Santa Fe Pacific Trust, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 2014 NMCA 093

SFPT owned the Property in downtown Albuquerque and faced publicized city efforts to condemn it for an arena.
City pursued planning and publicity steps (RFI, MOU, RFP) and considered acquisition via agreements but never condemned the Property.
SFPT claimed loss of tenants and leases due to pre-condemnation activities and sought inverse condemnation and due process relief.
Key exchanges contemplated in the Exchange Agreement involved SFPT and the City tract; the exchange never occurred.
From 1999–2007, media coverage and city documents associated the Property with the arena project, though the city council never approved condemnation or funding.
SFPT eventually alleged a breach related to the Exchange Agreement and separate condemnation actions, which were settled or dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre-condemnation planning/publicity constitutes a taking under federal law.	SFPT asserts pre-condemnation actions reduce value constituting a taking.	City contends planning/publicity are not takings under federal law.	No taking under federal law; pre-condemnation activity not a compensable taking.
Whether pre-condemnation planning/publicity constitutes a taking under New Mexico law.	SFPT relies on Jackovich two-part test to show interference.	City disputes substantial interference with use/enjoyment.	No taking under state law; no interference with use substantial enough.
Whether the Exchange Agreement non-performance caused a taking or damages to the Property.	Noncompliance damaged the Property by limiting access and use.	No direct nexus between Exchange Agreement and Property loss; no taking.	Not a taking; damages not tied to the Property.
Whether SFPT’s due process claim survives.	Pre-condemnation actions violated due process rights.	No regulatory action; due process not violated.	Due process claim fails; no taking or regulation.

Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (U.S. (1980)) (pre-condemnation value fluctuations not takings; later position rejected as total overruling not affected here)
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. (2005)) (overruled Agins’ 'substantially advances' approach; not overruled pre-condemnation holding here)
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (U.S. (1987)) (depreciation in value during precondemnation activity not automatically compensable)
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. (1978)) (ad hoc factors; not controlling where no concrete action or interference shown)
Electro-Jet Tool and Manufacturing Co. v. City of Albuquerque, 1992-NMSC-060 (N.M. (1992)) (definition of 'for public use' and requirement of concrete intention to condemn)