FILED 

OCTOBER 27, 2016 

In the Office of the Clerk of Court 

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DIVISION THREE 

TAPIO INVESTMENT COMP ANY I, a 

Washington limited liability company; 

MONARCH INVESTMENT; TAPIO 

OFFICE IV PARTNERSHIP; 

CLONINGER/EUCKER 

PARTNERSHIP; PAMELA M. 

CLONINGER, an individual, and 

CLONINGER & ASSOCIATES, LLC, a 

Washington limited liability company, 

Appellants, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, by and ) 

through the Department of Transportation, ) 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

No. 33684-1-111 

PUBLISHED OPINION 

SIDDOWAY, J. -Tapio Investment Company I and its affiliates1 (collectively 

"Tapio") filed an inverse condemnation lawsuit against the State of Washington 

1 Monarch Investment, Tapio Office IV Partnership, Cloninger/Bucker 

Partnership, Pamela M. Cloninger, and Cloninger Associates, LLC. 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company 1 v. State 

Department of Transportation for an alleged taking of Tapio's office park during 

construction of a major freeway project in Spokane. The approved route for the freeway 

includes a portion of the office park, which is situated partially within a planned 

interchange. Construction of the interchange will be one of the last steps in the decadeslong construction process. The Department will not need Tapio's property for many 

years. 

The case proceeded to a jury trial on Tapio's theory that while the Department had 

not physically or legally interfered with use of its property, Department publicity about 

the freeway project and its acquisition of nearby properties hampered Tapio's leasing 

activity and diminished the market value of the office park to an extent that had, by 2006, 

already effected a constitutional taking. At the close of Tapio's case the trial court 

granted the Department's CR 50 motion, ruling that Tapio's evidence was insufficient as 

a matter of law to support a claim for relief. 

On appeal, Tapio abandons any request that we recognize a new type of inverse 

condemnation claim for taking by oppressive preacquisition conduct-one theory that it 

advanced in the trial court. It contends, instead, that its evidence was sufficient to 

support its claim of inverse condemnation under existing law. Because there has been no 

physical invasion ofTapio's land, no regulation restricting Tapio's use of its property, 

and the harm it complains of does not otherwise amount to a constitutional taking, we 

affirm. 

2 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

What is commonly referred to in Spokane as the future North-South Freeway is a 

partially completed, 10.5 mile long, high-speed limited access freeway that will link U.S. 

Highways 2 and 395 with Interstate 90 in the city of Spokane. The approved route 

traverses a great deal of developed property, requiring that approximately 940 parcels of 

land be acquired. Among them is the Tapio Center, which is situated partially within a 

planned interchange at Interstate 90. 

Tapio Center is a three-acre office park located near the Thor-Freya interchange 

on Interstate 90. Nine office buildings and one restaurant are positioned on the perimeter 

of the site in what one owner has described as a "circle the wagons" format, with a parklike setting in the protected interior. Report of Proceedings (RP) at 1012. Common 

parking is included in the landscaped center, to which there are presently eight entrances. 

The north portion of Tapio Center includes five buildings managed by their majority 

owner, the Cloninger family. The five buildings in the south portion are primarily owned 

by Dixon/Stejer family interests and are managed by John Stejer. 

The freeway project's right-of-way plans call for complete removal of three 

buildings in the south portion of Tapio Center. Two others will be "clipped." RP at 562. 

Southern access to the office park will be eliminated and access and parking to the 

northern portion will be affected. 

3 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

Construction of the freeway project is proceeding from U.S. Highway 395 on the 

north toward Interstate 90 on the south. Since Tapio Center is among the southern-most 

properties touched by the approved route, the Department will not need to acquire, 

physically affect, or regulate use of Tapio's property for many years. 

The Department's initial budget request to fund the purchase of all properties 

needed for the freeway project was denied by the legislature. Instead, the legislature 

began providing partial acquisition funding of approximately $16 million each biennium. 

Funding for a particular biennium is not appropriated or tied to particular locations and 

may be used by the Department to acquire properties anywhere along the project right-ofway. 

The Department's communication about the freeway project with affected persons 

has been extensive. Following initial environmental approval of the freeway project in 

the late 1990s, the Department had, by the time of the trial below, held over 100 public 

meetings to impart information and gather public input. It had communicated with every 

identifiable affected property owner, and continued to communicate with them as 

construction progressed toward their area. 

Before commencing this inverse condemnation action in 2011, Tapio's owners 

had complained for years that publicity about the freeway project was worrying their 

tenants, hampering leasing activity, and making it difficult to plan for improvements and 

long-term maintenance expenditures. Concerns first expressed in writing in 1999 were 

4 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company Iv. State 

renewed in writing several times, and in additional meetings and conversations with 

Department representatives. The Cloninger family patriarch, Glen Cloninger, asked in 

1999 that the Department make an early purchase of the properties in which his family 

was invested. In 2002, Mr. Stejer wrote to Timothy Golden, the Department's real estate 

manager for the North-South Freeway, asking that the Department "go ahead and initiate 

the necessary proceedings," to acquire the needed Tapio property in order to prevent 

further economic damage. RP at 401; Ex. 17. 

