Penn Central Transportation Co
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Cincinnati, Main Campus *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1001
Subject
History
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
1
Uploaded by BaronStrawDugong120
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978)
Summary
: Under the New York City Landmarks Preservation, various buildings and structures around New York City were designated as landmarks. One of these Landmarks was The Grand Central Station Terminal which is owned by the Penn Central Transportation company. As a “landmark” the Grand Central Station Terminal was required to maintain certain standards. The Penn Central Transportation company wanted to build office buildings above the Grand Central Station terminal and had to request permission from the New York City Landmarks Committee for permission to build on their own property. The Committee refused the Penn Central Transportation company the right to build on their own property because the Committee didn’t want the view of the terminal obstructed. The Penn Central Transportation company sued the New York City Landmarks Preservation over the “air rights” of their own property claiming it was unlawfully seized by the committee. The New York State Supreme Court sided with the Penn Central Transportation company but did not institute any damages. The state court of appeals reversed the ruling of the State Supreme Court saying that the Landmarks Preservation Committee acted lawfully. It was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Questions
: Did the restrictions imposed by the New York City Landmark Preservation Committee and the denial of air rights institute a violation of the Penn Central Transportation Companies 5 amendment rights?
Holding
: The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals that neither the law nor the Landmarks Preservation Committee infringes on the primary usage of the Grand Central Station Terminal. The Court reasoned that denying construction of a fifty story building above the Grand Central Station Terminal was a justifiable restriction and therefore did not require compensation to the Penn Central Transportation company. The takings clause requires that an individual must be compensation if the government seizes private property for usage. In determining the whether the government had unlawfully seized the plaintiffs property and violated the takings clause of the fifth amendment, the court looked at several things. First, the economic impact of the loss must be substantial. Secondly, the Court looked to determine if the government had physically seized the property or implanted programs to promote the common good, both must be weighed against the burden of the property owner. Given that there are hundreds of other sites designated as landmarks by the Landmarks Preservation Committee, the Penn Central Transportation Company was not individually discriminated against. In addition, the court ruled that the law and committee does not prevent an individual from building on their property however, the construction of a 50 story building is outside the scope of regular use of a property and therefore is not protected.
Discover more documents: Sign up today!
Unlock a world of knowledge! Explore tailored content for a richer learning experience. Here's what you'll get:
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help