Last year, over the church's objections, the Washington D.C. Historic Preservation Review Board in a unanimous decision (full text) voted to designate D.C. Third Church of Christ, Scientist as an historic landmark. (See prior posting.) Now, according to a Washington Post report on Friday, the Review Board has unanimously voted down the church's request that it be permitted to tear down its building and construct a new one in its place. Church officials say that the concrete building, designed by architect Araldo Cossutta, has an unwelcoming appearance, is dark inside and is expensive to heat and cool. Preservation Board chairman Tersh Boasberg criticized church leaders for failing to try to work out alternatives to demolition. Apparently church officials will now file a lawsuit challenging the Review Board's decision as a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
2 comments:
I find this story amazing, and troubling. But perhaps I'm naive.
On what basis can a "review board" tell the congregation what it can and cannot do to a building owned by the congregation?
From where does the Review Board derive its power? How is it enforced?
Can a "review board" declare my house an historic landmark and then prevent me from modifying the house, or tearing it down, even if I *own* the house?
What does it mean to own a building if you don't have the ability to tear it down and replace it?
"Can a "review board" declare my house an historic landmark and then prevent me from modifying the house, or tearing it down, even if I *own* the house?"
Basically, yes, they can. This occurs with surprising regularity.
Just one more fun aspect of real property law. Check out the doctrines of adverse possession, eminent domain, and air rights also. Fun stuff.
Post a Comment