In written responses to Tapio's correspondence, Department representatives 

explained that its public communication about the project was required by federal and 

state environmental regulations; that construction would not affect Tapio's property 

anytime soon and it did not expect to acquire Tapio's property for years; that when 

property was condemned, it would be valued as if there was never any freeway project; 

and that the Department's recommendation was that all property owners "maintain or 

enhance their properties as they see fit," because the Department "will consider all 

improvements and maintenance made to the property during the appraisal prior to 

purchase." RP at 819; Ex. 18. 

By the end of 2003, the Department had acquired several properties in the area of 

Interstate 90, even though construction was still several miles north in the Wandermere 

area. The acquisitions included a vacant tavern and a daycare that were purchased due to 

owner medical and hardship reasons, as well as two church buildings. The Department 

5 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

occasionally purchased residences in response to requests from homeowners that it 

purchase their homes, and East Central Neighborhood community leaders eventually 

lobbied for a verbal commitment from the Department to acquire residences when 

funding became available so families could relocate. 

The Department's biennial acquisition budgets could have accommodated a 

purchase of the Tapio Center had the Department thought that was the best use of the 

funds available. As Mr. Golden would testify at trial, the Department's business practice 

is to look at all residential and commercial purchase requests and identify the best use of 

the available budget to maximize the number of parcels purchased. In the Interstate 90 

area, it placed a priority on purchasing residential properties because acquiring singlefamily dwellings with yards was more cost effective and provided more total right-ofway for the amount expended than would acquiring commercial properties. For a time, 

the Department was also acquiring and removing structures along Interstate 90 to 

accommodate a plan to install noise walls. The plan was later dropped because of 

engineering uncertainties and funding issues. Commercial properties were purchased on 

a case-by-case basis if price, location, or surrounding circumstances presented a good 

business reason for deviating from the priority on residential purchases. 

The Department purchased increasing numbers of residential properties in the 

Interstate 90 area from 2007 to 2011. By the time of trial in 2014, it had acquired about 

300 parcels in the area, on both sides of the interstate and up and down blocks east and 

6 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

west of Tapio Center. On many of the properties, structures were demolished and the 

land bulldozed for safety and maintenance reasons and to avoid problems with theft and 

transients. The Department spends about $100,000 annually for mowing and general 

maintenance of the lots that have been cleared. 

In March 2010, Mr. Stejer sent another letter to Department officials, again 

complaining of publicity about the freeway plan and acquisition, and about the 

Department's demolition of neighboring properties. In a response that discussed legal 

requirements for notice and public participation and the funding and property acquisition 

demands of a large highway project, Regional Administrator Keith Metcalf informed Mr. 

Stejer that the Department did not anticipate construction would directly affect Tapio's 

property for at least 10 years. 

Tapio filed its inverse condemnation action against the Department in November 

2011. It contends that a taking ofTapio's property occurred in the fall of 2006 when the 

Department consciously started negotiating for the purchase of homes in the Interstate 90 

area. After the denial of several dispositive motions, the case proceeded to trial in June 

2014. 

Tapio called eight witnesses, including four experts. Dewitt Sherwood, a licensed 

real estate appraiser, testified to his opinion that as a result of Department publicity and 

property acquisitions, the value of the Tapio Center had been diminished by 80 to 90 

7 
No. 33684-1-III 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

percent, with resulting damages of $8,510,000. His opinion assumed a taking in October 

2006, the date given him by Tapio's attorneys. 

Craig Soehren, a commercial real estate broker, testified that commercial brokers 

would be unlikely to bring potential tenants to Tapio in light of the published freeway 

plan and that he would not bring potential buyers to the property. He admitted he had no 

knowledge that the Department did anything different in pursuit of the North-South 

Freeway construction than it had done in other major projects, and agreed that Tapio still 

had the right to sell its property. He admitted that the Department's demolition of nearby 

homes had improved the look of the neighborhood. 

Jeff Johnson, also a real estate broker, testified to his opinion that the 

Department's plans and acquisition activity in the vicinity of Tapio Center had affected 

its ability to obtain tenants, thereby affecting Tapio's ability to sell the office park. He 

acknowledged that Tapio remained legally able to sell or lease the property. 

Cajer Neely, a commercial banker, testified that in light of the freeway plans and 

property acquisitions in the Interstate 90 area, it was unlikely a commercial bank would 

provide a loan to a potential purchaser of Tapio Center if it was secured only by the 

office park property. 

Tapio also called two Department employees, Mr. Golden and Larry Larson (a 

project engineer on the North-South Freeway project) questioning them about the history 

8 
No. 33684-1-III 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

of the project, Tapio's communications with the Department, and the Department's 

property acquisitions in the Interstate 90 area. 

