Cite as: 503 U. S. 519 (1992)
Souter, J., concurring in judgment
broad power to impose appropriate restrictions upon an owner's use of his property." 458 U. S., at 441.
We respected this distinction again in Florida Power, where we held that no taking occurs under Loretto when a tenant invited to lease at one rent remains at a lower regulated rent. Florida Power, 480 U. S., at 252-253. We continue to observe the distinction today. Because the Escon-dido rent control ordinance does not compel a landowner to suffer the physical occupation of his property, it does not effect a per se taking under Loretto. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is accordingly
Affirmed.
Justice Blackmun, concurring in the judgment. I agree with the Court that the Escondido ordinance is not a taking under this Court's analysis in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 (1982). I also conclude that the substantive due process and regulatory taking claims are not properly raised in this Court. For that reason, I, unlike the Court, do not decide whether the regulatory taking claim is or is not ripe, or which of petitioners' arguments would or would not be relevant to such a claim.
Justice Souter, concurring in the judgment. I concur in the judgment and would join the Court's opinion except for its references to the relevance and significance of petitioners' allegations to a claim of regulatory taking.
539
Page: Index Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Last modified: October 4, 2007