[MassHistPres] Churches in LHDs

[sanderheggen at cs.com]

Hi All:


Julia Miller, an attorney here in the National Trust's Legal Department, says this:



"Litigation surrounding Third Church of Christ Scientist is far
from resolved. The Mayor’s Agent’s decision, which authorized
demolition of the church on “economic hardship” grounds, has been
appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals. The federal district court has not ruled
on the church’s first amendment and RLUIPA claims. 



 



Regulation of historic religious properties has been upheld
under the First Amendment and RLUIPA. A list of cases is posted on our website
at: 



http://www.preservationnation.org/resources/legal-resources/understanding-preservation-law/constitutional-issues/religious-protection.html



 



Scroll down to the .pdf document at the bottom of the page."



To further clarify, the Third Church has not been demolished.  I trust this helps a bit.


Shanti
 







Shantia Anderheggen | Easement Administrator | Law
Department



National Trust for Historic Preservation | 1785
Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20036 



Phone: 202.588.6159 | Fax: 202.588.6272 | Email: shantia_anderheggen at nthp.org |
www.preservationation.org






 
-----Original Message-----

From: Heather Massler <hmassler at alumni.uchicago.edu>
To: slater at alum.rpi.edu
Cc: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Sent: Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:10 pm
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Churches in LHDs









A similar argument was made with respect to the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, in Washington, DC.  The church filed suit in District Court against the DC government for the right to demolish the church.  The suit referenced the First Amendment, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  As far as I know there was never a decision in court because the city's planning director eventually permitted the demolition.  Nevertheless, a local site noted this:


"D.C. planning director Harriet Tregoning said that the building was an
"experiment" that had "failed badly." No doubt, she had little say in
the matter: U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson pressed the issue by threatening to overrule a decision that guides the ways in which a city can declare a church an historic building."


Heather Massler


On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:36 AM,  <slater at alum.rpi.edu> wrote:





Our city attorney is floating a theory that it is may not be legal to include churches in local historic districts because this would be a violation of the separation of church & state, in particular because any encumbrance would be considered a "taking" under the 5th amendment, particularly since the building would not be permitted to be demolished.






Can anyone speak to that? That seems like a very dangerous path to go down.  





Ralph Slate


Springfield, MA



******************************

For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST.

MassHistPres mailing list

MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu

http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres

********************************











 





******************************
For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact 
Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE 
LIST.
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
********************************



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20091022/4483e8fd/attachment-0001.htm>