we follow the parties in referring to the government's concession of liability as a "stipulation,” Otay Mesa did not participate in the drafting of the document and did not agree to its substance. Thus, it was more a “unilateral concession of liability" than a stipulation. Compensation Decision at 479 n. 1. 4 . The Court of Federal Claims provided a chart showing its damages calculation for each parcel. Compensation Decision at 490. 5 . In the context of regulatory takings, we have stated that "[t]he essential element of a temporary taking is a finite start and end to the taking.” Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1097 n. 6 (Fed.Cir.2001); see Am. Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d 1363, 1371 n. 11 (Fed.Cir.2004) (quoting Wyatt); see also Yuba, 821 F.2d at 641-42 (<HOLDING>). 6 . See Tahoe-Sierra, 535 U.S. at 323-24, 122
holding that a prohibition on mining activities that was withdrawn after six years was a temporary taking and rejecting the governments argument that because the taking was allegedly intended at the outset to be irreversible and for all time it was permanent holding that a cause of action for an unconstitutional taking accrues at the time the taking occurs holding that requirement that fee be paid to preserve unpatented mining claims was not a taking holding covenant in an employment agreement executed some 12 years after the initial taking of employment was not incident to the taking of employment holding that if subsequent to the taking and before the trial the ordinance was actually amended to permit the previously forbidden use then that of  itself was weighty evidence of the existence at the time of the taking of the fact that there was a reasonable probability of an imminent change