The roof collapsed and damaged the building. In the view of the City, that created an immediate danger so it demolished it. But the building owners had plans to fix it up, and claimed the demolition was a taking. Trial court said no, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed:
On the basis of our review of the record, we conclude that the court properly determined, in light of the circumstances shown by the evidence presented at trial, that demolition of the plaintiff’s building pursuant to the defendant’s police power did not amount to a taking. Lawson, Sr., testified that he purchased the subject property for $65,000 in August, 2009, with a goal of renting out eighteen apartment units. At the time of trial, the plaintiff still owned the subject property. There was no testimony or other evidence indicating that ‘‘no reasonable use may be made of the [subject] property’’; (internal quotation marks omitted) id., 211; such as evidence that the plaintiff was prevented from rebuilding. In light of the dearth of evidence tending to show that the defendant’s exercise of its police power was unreasonable or confiscatory, the trial court properly concluded that there was no taking when it ruled in the defendant’s favor on the plaintiff’s inverse condemnation claims in counts five and six.
Slip op. at 11-12 (footnote omitted). The property owner raised other points on appeal such as the burden of proof, weight of the evidence, and whatnot, but those were equally as unconvincing.