Philadelphia Historic Preservation
Corporation
Inspired Fall 1989
TWO RECENT CASES BRING THE ISSUE INTO THE 1990s
St. Bartholomew’s court decision can be obtained by calling the National Center for Preservation Law at (202) 338-0392.
Two important events have occurred in the late months of 1989 which demonstrate that the question of whether or not religious-property owners should fall under the jurisdiction of preservation 4andmarks laws is still being debated in the courts and in legislative sessions. In the first instance, a case argued before a District Court in New York, the power of New York City's landmarks law was upheld. In the second, a potentially destructive piece of legislation in Pennsyl, vania was effectively put on hold by an active preservation coalition. Although the news may seem positive for preservationists across the country, conciliatory communication between the opponents and supporters of religious -property historic designation is still needed.
St. Bartholomew's
The right of local governments to designate and protect historic religious properties under local preservation ordinances has been challenged in court several times. Opponents to religious-property landmarking argue that the U.S. Constitutions First Amendment mandates a separation of church and state. But supporters counter that exempting historic religious buildings from preservation ordinances would, in effect, give religious institutions preferential treatment over all other classes of property owners.
To date, the courts have consistently agreed with the latter argument, most recently in a December ruling by the U.S. District Court of New York which upholds the Landmarks Preservation Commission's right to deny an application for demolition from St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church. The church had argue that its constitutional right to freely exercise religion was violated when the commission refused the church's request to demolish its historic community house for construction of a high-rise office tower. The far-reaching decision, which may be appealed by the church, found that the city's landmarks law did not, on its face, violate the church's first or fifth amendment rights.
Pennsylvania Senate Bill #1228
In October 1989, Senate Bill #1228 was introduced into the State Government committee of the Pennsylvania State Senate which, if passed, would have retroactively exempted all historic religious properties from the state's numerous local preservation ordinances. The bill was initially supported by 25 senators, and lobbying efforts in support of the bill were led by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
Opposition to the bill by a wide cross-section of Pennsylvania's preservationists was virtually unanimous. An anti-bill lobbying effort, which included members of the religious community, resulted in several state senators withdrawing their support. "No further action is being planned on Senate Bill 1228," wrote chief sponsor Senator Clarence Bell, in a letter to the Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation.
It is anticipated that face-to-face discussions between representatives from Pennsylvania's preservation community and the bill's supporters will reach an accord that does not involve a potentially controversial legislative action.