Historic Preservation Law – Joseph William Singer

Supreme Court opens federal courts to a floodgate of takings cases

June 21, 2019 / Environmental Law, Historic Preservation Law, Zoning

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overruled Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) and held that owners aggrieved by state regulations they believe took their property without just compensation can immediately sue for relief in federal courts under 42 U.S.C. §1983 even if state law would have provided just compensation through administrative procedures. Knick v. Twp. of Scott, — U.S. — (2019). The line-up is what one would expect with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas in the majority and Justices Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor in the dissent. Roberts wrote the majority opinion and Kagan wrote the dissent. Thomas concurred. The argument for allowing federal court relief is that it makes it realistically possible for federal courts to determine whether states have denied property without just compensation. Previously, the owner had to exhaust state remedies up through the state supreme …

Supreme Court opens federal courts to a floodgate of takings cases Read More »

New York landmarks commission approves electrifying historic clock and denying public access to the clock tower

May 16, 2019 / Historic Preservation Law

In Save America’s Clocks, Inc. v. City of New York, 2019 WL 1385906 (N.Y. 2019), the New York Court of Appeals overturned lower court rulings that invalidated a decision of the local historic landmarks commission to allow changes to a clock that had been designated a historic landmark both as part of an historic buliding and in its own right. The buyer of the building proposed to privatize the room on the interior of the building and deny public access to the back of the clock while converting the mechanical clock to be powered by electricity while preserving the mechanical structures. The commission allowed the changes because the exterior face of the clock would remain unchanged. The trial court and the Appellate Division ruled this decision to be irrational but the high court reversed those decisions, finding them to be within the statutory authority granted the commission.