Does a federal law which allows letter carriers to take a short cut across a homeowner's lawn preclude a city from insisting upon due notice to adjoining property owners?

United States v. City of Pittsburg, Cal. (9th Cir.1981) 661 F.2d 783 held that a federal law which permitted letter carriers to take a short cut across a homeowner's lawn unless the homeowner objects preempted a city ordinance which stated that the carrier could take the short cut only with the express consent of the owner. The city contended that crossing the lawns without express consent was an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. To this absurb contention, the court had two answers: lack of standing and that crossing the lawn to make a mail delivery was too miniscule to constitute a taking. (At p. 786-787.) The invocation by the city of its citizen's rights to remain free of a taking of property without just compensation is different than the invocation by a local authority of the right to insist upon its own requirements of due notice of a variance application to adjoining property owners.