Supreme Court to Decide on Interpretations of Historic Preservation
Nick Zaiac shares news of a new research brief from the Cato Institute that argues for consistency between the historic preservation rules of major American cities. According to Zaiac and the Cato Institute, preservation laws tend to be ambiguous and arbitrary as a result of "a difference in the ways various circuit courts interpret historic preservation." That is, "[t]he nation is split between areas governed by property-owner-friendly rules (the Third and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals), areas governed by regulator-friendly rules (the First, Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals), and areas where courts have not ruled (the Ninth and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals)."
The Cato Institute's brief supports the side of Stahl in a case currently before the Supreme Court, Stahl York Avenue Co., LLC. v City of New York and New York Landmarks Preservation Commission, in "[seeking] to iron out these legal ambiguities, and make the laws of the Third and Seventh circuit courts applicable nationwide."