Archive | Inverse Condemnation

CAN GOVERNMENT DESIGNATE PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED AND RESTRICT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the filing of a map which designates property for future highway acquisition and prohibits development in the interim is a taking.  Kirby v North Carolina Dept. of Trans., 368 N.C. 847 (2016). The Court held, “upon NCDOT’s recording of the highway corridor maps at issue here, the Map Act restricted plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to improve, develop, and subdivide their property for an unlimited period of time.  These restraints, coupled with their indefinite nature, constitute a taking of plaintiffs’ elemental property rights by eminent… read more

Posted in Highest and Best Use, Inverse Condemnation, Zoning
Read more > 0

Regulatory Taking and Inverse Condemnation: Taxi Medallions and Wetland Building Permits

In two separate decisions on August 15, 2016, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York rejected regulatory taking and inverse condemnation claims. The first decision is about the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission’s (“TLC”) commitment to “adopt regulations requiring that half of the city’s more than 13,000 yellow cabs be accessible to people with disabilities within six years.”  Singh v. Joshi, 152 F. Supp. 3d 112 (E.D.N.Y. 2016). The plaintiffs are three individual TLC medallion holders who argued that, among other things, the… read more

Posted in Eminent Domain, Inverse Condemnation, Recent cases, Regulatory Taking, Wetlands
Read more > 0

Grand Central Terminal Air Rights Takings Litigation Settled

The Grand Central Terminal air rights takings litigation was settled yesterday.  We reviewed this litigation in our blog on June 8, 2016, available here: http://eminent-domain-blog.com/update-grand-central-terminal-air-rights-takings-litigation/ This settlement will allow for the construction of a 1,401-foot-tall building across 42nd Street on Vanderbilt Avenue in Manhattan. Interestingly, the settlement, according to a New York Times article, dated August 10, 2016, is likely because of a change in the ownership of the plaintiff corporation.  The new owners are MSD Capital, a firm controlled by Michael Dell, the founder of Dell Computers, and brothers… read more

Posted in Inverse Condemnation, Litigation, Zoning
Read more > 0

Update on the Grand Central Terminal Air Rights Takings Litigation

On September 28, 2015, Plaintiffs Midtown TDR Ventures LLC and Midtown GCT Ventures LLC, the owners of Grand Central Terminal, brought an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the City of New York, the City Council, and private real estate developer SL Green Realty Corporation, and argued that the May 27, 2015, Vanderbilt Corridor rezoning effected a taking of Plaintiffs’ transferable development rights, or air rights, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Unused air rights have… read more

Posted in Inverse Condemnation, New York, Regulatory Taking, Zoning
Read more > 0

New York Law Journal: Inverse Condemnation or De Facto Taking – What’s in the Name?

Michael Rikon authored a column in the February 23, 2016, edition of the New York Law Journal titled, “Inverse Condemnation or De Facto Taking: What’s in the Name?  In his article, Mr. Rikon discusses the difference between inverse condemnations and de facto takings, and that courts err in interchangeably using these terms. Mr. Rikon reviews the four different categories of inverse condemnations, also known as regulatory takings.  Mr. Rikon covers Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., 544 U.S. 528 (2005), United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946), Lucas v. South Carolina… read more

Posted in Eminent Domain, Inverse Condemnation, Regulatory Taking, Uncategorized, Wetlands
Read more > 0