Mr. Stejer and Blake Cloninger testified to the damages each was requesting on 

behalf of their owners' interests-collectively, $13.8 million-based on what each 

considered a total taking of Tapio Center in 2006. Mr. Stejer conceded the Department 

had imposed no rule that kept them from running their operations and that they retained 

the right to sell the property. 

At the time of trial, an estimated 4 7 to 50 residential properties and 5 commercial 

properties (in addition to Tapio Center) remained to be acquired for the proposed 

Interstate 90 interchange. 

At the close ofTapio's case, the Department moved to dismiss under CR 50(a). 

After hearing argument from the parties, the court granted the motion, finding that 

Tapio's theory of unwarranted delay or oppressive preacquisition conduct-a theory the 

court had allowed to proceed, but that has not yet been recognized by any reported 

Washington decision2

-had not been demonstrated by its evidence. 

2 In Orion Corp. v. State, 109 Wn.2d 621, 671-72, 747 P.2d 1062 (1987), our 

Supreme Court declined to recognize a distinct inverse condemnation claim for a taking 

by oppressive preacquisition conduct. The court explained: 

Apparently, California has recognized a cause of action for inverse 

condemnation when a "diminution in market value resulted from 

'unreasonably delaying eminent domain action following an announcement 

of intent to condemn or by other unreasonable conduct prior to 

condemnation ... "' Jones v. People ex rel. Dep't ofTransp., 22 Cal. 3d 

9 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

In attempting to persuade the court to change its ruling, Tapio's lawyer reminded 

it of Tapio's proposed but as-yet unadmitted exhibit 35-a partial e-mail chain among 

Department employees that used the word "blight" in describing a concern about a 

property disposition outside of the Interstate 90 area. Tapio had tried to offer the partial 

e-mail through Mr. Stejer, but the court sustained an objection and ruled that its relevance 

would have to be demonstrated by someone like Mr. Golden, who had personal 

knowledge of its subject matter. 

Tapio moved to reopen its case to recall Mr. Golden for the purpose of offering the 

exhibit. The court denied the motion on the basis that Tapio had rested its case. 

Tapio sought direct review by the Washington Supreme Court of the judgment 

dismissing its complaint with prejudice. The Supreme Court transferred the appeal to us. 

ANALYSIS 

At oral argument of the appeal, Tapio's lawyer began by stating Tapio was not 

asking us to recognize a new cause of action for oppressive precondemnation conduct, as 

the courts of some states have done. He stated Tapio's contention that the property rights 

144,151,583 P.2d 165,148 Cal. Rptr. 640 (1978) (quotingKloppingv. 

Whittier, 8 Cal. 3d 39, 500 P.2d 1345, 104 Cal. Rptr. I (1972)) .... 

At this time, we do not choose to recognize this new cause of 

action. 

The Orion court further commented that even if it had recognized the cause of action, the 

evidence in the case before it did not support it. 

10 
No. 33684-1-III 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

it asserts and the damages it seeks to recover are available under Washington's existing 

condemnation law. 3 

We review a trial court's decision on a CR SO(a) motion for judgment as a matter 

of law using the same standard as the trial court. Schmidt v. Coogan, 162 Wn.2d 488, 

491, 173 P.3d 273 (2007). A motion for judgment as a matter oflaw admits the truth of 

the opponent's evidence and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it. Queen 

City Farms, Inc. v. Cent. Nat'! Ins. Co., 126 Wn.2d 50, 98, 882 P.2d 703 (1994). 

"Granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when, viewing the 

evidence most favorable to the nonmoving party, the court can say, as a matter oflaw, 

there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference to sustain a verdict for the 

nonmoving party." Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 134 Wn.2d 24, 29, 948 P.2d 816 (1997).4 

3 The following argument appears at Washington Court of Appeals oral argument, 

Tapio Investment Company I, et al v. State, No. 33684-1-III (June 10, 2016) at 40 sec. 

through 1 min., 28 sec. ( on file with the court): 

[T]his case was pied as an inverse condemnation claim. It was not pied as a 

separate abuse of the precondemnation conduct claim. That term however, does 

apply and identify the cause of the significant precondemnation damage that the 

plaintiffs suffered as a direct result of the state's inverse condemnation acts 

which specifically targeted the plaintiffs property for taking, acts which are not 

permitted under our state constitution. 

So we're not asking this court this morning to recognize this as a new 

cause of action, as some other states have done. That's because Washington law 

applicable to inverse condemnation, condemnation law in general, already 

supports the claim that we alleged in our complaint. 

4 Tapio emphasizes the trial court's pretrial denials of the Department's CR 

12(b )(6) and summary judgment motions and this court's denial of discretionary review 

of the CR 12(b )( 6) ruling as illustrating the presence of factual issues requiring a jury 

11 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

I. Takings law: an overview 

The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 

applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the government 

from taking private property for public use without just compensation. "The clearest sort 

of taking occurs when the government encroaches upon or occupies private land for its 

own proposed use," and decisions by the United States Supreme Court establish that 

"even a minimal 'permanent physical occupation of real property' requires compensation 

under the Clause." Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617, 121 S. Ct. 2448, 150 L. 

