Resource Library

Preservation Law Educational Materials... 

05-03-2016 19:26

This Forum section includes a set of Preservation Law Education Materials developed by the National Trust's Law Division, including papers on how to prevent “demolition by neglect,” a situation in which a property owner intentionally allows a historic property to suffer severe deterioration. The next paper looks at how a variety of laws have been adopted around the United States to protect historic or scenic viewsheds and their application.  The third paper analyses the Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) decision and the fourth paper focuses on the developing judicial interpretation of the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution.   The final two papers look at court decisions involving historic religious properties and the process for administrative relief from preservation restrictions in situations of “economic hardship."



#PreservationTools #Legal

Attachment(s)
pdf file
Demolition by Neglect   121 KB   1 version
Uploaded - 05-03-2016
“Demolition by Neglect” is the term used to describe a situation in which a property owner intentionally allows a historic property to suffer severe deterioration, potentially beyond the point of repair. Property owners may use this kind of long-term neglect to circumvent historic preservation regulations.
pdf file
Approaches to Viewshed Protection Around the Country’   111 KB   1 version
Uploaded - 05-03-2016
A variety of laws have been adopted around the United States to protect historic and scenic viewsheds. Some laws protect a resource’s natural or scenic views, while others protect the views and settings of landmark buildings. A handful of laws focus on views to and from a specific historic building, while others protect only public views of a particular resource from afar.
pdf file
The Penn Central Decision   437 KB   1 version
Uploaded - 05-03-2016
In Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision of New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission to deny permission to construct an office tower on top of Grand Central Terminal, a Beaux Art railroad station in midtown Manhattan.
pdf file
Supreme Court Takings Cases at a Glance   96 KB   1 version
Uploaded - 05-03-2016
The Takings Clause of the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that private property “shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
pdf file
Court Decisions Involving Historic Religious Properties   166 KB   1 version
Uploaded - 05-03-2016
Religious rights are protected by the federal and state constitutions as well as federal and state laws. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and state counterparts protect an individual's right to the free exercise of religion and prevent governments from establishing a particular religion or endorsing religious exercise. Federal and state laws, including the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the Religious Freedom of Restoration Act (RFRA), create statutory causes of actions against governmental entities for violations of religious rights.
pdf file
Assessing Economic Hardship Claims Under Historic Preserv...   106 KB   1 version
Uploaded - 05-03-2016
Historic preservation ordinances in effect around the country often include a process for administrative relief from preservation restrictions in situations of “economic hardship.” Under typical economic hardship procedures, an applicant may apply for a “certificate of economic hardship” after a preservation commission has denied his or her request to alter or demolish a historic property protected under a preservation ordinance. In support of an application for relief on economic hardship grounds, the applicant must submit evidence sufficient to enable the decisionmaking body to render a decision. The type of evidence required is generally spelled out in preservation ordinances or interpreting regulations. The burden of proof is on the applicant.