to formulate a rule that would apply in all situations. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that it has: quite simply ... been unable to develop any “set formula” for determining when “justice and fairness” require that economic injuries caused by public action be compensated by the government, rather than remain disproportionately concentrated on a few persons. Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124, 98 S.Ct. 2646. Nevertheless, our Opinions and the Opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court have set forth some guiding principles. If a regulation authorizes a physical invasion of private property, no matter how slight, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently concluded that a taking has occurred. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 422, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Clearly, “[a] taking may more readily be
holding that new yorks law requiring landlords to allow television cable companies to place cable facilities in their apartment buildings constituted a taking even though the facilities occupied at most only vk cubic feet of the landlords property holding that a new york law which required a landlord to permit a cable television company to install its cable facilities on his property was a taking holding that new york law granting cable television companies right to place wires across private property worked a taking of private property holding that a new york law requiring building owners to permit cable companies to install cable facilities on their premises constituted a taking holding that a new york state law requiring the owner of an apartment building to allow the installation of cable equipment on the building which amounted to a few wires and a small box on the roof constituted a taking