Ed. 2d 592 (2001) (quoting Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 

419,427, 102 S. Ct. 3164, 73 L. Ed. 2d 868 (1982)). 

In 1922, the United States Supreme Court recognized "there will be instances 

when government actions do not encroach upon or occupy the property yet still affect and 

limit its use to such an extent that a taking occurs." Palazzolo, 533 U.S. at 61 ?'(citing 

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S. Ct. 158, 67 L. Ed. 322 (1922)). 

"In Justice Holmes' well-known, if less than self-defining, formulation, 'while property 

may be regulated to a certain extent, if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a 

trial. And the Department contends that the trial court should have granted its motion to 

bifurcate and should have decided the issue of whether there was a taking first. The 

Department did not seek discretionary review of the denial of its motion to bifurcate. 

The only decision whose correctness is presented by the appeal, and the only one 

that we need to address, is the trial court's decision to grant the CR 50(a) motion. 

12 
No. 33684-1-III 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

taking."' Id. (quoting Mahon, 260 U.S. at 415). When a regulation restricts an owner's 

use of its property but advances a legitimate state interest, courts balance the public 

interest against the economic impact on the landowner using three factors identified in 

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124, 98 S. Ct. 2646, 57 

L. Ed. 2d 631 (1978): (1) the regulation's economic impact on the property, (2) the extent 

of the regulation's interference with investment-backed expectations, and (3) the 

character of the government action. Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn.2d 

320, 333, 335-36, 787 P.2d 907 (1990) (footnote omitted). 

Article I, section 16 of the Washington Constitution states that "[n]o private 

property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation 

having first been made." At oral argument, Tapio contended that this broader language, 

speaking of "damage," means that neither a physical intrusion nor a regulatory taking is 

required to trigger a right to compensation under the Washington Constitution. 5 Asked to 

5 The following argument appears at Washington Court of Appeals oral argument, 

Tapio Investment Company I, et al v. State, No. 33684-1-III (June 10, 2016) at 1 min., 28 

sec. through 2 min., 7 sec. ( on file with the court): 

Our state constitution is rather unique. It's different than the federal 

constitution under the Fifth Amendment. "No private property shall be taken 

or damaged''-and those are the operative words that are applicable to this 

case and the decision that I believe we're asking you to make-"for public or 

private use without just compensation." . . . So our state constitution 

recognizes that you don't have to have a physical intrusion or a regulatory 

taking in order to trigger compensation. 

13 
No. 33684-1-III 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

identify any Washington decision that has held that no physical intrusion or regulatory 

taking need be shown, however, counsel was unable to identify one.6 

Professor Stoebuck has expressed the view that our state constitution-like 25 

other state constitutions, beginning with that of Illinois-allowed compensation for 

damaging as well as taking private property "to allow compensation in certain cases, 

especially certain loss-of-street-access cases, in which most courts had been unwilling to 

hold a taking had occurred." WILLIAM B. STOEBUCK, NONTRESPASSORY TAKINGS IN 

WASHINGTON§ 1.9, at 9 (1980) (citing, inter alia, Brown v. Seattle, 5 Wash. 35, 31 P. 

313, 32 P. 214 (1892)). Tracing the erratic history of judicial construction of the "or 

damaging" language in article I, section 16, he concluded, as of the time he was writing, 

that any distinction between damaging and taking had been abolished. Id. at 10. Tapio 

does not address this history nor any of the Gunwall7 factors in suggesting that we rely on 

an independent analysis of Washington's takings provision to find that no physical 

invasion or regulation is required for a taking. We decline to do so and rely instead on 

6 He cited four cases when questioned, but three involved an alleged physical 

invasion and one concluded that in the absence of a physical invasion, there was no 

taking. Phillips v. King County, 136 Wn.2d 946, 957, 968 P.2d 871 (1998) (physical 

invasion: surface water runoff onto plaintiffs property); Showalter v. City of Cheney, 118 

Wn. App. 543,549, 76 P.3d 782 (2003) (physical invasion-removal of a canopy); 

Pierce v. Ne. Lake Wash. Sewer Dist., 123 Wn.2d 550, 559, 870 P.2d 305 (1994) (action 

was properly dismissed because there was no physical invasion and, lacking an easement, 

property owner had no property "right to a view"); Martin v. Port of Seattle, 64 Wn.2d 

309, 391 P.2d 540 (1964) (physical invasion-noise from low flying aircraft). 

7 State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P .2d 808 ( 1986). 

14 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

existing case law. Cf Guimont v. Clarke, 121 Wn.2d 586, 854 P.2d 1 (1993) (refusing to 

address the plaintiffs' contentions that the Washington Constitution provides greater 

protection from government takings of property where they did not brief the Gunwall 

factors). 

