Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City Summary | quimbee.com

A video case brief of Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). Read the full-text brief here: www.quimbee.co...
In 1965, New York City (defendant) enacted the “Landmarks Preservation Law” to enable the city to designate certain buildings and neighborhoods as historical landmarks. Penn Central Transportation Co. (Penn Central) (plaintiff) owned Grand Central Terminal in New York City which was designated as a historical landmark under the law. In 1968, to increase its income, Penn Central leased the airspace above Grand Central Terminal for fifty years to UGP Properties, Inc. Penn Central expected the lease to provide it with millions of dollars of additional income every year. Penn Central and UGP then submitted two proposals for building designs to the New York City Commission and applied for permission to construct an office building above Grand Central Terminal. After lengthy hearings, the Commission denied this request on the grounds that Grand Central Terminal was a historical landmark. Penn Central brought suit in New York Supreme Court against New York City alleging that the City Commission’s application of the Landmarks Preservation Law which denied its rights to build an office building above Grand Central Terminal and receive revenue from the building constituted a taking of the company’s property without just compensation as required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The New York Supreme Court granted an injunction to Penn Central, but did not provide damages. The state court of appeals reversed, holding that the Landmarks Preservation Law furthered an important public purpose. Penn Central appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

[@mikeytrains1]

i recognize this guy’s voice from a game for some reason.
also fun fact: if Penn Central had its way, it would’ve probably made a quick few bucks. the company was already in a MASSIVE bankruptcy from the Pennsylvania Railroad’s traditionalistic operations, the hot as hell rivalry between the New York Central (original owner of GCT) and PRR, which also lead to trains getting lost, signalling and computer system incompatibility, and the financial burden of folding the new haven, already embroiled in bankruptcy for the past few years, and a weakened physical plant that probably would’ve been much better if PRR hadn’t folded NYC into it in the merger, rather the NYC folded the PRR into it.
PC’s wishing to do such a thing is understandable, they had only two years of profitability from 2/1/1968, the day of the merger, and 1/1/1970. once 1970 hit, everything went downhill.
it could’ve profited off their plans but not for long. PC tried to diversify but to no avail, it only made things worse. this would’ve been no different.
fun fact, even after the 4/1/1976 merger of Conrail (with most failing northeast roads, including PC), PC technically continued to exist on a corporate level as American Premier Underwriters. it owned GCT up until 2006.

[@donetrainboi6031]

This is the voice from Fnaf Sister location😂

[@vinceleus6091]

THANK YOU

[@ronniedelahoussayechauvin6717]

Crimes

[@rattusgrenadus8291]

u look 150% schizo