Opinion ID: 538430
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Himelsteins' Takings Claim

Text: 8 The Himelsteins contend that the Common Council's refusal to acknowledge the rezoning of their property destroyed their reasonable investment backed expectation and rendered their property economically nonviable in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment (applied against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment). Complaint pp 20-21, Appellants' Appendix at D-8. But, the Himelsteins' complaint is premature. As the Supreme Court recently opined: 9 The Fifth Amendment does not proscribe the taking of property; it proscribes taking without just compensation. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. , at 297, n. 40 [101 S.Ct. 2352, at 2371, n. 40, 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981) ]. Nor does the Fifth Amendment require that just compensation be paid in advance of, or contemporaneously with, the taking; all that is required is that a  'reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation'  exist at the time of the taking. Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 124-125 [95 S.Ct. 335, 349, 42 L.Ed.2d 320] (1974) (quoting Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co., 135 U.S. 641, 659 [10 S.Ct. 965, 971-972, 34 L.Ed. 295] (1890)).... [I]f a State provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause until it has used that procedure and been denied compensation. 10