A property owner may bring an inverse condemnation claim to "' recover the 

value of property which has been appropriated in fact, but with no formal exercise of the 

power of eminent domain.'" Fitzpatrick v. Okanogan County, 169 Wn.2d 598,605,238 

P.3d 1129 (2010) (quoting Dickgieser v. State, 153 Wn.2d 530, 534-35, 105 P.3d 26 

(2005)). To maintain an action for inverse condemnation, a plaintiff must show "(l) a 

taking or damaging (2) of private property (3) for public use (4) without just 

compensation being paid (5) by a governmental entity that has not instituted formal 

proceedings." Dickgieser, 153 Wn.2d at 535. 

A cause of action for inverse condemnation accrues when the landowner sustains 

any measurable loss of market value as a result of interference, physical or regulatory, 

with the use and enjoyment of its property. Highline Sch. Dist. No. 401 v. Port of Seattle, 

87 Wn.2d 6, 548 P.2d 1085 (1976). But a loss of market value alone-even a loss of 

value attributable to government action-is not itself evidence that the government has 

interfered in a way that amounts to a constitutional taking. Pierce v. Ne. Lake Wash. 

Sewer Dist., 123 Wn.2d 550, 562, 870 P.2d 305 (1994). 

15 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

Legal acts that do not interfere, physically or by regulating use of private property, 

are not takings, and neither the Washington nor federal constitutions have been held to 

require compensation for depreciation in market value caused by such legal acts. Id. at 

562 & n.55 (citing Aubol v. Tacoma, 167 Wash. 442,446, 9 P.2d 780 (1932)); Danforth 

v. United States, 308 U.S. 271,286, 60 S. Ct. 231, 84 L. Ed. 240 (1939) ("The mere 

enactment of legislation which authorizes condemnation of property cannot be a 

taking."); Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51, 66, 100 S. Ct. 318, 62 L. Ed. 2d 210 (1979) 

("[A] reduction in the value of property is not necessarily equated with a taking" and 

"loss of future profits-unaccompanied by any physical property restriction-provides a 

slender reed upon which to rest a takings claim."); Kirby v. Forest Indus., Inc. v. United 

States, 467 U.S. 1, 15, 104 S. Ct. 2187, 81 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1984) ("[l]mpairment ofthe 

market value of real property incident to otherwise legitimate governmental action 

ordinarily does not result in a taking."). 

II. Tapio presented no substantial evidence of a taking 

At issue is whether, by the close of Tapio's case, there was substantial evidence or 

reasonable inference that would sustain a verdict that the Department had committed a 

taking of Tapio's property under the federal or state constitution, thereby requiring 

payment of compensation. 

Messrs. Stejer and Cloninger conceded no governmental rule had been imposed on 

Tapio that had impeded its operations or otherwise prevented it from improving or 

16 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company l v. State 

maintaining the property. Tapio's experts and Mr. Stejer acknowledged that Tapio still 

had the legal right to lease or sell the property. Tapio nonetheless argues that it did suffer 

damage from "regulatory conduct" in the form of a limited access order entered in 2005 

and, alternatively, that neither physical invasion nor regulation is required for a taking. 

A. The 2005 Final Limited Access Order does not 

regulate Tapio's use of its property 

Tapio contends that a Final Limited Access Order entered by the Department in 

2005 (and the public notice and planning processes leading up to that order) is 

tantamount to an administrative regulation, justifying a regulatory takings analysis under 

the Penn Central factors. If entitled to Penn Central balancing, it claims to have 

demonstrated economic impact, interference, and a character of government action 

entitling it to relief. 

The final limited access design for the freeway project was approved by the 

Department in 2005. Approval resulted in findings and an order related to the proposed 

right of way and access control plans. 8 But the undisputed evidence was that the plan had 

not yet been filed with the Spokane County Auditor. As a matter of state law, it had not 

yet restricted property owners in any way. Because of "the uncertainties of federal aid 

and the state level of funding of proposed construction or improvement of state 

8 The parties generally refer to this as the 2005 Limited Access Order. Although 

referred to by trial witnesses and in various exhibits, th~ document itself is not included 

in the record. 

17 
No. 33684-1-III 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

highways," the Department's plans for highway improvements "shall be deemed tentative 

until filed with the county auditor as authorized in RCW 47.28.025 or until the 

department commences action to condemn or otherwise acquire the right-of-way for the 

highway improvements." RCW 47.28.026(2). Unless and until the Department causes a 

plan of a proposed new highway or limited access facility to be recorded with the county 

auditor, nothing contained in highway construction provisions dealing with building and 

improvement prohibitions (RCW 47.28.025 or 47.28.026) "may be deemed to restrict or 

restrain in any manner the improvement, development, or other use by owners or 

occupiers of lands, buildings, or improvements within the limits of any proposed new or 

limited access highway or any proposed relocated or widened highway." Id. 

As a matter oflaw, the Final Limited Access Order did not regulate Tapio's use of 

its property. 

