Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Arts and Humanities

PDF

2007

Land Use Planning

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

If They Can Raze It, Why Can't I? A Constitutional Analysis Of Statutory And Judicial Religious Exemptions To Historic Preservation Ordinances, Erin Guiffre Apr 2007

If They Can Raze It, Why Can't I? A Constitutional Analysis Of Statutory And Judicial Religious Exemptions To Historic Preservation Ordinances, Erin Guiffre

Georgetown Law Historic Preservation Papers Series

In 1996, America almost lost a great piece of its history. The Cathedral of Saint Vibiana, located in Los Angeles, was in danger of being destroyed. The "Baroque-inspired Italianate structure" was completed in 1876 by architect Ezra F. Kysor. The cathedral is one of only a few structures from Los Angeles' early history remaining. As an important part of history and a beautiful piece of architecture, the cathedral was listed on California's register of historic places. In 1994, an earthquake damaged part of the building. After an inspection by the building and safety department in 1996, the only portion of …

Go to article

Regulating Land Use In A Constitutional Shadow: The Institutional Contexts Of Exactions, Mark Fenster Dec 2006

Regulating Land Use In A Constitutional Shadow: The Institutional Contexts Of Exactions, Mark Fenster

Mark Fenster

In a refreshingly clear and comprehensive decision issued towards the end of its 2004 Term, the Supreme Court explained in Lingle v. Chevron (2005) that the Takings Clause requires compensation only for the effects of a regulation on an individual’s property rights. Under the substantive due process doctrine, by contrast, courts engage in a deferential inquiry into both a regulation’s validity and the means by which the regulation attempts to meet the government’s objective. Lingle’s explanation appeared to cast doubt on the doctrinal foundation and reach of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), …

Go to article

The Takings Clause, Version 2005: The Legal Process Of Constitutional Property Rights, Mark Fenster Dec 2006

The Takings Clause, Version 2005: The Legal Process Of Constitutional Property Rights, Mark Fenster

Mark Fenster

The three takings decisions that the Supreme Court issued at the end of its October 2004 Term marked a stunning reversal of the Court’s efforts the past three decades to use the Takings Clause to define a set of constitutional property rights. The regulatory takings doctrine, which once loomed as a significant threat to the modern regulatory state, now appears after Lingle v. Chevron to be a relatively tame, if complicated, check on exceptional instances of regulatory abuse. At the same time, the Public Use Clause, formerly an inconsequential limitation on the state’s eminent domain authority, now appears ripe for …

Go to article