"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.
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.
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