B. "Government action" falling short of regulation does not trigger 

application of Penn Central balancing 

Tapio nonetheless argues that 

[i]t is the implementation of this Final Limited Access Order that has 

resulted in the damages to Tapio. For example, the acquisition and 

construction in the immediate neighborhood [i]s provided for by those 

plans. [The Department] went beyond ''planning" when it adopted through 

the regulatory process the Final Limited Access plan and began acting in 

accordance with it. 

Br. of Appellant at 38-39. 

18 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

Tapio represents that "[ n ]umerous other jurisdictions" have affirmed that the focus 

of the inquiry in analyzing whether a Penn Central taking has occurred is not on 

regulation but on the "government's action itself," but it identifies only one decisionMekuria v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit, 975 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1997)-that 

suggests that Penn Central should be read broadly as applying to any government action, 

not just regulatory or legislative action. Br. of Appellant at 39-41. 

In Mekuria, business owners in a Washington D.C. neighborhood brought an 

inverse condemnation suit against the local transit authority for the alleged taking of their 

property in constructing a rail station. According to the complaint, obstructions from the 

project cut off street access to the businesses and greatly hindered pedestrian access, 

resulting in loss of delivery services and customers. Two of the businesses closed and the 

others suffered revenue decreases of 70 to 90 percent. The construction caused physical 

damage to the properties including cracked walls, ceilings and floors, and flooding from 

sewer water flowing from the construction site. The construction also hindered police 

patrol, resulting in robberies and vandalism. Mekuria, 975 F. Supp. at 2-3. The plaintiffs 

alleged the transit authority's actions deprived them of reasonable access, denied them all 

viable economically beneficial or productive use of the properties, and thereby interfered 

with their investment-backed expectations. Id. at 3. 

The transit authority argued that Penn Central did not apply because there was no 

regulatory or legislative governmental action. The court disagreed: 

19 
No. 33684-1-III 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

The simple answer to this argument is that Penn Central can not be read so 

narrowly. For example, the Court explicitly refers to the possibility of 

compensable takings occurring as a result of a government's "public 

action" or "public program", neither of which necessarily require regulatory 

or legislative action. See Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124, 98 S. Ct. at 2659. 

Similarly, First English [Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. 

County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 306-07, 107 S. Ct. 2378, 96 L. Ed. 2d 

250 (1987)] refers to "government action" which may constitute a taking. 

See First English, 482 U.S. at 314, 107 S. Ct. at 2385. Moreover, it makes 

no sense to limit Penn Central to apply merely to statutes and regulations, 

such as land use regulations, when there are myriad ways in which 

government action can seriously impact individual owners' use of their 

property. 

Id. at 6. 

The district court's analysis is flawed and unpersuasive. Both Penn Central and 

First English involved takings challenges to actual government regulations: Penn Central 

to a municipal law restricting development of historic landmarks, see Penn Central, 438 

U.S. at 116, and First English to a flood protection ordinance, First English, 482 U.S. at 

306-07. Between them, the cases speak of "public action," "public programs," or 

"government action," but each of those terms encompass regulation and actions taken 

pursuant to regulation, leaving no reason to believe that the Court was, in dicta, speaking 

of something other than regulation. Neither Penn Central nor First English discusses at 

all whether a Penn Central regulatory takings analysis applies to cases not involving a 

regulation, let alone holds that the analysis would apply in such a case. 

Mekuria is a legal anomaly in its willingness to entertain a Penn Central 

regulatory taking claim where there was no regulation. The businesses harmed by the 

20 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

transit authority's construction in Mekuria failed to plead a physical taking, which is what 

they had actually suffered. Because of that shortcoming in the pleading, the district court 

concluded that to find a taking, it had to find a regulatory taking. Mekuria, 975 F. Supp. 

at 5. Perhaps the court's analysis is problematic because it was results-oriented. 

Following Mekuria, the United States Supreme Court has overruled the district 

court's approach, holding that a "longstanding distinction between acquisitions of 

property for public use ... and regulations prohibiting private uses ... makes it 

inappropriate to treat cases involving physical takings as controlling precedents for the 

evaluation of a claim that there has been a 'regulatory taking,' and vice versa." TahoeSierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'! Plan. Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 323, 122 S. Ct. 1465, 

152 L. Ed. 2d 517 (2002) (footnote omitted). The Supreme Court also observed that in. 

determining whether government action affecting property is an unconstitutional 

deprivation of ownership rights, "a court must interpret the word 'taken[,]'" and 

identified only two senses in which property is "taken": 

When the government condemns or physically appropriates the property, 

the fact of a taking is typically obvious and undisputed. When, however, 

the owner contends a taking has occurred because a law or regulation 

imposes restrictions so severe that they are tantamount to a condemnation 

or appropriation, the predicate of a taking is not self-evident, and the 

analysis is more complex. 

Id. at 322, n.17 ( emphasis added). 

