and having certain rights in property ownership, the interests of the public good have been superior to the individual property owner. In a democratic society, it is accepted that the public good outweighs the interest of the individual. There are however, protections by the law in the Constitution that limit the power and action by the government in the name of the public good without compensating the individual affected by the policing of activity on a property. When the government interferes the freedom of ownership and enterprise on a property by changing the zoning and subtracts the control of private property by the owner, it invokes "eminent domain". Eminent domain is the authority by the government to take private property for public good. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the government within the states cannot take property without "just compensation".When the interests of the Department of City Planning are integrated into the simplicities of the property rights vested in the Constitution, the department has the power to set regulations on the public's behalf, but in exchange, must compensate the individual for his loss of control or total loss of the property ownership. Furthermore, as these matter has been litigated in the past, and standards have been set to determine specifics in whether a takings occurs in the aquistion of property or rights of that property by the government, the court's determining factors all favor just compensation for an individual harmed economically by regulation.Conclusion.It would be to the advantage of the client of NYAEE to file suit against the Department of City Planning in event that the Adult Entertainment Regulations by the Department has caused a "takings" to occur. Under the Takings Clause the government cannot take property without just compensation. It is evident that in the regulation by the Department of City Planning it has intended to determine that 177 adult establishments ...
