Quote:
|
If a historic preservation board---which is in effect given broad latitude to discriminate on any basis they feel like due to the 100% subjective nature of their rulings---said the building could not be demolished, then they'd have a 2 story mosque
|
A ruling on historic preservation wouldn't mean the building couldn't be demolished, it would just mean that certain specific elements have to be included in any redevelopment, since the only remotely notable feature was the fascade on one section of the frontage of the properties it means that even if the lame attempt had succeeded you would have a big new mosque with a little brick and stone feature on one part of the front of it.
Quote:
|
Zoning had some latitude as well to have a say I'm sure.
|
Can you think of any possibility of a district with zoning for mixed development being able to find some way of blocking a building on zoning grounds when it fits that zones criteria?
Quote:
Someone with a similar building who ever gets denied can claim "you let the mosque tear down THAT 1851 building, why is my porno superstore being persecuted against!
Note that in NYC, such stores WERE persecuted in Times Squiare in the name of development.
|
Remember how much of a dump times square was.
Besides which all those evictions were down to usage weren't they, generally applicable so its all hunky dory and legal and nowhere near unconstitutional.
The only way that could work in this case and avoid the constitutional pitfall would be to ban all religious establishments from the district.....which itself opens up another big constitutional pitfall.
Quote:
|
I presume you must also be an enemy of "eminent domain" laws (I certainly am) to be consistent.
|
Where would eminent domain even enter this issue?