 The City argued that the Court should apply a balancing test—that the invasion of property was minimal in comparison to the community wide benefit.But the Court's decision suggested that there was a per se rule requiring compensation in cases of this kind.In short, when the "character of the governmental action," is a permanent physical occupation of property, our cases uniformly have found a taking to the extent of the occupation, without regard to whether the action achieves an important public benefit or has only minimal economic impact on the owner.