21 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

Any number of businesses in the vicinity of the North-South Freeway project may 

have suffered reduced property value and lost income due to governmental acquisition 

and construction "actions" over the last 13 years that have not physically touched their 

property or legally restricted its use. It is well settled that such harm is not compensable 

in an inverse condemnation proceeding.9 And just because a portion ofTapio's property 

is expected to be taken in the future does not make it different from its neighbors in this 

9 Other Washington decisions cited in Tapio's briefing as supporting recovery are 

not helpful because they either involve an actual invasion and impairment of use or 

access or were held not to be takings. See Dickgieser v. State, 153 Wn.2d at 533 (logging 

activities on adjacent land caused flooding that damaged private property); Union 

Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. State, 96 Wn. App. 288, 980 P.2d 799 (1999) (question of 

fact whether State's activities physically hindered access to plaintiffs adjacent property); 

Rains v. Dep't of Fisheries, 89 Wn.2d 740,575 P.2d 1057 (1978) (State's denial of 

permit to rechannel creek bed that later overflowed and damaged plaintiffs property was 

not a taking); Ackerman v. Port of Seattle, 55 Wn.2d 400, 348 P.2d 664 (1960), overruled 

on other grounds by Highline Sch. Dist., 87 Wn.2d 6 (1976) (noise interference caused by 

increased airplane overflights near airport); Boitano v. Snohomish County, 11 Wn.2d 664, 

672-77, 120 P.2d 1490 (1941) (county's excavation activities resulted in water damage to 

plaintiffs neighboring property); Tom v. State, 164 Wn. App. 609, 614, 267 P.3d 361 

(2011) (no taking attributable to noise from a neighboring prison firing range that preexisted plaintiffs property ownership); Pruitt v. Douglas County, 116 Wn. App. 547, 

559-60, 66 P.3d 1111 (2003) (inverse condemnation claim arose when county channeled 

water that flooded and destroyed market value of adjacent landowners' properties); 

Highline Sch. Dist., 87 Wn.2d at 8, 15-16 (inverse condemnation claim arose when 

changes in airport operations led to marked increase in aircraft noise interference with 

adjacent land, including school classrooms, which would result in measurable diminution 

of property value, the extent of which presented a factual issue); Lincoln Loan Co. v. 

State, 274 Or. 49, 51,545 P.2d 105, 107 (1976) (complaint alleged that the dismantling 

of dwellings in the surrounding properties created noise, dust and confusion) and cf Hall 

v. State, 355 Or. 503,516,326 P.3d 1165 (2014) ("[N]othing in Lincoln Loan suggests 

that, in the absence of a physical occupation or invasion of a property right, a government 

action that causes only a reduction in the value of property qualifies as a taking."). 

22 
No. 33684-1-III 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

respect. See Campbell v. United States, 266 U.S. 368, 45 S. Ct. 115, 69 L. Ed. 328 

( 1924) (landowner was entitled to be compensated for a taking of 1. 81 acres of his 

property but not for the diminution of the value of his remaining property attributable to 

government's acquisition of neighboring property and construction oflarge industrial 

plant); Cent. Puget Sound Reg'! Transit Auth. v. Heirs & Devisees of Eastey, 135 Wn. 

App. 446, 458, 144 P.3d 322 (2006) (damage to Eastey property caused by a pocket track 

on nearby land does not flow from the taking of a narrow strip of Eastey land, but from 

Transit's legal use of other land, and the damage to Eastey was no different than the 

damage (if any) to the rest of the neighborhood). 10 

This settled takings law also advances public interests, as recognized in a Texas 

decision cited by the Department: 

Construction of public-works projects would be severely impeded if the 

government could incur inverse-condemnation liability merely by 

announcing plans to condemn property in the future. Such a rule would 

encourage the government to maintain the secrecy of proposed projects as 

long as possible, hindering public debate and increasing waste and 

inefficiency .... After announcing a project, the government would be 

under pressure to acquire the needed property as quickly as possible to \ . 

avoid or minimize liability. This likewise would limit public input, and 

10 It is well settled that when property is condemned for a project such as this, fair 

compensation for the property that is actually condemned and acquired by the State 

should disregard depreciation that is attributable to the project for which the eminent 

domain proceeding is instituted. Lange v. State, 86 Wn.2d 585, 591, 547 P.2d 282 

(1976). That is the basis for the Department's repeated assurances to Tapio that when its 

property is ultimately condemned, it will be valued as if the freeway project had never 

occurred. 

23 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

forestall any meaningful review of the project's environmental 

consequences. The government also would be reluctant to publicly suggest 

alternative locations, for fear that it might incur inverse condemnation 

liability to multiple landowners arising out of a single proposed project. ... 

. . . The necessary review time between public announcement and 

acquisition of property for a particular project will depend on many factors 

unique to the project, including the projected cost, the number of feasible 

alternatives, the potential environmental impact, and the extent of federal 

involvement. ... If the government were subject to liability for 

"unreasonable" delay ... officials would be pressured to expedite property 

acquisition to avoid immediate liability to a particular landowner, 

regardless of the long-term social costs. Public policy dictates that the 

government be free to make this type of planning decision in the public 

interest, without threat of civil liability to a particular landowner. 

