A bit over a month ago, I described the problem faced by the congregation of the Third Church of Christ, Scientist in Washington, DC this way.

The church is an ugly, non-functional building only three decades old. The religious group that worships there wants to demolish it and replace it with a structure that actually serves the needs of the congregation. The city wants to stop them, declaring the non-functional eyesore to be "historic" -- because it is a non-functional eyesore.

Now it should be clear to anyone that any such action by the city would be not merely unreasonable, but also impose a substantial burden upon the ability of these believers to use their property for worship. It should be obvious that so drastic an action by the city would constitute a "taking" of the property by any definition of the word. But that doesn't matter to the city's Historic Preservation Review Board. They awarded the building "historic" status despite the vocal objections of the congregation.

But the arrogance of the board is particularly shocking.

Tersh Boasberg, the board's chairman, said during the hearing that the board would not address First Amendment issues in its consideration of the church's architecture. Instead, he said, the board would base its ruling on the significance of the design.

Translation: We won't let little things like the Constitution get in the way of a decision that we have already made. We are just going to go through the motions of engaging in a little bit of brutalism ourselves, and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights will be no obstacle.

Of course, I have no problem with designating a structure historical. but when sucha designation carries with it restrictions on use of the property that does not impact other property owners on an equal basis, you have a taking in a very real sense -- and that should be compensated. And when, like in this case, the designation renders the property unusable by the owners, the proper solution is for the government to buy the property from the owner AT THE PRICE SET BY THE OWNER.

After all, if the building is so significant, so priceless, there is no legitimate argument that the people as a whole, whose interest is supposedly benefited by preserving this building as-is, should jointly bear the burden of maintaining the building in that state. And if the preservation of the building is not a fit expenditure of the public treasury, imposing exactly that burden on a single individual or entity is unjustifiable.

Posted by: Greg at 11:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.