Subj:    Re: Demolition by neglect
Date:   2/13/98 6:18:09 PM EST
From:   [log in to unmask] (Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.)
Reply-to:       [log in to unmask]

>From: "Steven J. Eagle" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Demolition by neglect
>
>You might recall that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared the
>Philadelphia historic preservation statute unconstitutional in part
>because of the affirmative burden of keeping an art deco theatre in
>good repair. United Artists Theater Circuit, Inc. v. City of
>Philadelphia, 595 A.2d 6, 21-22 (1991). The decision created a furor
>and the court recanted two years later. 635 A.2d 612 (1993). That
>decision noted that the ordinance permitted relief for "substantial
>hardship." 635 A.2d at 619 n. 3.
>
>Historic preservation is just one of many situations where a
>governmental requirement to leave things alone results in heavy
>incidental costs. Consider Christy v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir.
>1988), upholding the criminal conviction of a rancher who killed a
>grizzly bear in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Bears had
>killed 20 of his sheep and ultimately drove the rancher out of
>business. Dissenting from the denial of cert., Justice White noted
>that there would have been a clear taking if park rangers took sheep
>and fed them to the bears and wondered whether this situation, where
>the rancher was deprived of his common law right to defend his
>property, was really different.
>
>Steve Eagle
>================================================
>Steven J. Eagle
>George Mason University School of Law
>3401 N. Fairfax Drive / Arlington, VA 22201
>Ph (703) 993-8054 / Fax (707) 281-7894
>================================================
>