expectations”; and (3) “the character of the governmental action.” Id. at 124. Private parties do not have reasonable investment-backed expectations in property or information voluntarily provided to government, beyond what is explicitly provided by the government itself. See Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1005–06 (1984). Put differently, where a private party voluntarily interacts with government regarding its property, governmental actions that might affect that property interest do not constitute a taking unless such action is contrary to a government promise concerning the property. See Meriden Tr. & Safe Dep. Co. v. FDIC, 62 F.3d 449, 455 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding no unconstitutional taking occurred where plaintiff “voluntarily subject[ed] itself to a known obligation”); Garelick v. Sullivan, 987 F.2d 913, 916 (2d Cir. 1993) (“[W]here a service provider voluntarily participates in a price-regulated program or activity, there is no legal compulsion to provide service and thus there can be no taking.”).
Again, the most analogous case addressing the Takings Clause concerns is Veeck. The Veeck court found no issues under the Takings Clause and 17 U.S.C. Section 201(e) because “SBCCI urged localities to adopt its model codes,”
41
