282 A.3d 578
D.C.2022Background
- WMATA owns the Foundry Branch Trestle (an unused, deteriorating 1896 trolley bridge) and two adjoining lots; the Trestle is protected by D.C. historic-preservation law.
- WMATA applied for a demolition permit, claiming denial would cause unreasonable economic hardship under D.C. Code § 6-1104(e) and implicate the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.
- WMATA presented cost estimates: $2–4 million to restore, $100–200k/year maintenance, and about $800k to demolish; it also attempted to convey the property but said transfer prospects depended on demolition.
- The Mayor’s Agent granted the demolition permit over objection by DC Preservation League (DCPL), but the decision was internally inconsistent about whether the unit of property was the Trestle alone or the Trestle plus the lots.
- The Mayor’s Agent framed the inquiry using a per se takings test (Lucas) and concluded the Trestle had "no feasible use," but made no findings on whether denial of the permit caused the lack of economically viable use.
- The court vacated and remanded, finding legal error and instructing the Mayor’s Agent to address the unit-of-analysis and causation issues and, if necessary, apply the multi-factor takings test from Murr.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCPL) | Defendant's Argument (WMATA / Mayor's Agent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Mayor’s Agent lawfully granted a demolition permit based on unreasonable economic hardship / taking | Mayor’s Agent erred; record lacks proof that permit denial would effect a taking | Denial would impose unreasonable economic hardship and amount to a taking; WMATA is an involuntary owner with limited funds | Vacated and remanded; decision not supported as a matter of law because key findings missing and legal errors made |
| Proper unit of property for Takings analysis (Trestle alone vs Trestle + lots) | Analysis should consider the appropriate unit; Mayor’s Agent failed to specify | Mayor’s Agent treated the Trestle (and sometimes the lots) as the relevant property | Remand required to define and analyze the proper unit consistent with Murr |
| Whether a per se regulatory taking was established (i.e., government caused loss of all economically viable use) | No showing that denial caused loss of use; Mayor’s Agent conflated lack of use with causation | WMATA argued the structure had no viable use and denial would saddle it with costs | Court held per se taking requires causation; Mayor’s Agent failed to find that denial caused the lack of viable use, so per se ruling unsupportable |
| Whether a non-per-se (Murr) multi-factor takings analysis was required | Mayor’s Agent did not adequately perform multi-factor analysis; remand needed to consider it | Mayor’s Agent relied chiefly on per se reasoning and policy arguments (transfer prospects, involuntary ownership) | Court left multi-factor Murr inquiry open for remand and further factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992) (per se regulatory-takings rule: deprivation of all economically beneficial use)
- Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (U.S. 2017) (multi-factor test and unit-of-property inquiry for regulatory takings)
- Embassy Real Est. Holdings, LLC v. D.C. Mayor’s Agent for Hist. Pres., 944 A.2d 1036 (D.C. 2008) (standard of review for Mayor’s Agent and incorporation of Fifth Amendment takings analysis)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (regulatory-takings balancing framework)
- 900 G St. Assocs. v. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Dev., 430 A.2d 1387 (D.C. 1981) (prior D.C. case on demolition permit and economic-use inquiry)
- Neifert v. Dep’t of Env’t, 910 A.2d 1100 (Md. 2006) (causation is required to establish per se regulatory taking)
- United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1984) (Takings Clause can apply to government-owned property)