chooses to forgo property development, the billboard may remain under the terms of the lease for so long as the landowner wishes. If the landowner chooses to develop the property before the lease expires, Clear Channel may leverage whatever remedies state law provides if the landowner's decision amounts to a breach of the billboard lease. As such, the city has not changed the terms of the billboard lease and it does not owe Clear Channel compensation .... Id. Similarly, here, the City did not alter the terms of Burkhart's lease with Provi dence, and the City does not owe Burkhart compensation. Burkhart attempts to distinguish S%. Louis Park Post No. 5632 by arguing that the removal of the billboard was required by ist., 354 Ill.App.3d 130, 289 Ill.Dec. 850, 820 N.E.2d 626 (2004) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion Burkhart has, in effect, attempted
holding that the construction of a median in a roadway that causes traffic traveling to and from an abutting property to travel a cireuitous route does not constitute a compensable taking under indiana eminent domain law holding that where necessary to enforce the california constitutions requirement of just compensation for a taking courts can disregard statutory eminent domain requirements holding that the termination of a billboard lease according to its terms was not a taking of property by eminent domain holding that when notice to vacate was insufficient to comply with the terms of the lease lease was not properly terminated before commencement of summary ejectment action recognizing that a lease providing for renewal at the termination of the lease did not require the lessee to exercise the option before the lease expired nor did it require renewal at the precise hour of termination but gave the lessee a reasonable time after the termination of the lease in which to make his election