RE: [UC] HD: Constitutional Violation?

[Jonathan Cass]

Based on my review of the article you cited to, I disagree that the issues raised in that case are analogous to a constitutional challenge to a property being designated as part of a HD district.  According to the article, the basis for Judge Sylvester's decision was that the refusal to issue a *demolition permit* for a property that had no commercial value rose to the level of a "taking."  This is quite different that the restrictions placed on a property in a HD district.  Remember, the government is permitted to regulate the use of property -- zoning restrictions are a good example.   As to my "learned opinion" on this issue, I am sorry to say that I am not familiar with this area of the law -- thus my original question.  But, if someone want to pay me to learn it.... :) 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 5:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] HD: Constitutional Violation? In a message dated 4/8/2004 5:16:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 The Court of Common Please issued just such a ruling in favor of the Church of Christ (see reference -- http://www.iconworldwide.com/histodis/denials/denied_presby_church.htm). The City is appealing to Commonwealth Court. The case appears to differ substantially from the Grand Central situation because the Penn Central had expectation of continued use of that property and also had compensation in the form of transfer of air rights to adjacent properties which it owned.   The Church of Christ has no expectation of being able to use the building without repairs forced upon it that it cannot afford, and no expectation of selling it without a demolition permit.   Stay tuned. Or, Jonathan, since you're a member of a Bar other than Kelli-Anne's nee Murphy's, why don't you offer your learned opinion?   Al Krigman