it interferes with distinct investment-backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action. A physical invasion more readily constitutes a taking than a general land-use program that adjusts the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good.

Penn Central could not isolate the airspace above Grand Central Terminal as a separate piece of property and claim a taking because development of that segment had been restricted. The relevant unit of property was the landmark site as a whole. Takings law evaluates the nature and extent of the interference with the entire parcel, not the loss of a particular asserted right within it.

The Court also rejected the argument that regulation of individual landmarks is inherently an uncompensated taking because it singles out selected properties. The Landmarks Law was part of a comprehensive citywide preservation program, not arbitrary or discriminatory spot zoning. The fact that a general-welfare measure burdens some owners more heavily than others does not itself establish a taking; comparable burdens had been sustained in zoning and other land-use cases.

The law did not physically occupy or appropriate the Terminal for a government enterprise. Unlike the low military overflights in Causby, New York did not use Penn Central's airspace for its own operations. It prohibited construction that would undermine the landmark's character while allowing Penn Central to continue using the site gainfully.

Most importantly, the designation did not interfere with the Terminal's existing use as a railroad station with commercial space, which the Court treated as Penn Central's primary investment-backed expectation. Penn Central conceded for purposes of the appeal that the Terminal could earn a reasonable return in its present use. The regulation therefore did not render the parcel economically useless or prevent reasonable beneficial use.

The Commission had rejected only Penn Central's two very large proposals. It had not foreclosed every addition above the Terminal, and Penn Central had not sought approval for a smaller, compatible structure. Further, the transferable development rights were valuable and could be used on nearby parcels. Although the Court did not regard TDRs as necessarily equivalent to constitutional compensation, they mitigated the regulation's financial impact and properly figured in the takings analysis.

Issue #2

Whether the transferable development rights supplied to Penn Central constituted just compensation.

Holding

The Court did not decide this question because it held that no taking had occurred.

Reasoning

Penn Central argued that the TDR program was procedurally burdensome, limited in geographic scope, and less valuable than the ability to build a tower directly above Grand Central. The Court acknowledged that the rights might not have constituted just compensation had a taking been found.

But because the landmark designation did not amount to a taking, the Fifth Amendment did not require compensation. The Court considered the TDRs only as one factor reducing the economic burden imposed by the regulation, not as a definitive substitute for payment of just compensation.

Dissents

Justice Rehnquist

Reasoning

Justice Rehnquist, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Stevens, viewed the landmark designation as a compensable taking. In his view, New York imposed a unique and substantial burden on a small number of selected landmark owners: Penn Central was required to preserve the Terminal and was denied the valuable right to build a lawful office tower above it. The public at large would enjoy the preservation benefits, but Penn Central alone bore the multimillion-dollar cost.

He distinguished ordinary zoning. Traditional zoning generally regulates a geographic area and creates an "average reciprocity of advantage," because neighboring owners both bear restrictions and receive benefits from limits placed on one another. Individual-landmark regulation, by contrast, singled out scattered properties and imposed a nonconsensual preservation servitude not shared by neighboring landowners.

The dissent also rejected the majority's emphasis on Penn Central's ability to earn a reasonable return from the Terminal's existing uses. A government action can take a substantial property right even when it leaves the owner some profitable use of the larger parcel. Here, the City had taken away a valuable development opportunity for aesthetic and public-preservation purposes, rather than preventing a harmful or noxious use.

Justice Rehnquist would not have held that landmark preservation is impermissible. He accepted that preservation serves a valid public purpose, but argued that the public must pay when it demands that a private owner preserve a selected landmark for public benefit. He would have remanded for a determination whether the transferable development rights provided the required full and perfect equivalent of the property interest taken.