Opinion ID: 185020
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Analysis Under Lucas

Text: Given that Lots 106 through 114 should be treated as asingle parcel, the District Court's denial of summary judgment on District Intown's Lucas claim is unremarkable. Tocome within Lucas, a claimant must show that its property isrendered valueless by a regulation. Lucas, 505 U.S. at1009. District Intown presented no evidence to show that theregulation deprived the property as a whole of all economically beneficial use. Even were we to view Lot 106 as distinct from Lots 107through 114, it seems plain that the District Court shouldhave granted appellees' motion for summary judgment. Drawing all inferences in favor of District Intown, the record does not support the conclusion that Lots 107 through 114 arerendered valueless by the regulation at issue. The recordcontains a finding by the Mayor's agent that any constructionthat destroyed the lawn would be incompatible with thelawn's status as a historic landmark. See Decision & Orderof Mayor's Agent p 61 n.1, reprinted in J.A. 368. DistrictIntown argues from this that its case fell on all fours withinLucas. District Intown seeks to extend Lucas beyond itsreach. The Lucas Court consciously recognized that it wasdrawing an arbitrary line between total destruction of economic value and something marginally less than total destruction. See 505 U.S. at 1019 n.8 (pointing out that while theline establishing a categorical deprivation as requiring acomplete diminution in value is arbitrary as it relates tosomeone who only suffers a 95% deprivation in value, theperson whose deprivation is one step short of complete maystill seek compensation under the Penn Central balancingtest). District Intown propounded no evidence that thelawns' economic value was totally destroyed as is required byLucas, nor did District Intown offer evidence of the plots' fairmarket value after its construction permits were denied. Cf.Florida Rock Indus., 791 F.2d at 905 (reversing the trialcourt's finding that denial of permit constituted an uncompensated taking because the court failed to consider the property's fair market value after regulation). The concurring opinion misconstrues the opinion for thecourt when it suggests that, pursuant to our analysis, nocompensable taking could ever be found. As noted in theforegoing discussion, we simply intend to highlight the limitednature of the Lucas inquiry, and note that there would be nocategorical taking even were we to view the parcels asseparate under Lucas. We do not pass on how the parcelswould fare separately under Penn Central's ad hoc analysis.