characterized as property”); Hendler, 952 F.2d at 1374 (stating that “[i]n the bundle of rights we call property, one of the most valued is the right to sole and exclusive possession — the right to exclude strangers, or for that matter friends, but especially the Government”). When the government permanently and physically occupies property, it effectively destroys the owner’s right to exclude, as well as the owner’s right to make non-possessory use of the property. Loretto, 458 U.S. at 435-36, 102 S.Ct. 3164. Due to the importance of a property owner’s right to exclude, we have held that “[t]he Government does not have the right to declare itself a co-tenant-in-possession with a property owner.” Hendler, 952 F.2d at 1374; see also Kaiser Aetna, 444 U.S. at 179-80, 100 S.Ct. 383 (<HOLDING>). Thus, a permanent physical occupation by the
holding that the right to drive is not a fundamental right holding right to be fundamental holding that a termination of a government contract does not constitute a taking of the plaintiffs property without just compensation or without due process of law holding that the right to vote is fundamental holding that the right to exclude so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right falls within this category of interests that the government cannot take without compensation