Westgate, Ltd. v. State, 843 S.W.2d 448, 453-54 (Tex. 1992) (citations omitted); see Br. 

of Resp. at 34-35. 

The Department's "actions" have not triggered application of Penn Central 

balancing. 

Ill. The trial court did not err in refusing to admit exhibit 35 or in denying 

Tapio 's motion to reopen its case 

Given the basis on which we affirm the trial court, its refusal to admit exhibit 3 5 

initially, or by allowing Tapio to reopen its case, does not appear to matter. Because this 

was not addressed when Tapio abandoned its "taking by oppressive preacquisition 

conduct" claim at oral argument, however, we address the assignment of error. 

Tapio offered exhibit 35 during Mr. Stejer's re-direct testimony. The exhibit 

contained one day's worth of an e-mail exchange among Department employees in 

24 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

September and October of 2006. The subject matter was whether the Department, as 

landlord, should have reduced the rent of a commercial building on Market Street in 

order to have continued occupancy until project construction reached that area. Tapio 

contends that a passage in the e-mail demonstrates Department officials knew that 

acquiring and demolishing properties in a phase not funded for construction would leave 

the properties that were not acquired in a more blighted and depressed neighborhood. 11 It 

argues that such knowledge was relevant to its claims. 

The Department objected and argued that the e-mail was not relevant because it 

described a different decision than it faced in deciding whether to acquire the Tapio 

Center: it involved a different property several miles north, was written five years before 

Tapio filed suit, and the one-day excerpt from the exchange was incomplete, out of 

context, and should not be admitted without proper foundation as to relevance. 

The trial court sustained the objection, ruling it was not yet apparent that exhibit 

35 proved anything and that Mr. Stejer was not the appropriate person to testify about its 

contents. The court said if the exhibit was to come in at all, it would have to be through 

11 The allegedly relevant passage states: 

We were figuring about 5 years before construction was slated for 

this area. So, in another 3 years we will have purchased more of the 

surrounding properties, creating an even more blighted or depressed 

commercial area along Market Street. We will also be 3 years closer to 

construction, which makes it an even riskier venture for any other potential 

tenant if [ our lessee] is gone. 

Ex. 35. 

25 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

someone like Mr. Golden, who was a party to the e-mail exchange. When testimony 

resumed, Tapio's lawyer elicited Mr. Stejer's testimony that he had selected October 

2006 as the taking date because the Department was "under the full knowledge that when 

they skip ahead and acquire property out of sequence from where they are actually doing 

construction ... that their acquisition would create blight, and ... that blight would 

reduce rents, increase vacancies, and ultimately affect the fair market value." RP at 914-

15. It offered the exhibit again following that testimony, and the court again sustained 

the Department's objection. Tapio did not attempt to offer the exhibit through any other 

witness before resting its case. 

A trial court's decision to exclude evidence will be reversed only where it has 

abused its discretion. Kappleman v. Lutz, 167 Wn.2d 1, 6,217 P.3d 286 (2009). A trial 

court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on untenable grounds or untenable 

reasons. Id. 

On appeal, Tapio treats the trial court as sustaining an objection to a lack of 

authentication, which it contends was error because exhibit 3 5 had been authenticated 

through notice in accordance with ER 904. But authenticity was not at issue. The trial 

court declined to admit the exhibit because, as argued by the Department, Tapio did not 

26 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

establish that Mr. Stejer had personal knowledge of the e-mail's contents sufficient to 

establish its relevance. 

The proponent of evidence has the burden to establish necessary foundation for the 

evidence to be relevant and admissible. See State v. Smith, 87 Wn. App. 345, 348, 941 

P.2d 725, 726 (1997). The general rule is "[a] witness may not testify to a matter unless 

evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that [he] has personal knowledge of 

the matter." ER 602. 

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying admission through Mr. 

Stejer. He might or might not have been right about what amounted to his speculation 

that the e-mail reflected knowledge that applied to Tapio's situation. The court 

reasonably required Tapio to call a witness who could provide context, so that an 

informed decision could be made as to whether the e-mail exchange reflected knowledge 

that was relevant. 

Tapio's final assignment of error is that the trial court erred by denying its motion 

to reopen, in order to call Mr. Golden and reoffer exhibit 35. Reopening a cause for 

additional evidence rests within the discretion of the court. Tsubota v. Gunkel, 58 Wn.2d 

586,591,364 P.2d 549 (1961). The court denied the motion because Tapio had been told 

what the court would require as a reasonable basis for admitting the exhibit and did not 

27 
No. 33684-1-111 

Tapio Investment Company I. v. State 

re-call Mr. Golden for that purpose despite having the opportunity to do so. That is not 

an abuse of discretion. 

Affirmed. 

?J~tv~,~ Siddoway, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

28