Case:Sheraton Hotel Corporation v. Pittsburg, Pennsylvania (1985)

Pittsburg enacted an ordinance (city law) that made it unlawful for any hotel to exclude any licensed taxicab driver from picking up passengers at hotel taxicab stands even if the stands were on hotel property.The Sheraton was dissatisfied with the quality of service provided by some taxicab drivers and with the cleanliness of some of their vehicles.It wanted to require cab drivers to obtain permits and pay an annual fee to use the hotel's taxicab stand.The city's attorney was consulted about these plans and ruled that they violated the Taxicab Act (ordinance).

1) Whatreasoningwould the city offer in defense of its law? That is, the city has the 10thAmendment "police power" to restrain a private right in the public interest but there must be a public's interest (rational reason) for this law.What reason would they offer?

2) Whatreasoningwould the hotel offer in support of its contention that the city was taking its property without paying (in violation of the 5thAmendment)? That is, the city is not physically occupying the hotel's land, so how can the hotel argue that their property is being "taken?"