3 ms·

Unconstitutional? I am not aware of any part of the constitution that prohibits landmarks.

• _jal 7y ago
  It isn't hard to argue that this is a taking in the 5th amendment sense. Similar arguments have been made (and sometimes won) about ecological designations - a taking doesn't need to deprive you of _all_ use of property to be a taking.
• nwallin 7y ago
  The equal protections clause of 14th amendment prohibits unequal application of the law. The business next door can do anything they please with their building lawfully, but the protected landmark building is prohibited by law from doing the same things. There's literally a set of separate set of much more restrictive laws the owner of a protected landmark has to follow that a business not similarly affected does not. Obviously much less is at stake here than having a separate set of laws for whites vs blacks, but it's the same principal.
  • rtkwe 7y ago
    That's a real stretch and applied universally any kind of location based rules like zoning would be in violation...
• rayiner 7y ago
  The Fifth Amendment prohibits taking property for government use without just compensation. Property is a bundle of rights—taking away rights from the bundle (like building a high rise) should result in compensation. Landmark designations, however, don’t typically compensate property owners for the lost value of their property.