In Agin v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 100 pp. C. 2138, 65 L. Ed. 2d 106, the Supreme Court held that „regulation is income if it does not substantially further the legitimate interests of government or deprive an owner of an economically viable use of his land.“ Agins established a two-part test to determine if ingestion has occurred. According to Agins, a project is a withdrawal if it does not substantially promote a legitimate interest of the State and if it deprives the owner of the land of any economically reasonable use of the land. The Agins decision clarified the magnitude of the economic impact required for a regulation to be considered a recipe.
If a bylaw prevented any economically viable use of the land, it was a withdrawal. However, if a settlement left an economically viable benefit, it was not considered income. Penn Central argued that the refusal to build was income. The City of New York argued that „the regulation of private property for historical, cultural, or aesthetic values, when carried out in accordance with an overall plan that benefits all, is in the public interest.“ The city also argued that meaningful preservation of landmarks meant that any additions should „protect, enhance and perpetuate the original design, rather than overwhelm it.“ Edinburgh Castle is one of Scotland`s most famous landmarks. Although the laws governing the preservation of monuments vary by city and state, they have the same fundamental purpose: to keep landmarks as close as possible to their original state. As a legal specialty, monument and preservation law developed as the number of designated monuments in the United States increased. Attractions are often buildings such as hotels, houses, skyscrapers, theaters, museums, shops, libraries, churches, and synagogues. Other structures such as bridges and even natural landmarks such as trees can also be called landmarks if they have special historical, architectural or cultural significance. A structure that has significant historical, architectural or cultural significance and has been legally protected from alteration and destruction. A case of legal importance, which usually settles an important issue and whose decision is used and followed by the judiciary to decide cases involving the same issue.
Many U.S. cities have regulations that govern the historic preservation of landmarks. According to these regulations, the owner of an attraction essentially has two obligations: first, the owner is responsible for the maintenance of the building or structure, which is a basic requirement for every owner; and second, the owner must obtain prior approval for any external improvement or modification of the attraction. Change requests are submitted to the appropriate municipal or state conservation commission. Once a landmark has been designated, it is protected by law from tampering or destruction. If the owner of a monument wants to alter it, the changes must be approved by the commission or council that regulates tourist sites in the city or state where the landmark is located. The Chrysler Building in New York is an example of an individual landmark. At the time of its completion in 1930, it was the tallest building in New York City at 77 stories and 1,046 feet. The building was built by Walter P.
Chrysler, founder of the Chrysler Corporation, and is still part of the New York skyline. The Art Deco style of the building is unique. Outside the thirty-first floor, a row of gray and white brick cars surrounds the building. The cars have chrome hubcaps that are embedded in the wall. At each of the four corners of this floor is a buttress, and on each buttress is a huge steel eagle, similar in style to the ornament that adorned the Chrysler radiator cap. The floors from the thirty-first to the fifty-ninth form a tower, and the fifty-ninth floor is marked with eight gargoyles. A tower begins on the fifty-ninth floor, which consists of arches with triangular windows. At night, the tower is illuminated from the inside, emphasizing its place in the Manhattan skyline. Penn Central identified three factors in determining whether a withdrawal has occurred in historical land use cases: the economic impact of the settlement on the applicant; the impact of the Regulations on investment-based expectations; and the nature of the government action – whether there was a legitimate interest of the state, such as an interest in preserving existing points of interest.
New York City`s refusal to allow construction did not diminish Penn Central`s revenues, nor did it affect its original intention to operate the terminal, and because New York City had a legitimate state interest (to preserve the landmark in its original state), the Supreme Court ruled that there was no revenue and that the landmark law was constitutional. A landmark decision is „an extremely important case that has a law firmly rooted in one area and generally relates to a case of the Supreme Court of the United States.“ [2] A strategic decision can be of long-term or short-term significance. [3] Politics, economics or other societal changes can reduce the impact of a political decision. A landmark decision is one that changes an entire area of law over time. [4] Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 98 pp. Ct. 2646, 57 L.
Ed. 2d 631, illustrates the power of New York`s historic preservation laws over the wishes of a monument owner. Penn Central, the owner of Grand Central Terminal, leased the building to a company that wanted to build a 50-story office tower. However, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission had designated the terminal as a historic landmark, and the commission refused to let the planned tower alter the building`s exterior. Penn Central sued the city and the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The New York Landmarks Preservation Act was passed in 1965, two years after New York`s historic Pennsylvania Station was demolished to make way for Madison Square Garden. The decline of this historic structure was one of many that sparked the movement to enact conservation laws to protect the monuments. Despite their prevalence, historical laws are often challenged by homeowners who believe the laws unreasonably interfere with their use of their property. Typically, a monument owner argues that a removal occurred because a city or state preservation board rejected the owner`s request to alter the monument. A withdrawal is defined as an infringement or infringement of the land use rights of a private landowner. In zoning cases, a setback may occur if an owner is denied an economically viable use of the land or buildings on the property.
In landmark cases, the line between ingestion and a legitimate government-imposed restriction is often blurred.