was allowed access on request. Id. The Court of Federal Claims drew a comparison between 767 Third Avenue Associates ’s facts and those relating to the 1992 and 1994 fences by noting that JRS & G was allowed access to its plant area shortly after it protested the fences. Id. However, unlike 767 Third Avenue Associates, the government physically entered JRS & G’s property for a prolonged period. Further, remediation equipment was stored on the property for extended periods, and permanent physical structures, fences, were erected. The mere fact that JRS & G was allowed access to portions of the property on request does not alter the fact that the government had a presence of a “permanent nature” on JRS & G’s leasehold not later than 1994. See Skip Kirchdorfer, Inc., 6 F.3d at 1583 (<HOLDING>). In addition to concluding that all the events
holding that retention of some access rights  does not preclude a per se taking holding access to property by navigable lake was per se bar to finding of necessity holding that denial of access per se is noncompensable holding such agreements to be per se illegal holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se