For many years, a tenant had a month-to-month lease from Baltimore for a space in one of the city’s public markets. One day, the market sent the tenant an email informing it that it no longer “fit in the [redevelopment] plans,” and that it should “pursue other options.” The tenant took that as “get out.” And instead of digging its heels in, the tenant did what the city instructed and sought “other options.” It left.
The tenant then sued, claiming a taking. It also sought relocation benefits under Maryland’s version of the Relocation Act, which requires “[w]henever a program or project undertaken by a displacing agency will result in the displacement of any person, the displacing agency shall make a payment to the displaced person” for things like moving expenses and the cost of locating a replacement business.
The question the Maryland Court of Appeals determined in Wireless One,


