[UC] HD: Constitutional Violation?

[Jonathan Cass]

"One of the big issues in historic designation nationwide, of individual buildings as well as districts, involves "takings." The 5th & 14th Amendments to the US Constitution require that the government provide "just compensation" for "taking" private property in the public good."   Has any plaintiff ever successfully challenged a historical designation of a property based on this Constitutional argument?  I have heard this "takings" argument trotted out before as a basis for opposing HD districts, but I have never seen anyone actually reference a case citation where a plaintiff successfully challenged it under constitutional grounds.  It seems to me that since HD districts exist through out the U.S., somebody would have challenged it by now, and if they had won, others would have challenged it as well.  If they have challenged it and LOST, then clearly, it is not considered a "takings" such that compensation is warranted.  Therefore, an HD designation does not violate the Constitution.   Jonathan A. Cass Silverman, Bernheim & Vogel Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 910 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: 215-636-4435 Fax: 215-636-3999 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This electronic message contains information from the law firm of Silverman Bernheim & Vogel which may be confidential or privileged.  This information is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify use immediately by telephone, 215-569-0000, or by e-mail reply. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 4:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [UC] Calling all seekers of fact One of the big issues in historic designation nationwide, of individual buildings as well as districts, involves "takings." The 5th & 14th Amendments to the US Constitution require that the government provide "just compensation" for "taking" private property in the public good.   Opponents of HD tend to believe that the process is a taking in many instances, and therefore can be challenged in court (as the Church of Christ did -- reported in Sunday's Inquirer and referenced on this listserv).   Proponents of HD claim that the issued was settled across the board by a US Supreme Court decision involving the historic designation of Grand Central Station and the denial of a permit to build an office building on top of it.   Seekers of fact can read the decision for themselves and try to conclude whether it it can or can't be extended to all cases. It's at www.iconworldwide.com/histodis/takings_sup_ct.htm.   Anyone who missed the Church of Christ piece and wants to see it, it's at http://www.iconworldwide.com/histodis/denials/denied_presby_church.htm.   And, of course, you can always go to the historic debacle home page for lots of stuff. It's at www.iconworldwide.com/histodis   By the way, you'll be quizzed on this in the morning, so don't try to just make believe you've done your homework.   Always at your service and ready for a dialog, Al Krigman