In 1965, New York City enacted its Landmarks Preservation Law, which protected historic landmarks and neighborhoods from destruction or alterations to their characters. This Landmarks Law also established the Landmarks Preservation Commission, whose purpose was to identify and designate the city’s landmarks (and districts) as well as regulate changes made to these designated structures. Penn Central Transportation Company owned the Grand Central Terminal, which had been designated as a landmark under the application of the Landmarks Law in August of 1967. In January of 1968, Penn Central entered into a renewable 50-year lease with Union General Properties, Ltd. (a corporation of the United Kingdom) to allow UGP to construct a multistory office building in the air space above the terminal; UGP would pay Penn Central $1 million for each year of construction and $3 million each year after that. Penn Central and UGP jointly applied to the Landmarks Preservation Commission for permission to build the proposed office building atop the Terminal. The first plan, Breuer I, called for a 55-story building to be cantilevered above the existing façade, but was denied as the Commission thought a building of such great height would not only look outlandish on top of an 8-story historical landmark, but would also diminish the prominence of the landmark itself. The second plan, Breuer II Revised, called for a removal of the Terminal’s 42nd Street façade to build a 53-story office building, but was also rejected by the Commission, as it would destroy the exterior architectural features of the Terminal. After the rejection of their proposals, Penn Central and UGP filed suit against the City of New York, stating that the city, under the guise of the Landmarks Law, had “taken” their property and had not provided just compensation for this property, violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Grand Central Terminal in its current condition, they claimed, was operating at a loss; since Penn Central was a regulated railroad, it could not stop these shortage-causing activities and was entitled to damages for the taking of their property. While Penn Central originally prevailed in trial court, the decision was later reversed by the New York Appellate Division, which held that Penn Central used faulty accounting methodology to establish its deficit; this decision was later reaffirmed by the New York Court of Appeals, although for an entirely different reason. Penn Central appealed these decisions to the U.S. Supreme Court, now claiming that the law, for all intents and purposes, seized the air rights above the Terminal. However, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the New York Appellate Division and the New York Court of Appeals, citing Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, which held that whether a statute amounts to a taking requiring compensation depends on the decrease in property value. Penn Central exaggerated the effect of the Landmarks Law on their ability to utilize their air rights; Grand Central Terminal, the Court pointed out, could still continue with its present use and make a reasonable economic return. The Court also cited other previous cases: Goldblatt v. Hempstead, which maintained that a usage restriction does not constitute a taking if it has not disproportionately impacted the owner’s use of the property; Hadacheck v. Sebastian, which asserted that a rezoning does not constitute a taking, especially if the property owner can still make equitable use of their land; and Miller v. Schoene, which held that the State does not overstep its powers when implementing the destruction of one property in order to save a more universally beneficial property. Chief Justice Burger, along with chief Justices Rehnquist and Stevens, dissented, arguing that the designation of landmark can often impose a significant burden on the owner, with little benefit except for the distinction of its “landmark” status. They also state that, in addition to the increased financial costs and loss of property rights, use of the word zoning in this case is rather superficial, as it only affected Penn Central and not neighboring or similar properties (as most zoning regulations do). However, while New York City has taken substantial property rights from Penn Central (while permitting similar properties to build within their air space), it was done for the benefit of the inhabitants of the city, and any tourists who come to visit.