458 U.S. 419 (1982)
In 1970, Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. obtained a permit from New York City to operate a cable television system in Manhattan.1 It entered into an agreement with the prior owner of a five-story apartment building at 303 West 105th Street to install cables on the roof in exchange for a flat fee of $50 per year.2
The installation included a cable slightly less than one-half inch in diameter and approximately 30 feet in length running along the roof about 18 inches above the surface.3 It also included directional taps measuring approximately 4 inches by 4 inches by 4 inches on the front and rear of the roof. Two large silver boxes were placed along the roof cables.4 Additional cable was extended another 4 to 6 feet.5 All components were attached by screws or nails penetrating the masonry at approximately two-foot intervals.6
In 1971, Jean Loretto purchased the building.7 At the time of purchase the cable installation was already in place as part of a larger network serving adjacent buildings, though Loretto did not discover its existence until after she took possession.8 Two years later Teleprompter connected a noncrossover line by dropping a cable down the front of the building to serve Loretto's own tenants.9
In 1973 the New York Legislature enacted section 828 of the Executive Law, effective January 1, 1973, which prohibited landlords from interfering with cable television installations on their property, barred landlords from demanding payment from tenants for permitting service, and limited any payment from a cable company to an amount the State Commission on Cable Television determined to be reasonable; the Commission later set the presumptive fee at a one-time $1 payment.10
In 1976 Loretto filed a class action against Teleprompter in New York Supreme Court on behalf of all owners of real property in the state on which Teleprompter had placed cable components, alleging trespass and a taking without just compensation and seeking damages and injunctive relief; the City of New York, which had granted Teleprompter an exclusive franchise for parts of Manhattan, intervened as a defendant.11
The Supreme Court, Special Term, granted summary judgment to Teleprompter and the city.12 The Appellate Division affirmed without opinion.13 The New York Court of Appeals upheld the statute.14 The Supreme Court of the United States noted probable jurisdiction.15
Whether a state statute requiring a landlord to permit a cable television company to install its facilities upon the landlord's property effects a taking of property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?16
When the character of the governmental action is a permanent physical occupation of property, there is a taking within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the extent of the occupation, without regard to whether the action achieves an important public benefit or has only minimal economic impact on the owner.17
Yes. The New York statute requires a landlord to permit a cable television company to install its cable facilities upon the landlord's property and thus authorizes a permanent physical occupation of a portion of the landlord's property.18
The statute authorizes Teleprompter to maintain the cable on Loretto's roof permanently as long as the property remains residential and a CATV company wishes to retain the installation.19 This constitutes a permanent physical occupation because the cable is attached to the building by screws or nails and occupies space on the roof and exterior wall.20 The occupation is a taking even though it is a minimal one and even though the statute provides for reasonable compensation.21
The statute effects a taking of Loretto's property for which she is entitled to just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.22
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Brennan And White
Justice Blackmun dissents on the ground that the statute represents a classic regulation adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life rather than authorizing a permanent physical occupation in the sense employed by the majority.23 He emphasizes that the cable occupies only about one-eighth of a cubic foot on the roof, that the landlord retains full use of the remaining space, and that the statute mandates reasonable compensation.24 Blackmun argues that the Court's newly minted per se rule constitutes a radical departure from established takings jurisprudence that will produce far-reaching consequences for land-use regulation.25
He would affirm the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals upholding the statute as a valid exercise of the police power.26
Justice Stevens joins Justice Blackmun's dissent. He writes separately to stress that the per se rule announced by the Court lacks support in precedent and will unduly restrict the ability of States to regulate in the public interest.27 He observes that the rooftop cable installation does not match the type of physical invasion previously treated as a per se taking.28 Stevens notes that the impact on the landlord's property rights remains minimal, that the statute provides for compensation, and that the measure constitutes a valid exercise of the State's police power.29
In his view the New York statute therefore does not effect a taking requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment.