Re: [UC] HD: Constitutional Violation?

[Krfapt]

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