A private landowner challenges a state plan to permanently occupy part of his land for a government facility. The best description of the remedy is:

• A. The government may purchase the land at market value to avoid a taking.
• B. The government must provide relocation assistance to the owner.
• C. The government may take the land with compensation only if it serves a public purpose.
• D. Any permanent physical occupation by the government of private property is a taking requiring just compensation.

Answer: (D)

Permanent physical occupation of private land by the government is a taking under the Takings Clause, and the remedy is just compensation. When the government occupies a portion of land permanently for a facility, it triggers a per se taking, meaning the landowner is entitled to compensation for the taken property regardless of the effect on use or value. The established rule, exemplified by the Loretto line of cases, is that a permanent physical occupation requires payment to the owner.

This compensation is typically the fair market value of the portion taken (though there can be additional damages to the remainder in some cases). The idea that the remedy could be avoided by simply purchasing the land misunderstands the takings framework—the taking exists because of the permanent occupation, and the owner is due compensation. Relocation assistance is not the required remedy in a takings case, and while public purpose is a prerequisite for eminent domain, it does not alter the obligation to provide just compensation.