Historic Preservation

Subscribe to Historic Preservation via RSS

On the day we celebrate Constitution Day (or should we say Khaaaaan-stitution Day?) we have to admit that pretty much nothing beats One Named Kirk’s reading of the Preamble. 

KIRK: This was not written for chiefs.

Hear me! Hear this! Among my people, we carry many such words as this from many lands, many worlds. Many are equally good and are as well respected, but wherever we have gone, no words have said this thing of importance in quite this way. Look at these three words written larger than the rest, with a special pride never written before or since. Tall words proudly saying We the People.

That which you call “Ee’d Plebnista” was not written for the chiefs or the kings or the warriors or the rich and powerful, but for all the people! Down the centuries, you have slurred the meaning of…

Continue Reading “This Was Not Written For Chiefs!” – Happy Constitution Day 2025

Euclidsymposium

With the 100th anniversary of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. nearly upon us in 2026, we’ve put together a series of events designed to reexamine the case that set the stage for a century’s-worth of intense land use regulations and restrictions.

Are Euclid‘s assumptions and conclusions still valid? If the original separation-of-uses and nuisance-prevention rationale of zoning made sense, does that rationale apply when “zoning” has become the shorthand for extremely granular regulation of property’s uses? What of the role of judicial review and a return to Nectowian review? 

Our Euclid series begins with a call for papers, and a follow-up conference at which these articles will be presented and discussed. For more, see the call for papers: “Euclid Turns 100: Rethinking an Antiquated Case and Reimagining Euclidean Zoning for the Century Ahead.” The link also has a few suggestions about…

Continue Reading Call For Papers: “Euclid Turns 100: Rethinking an Antiquated Case and Reimagining Zoning for the Century Ahead”

The latest episode of the “Is That Even Legal?” podcast features a familiar voice, that of former Eminent Domain Podcast host, Clint Schumacher who joins host Bob Sewell as a guest to discuss takings by eminent domain, and by overregulation. 

Clint joins the ITEL Podcast to discuss a situation that has been in the news lately, the possible taking of American-born Pope Leo XIV’s childhood home in Illinois to preserve it. What was just an old house yesterday is today history worth preserving, apparently!

Here’s a description of the episode:

What happens when the government decides it needs your land? Does the Constitution really allow officials to seize your family home, farm, or business property against your will? The answer might disturb you.

Attorney Clint Schumacher, a leading eminent domain expert, joins us to unravel the complex world where constitutional rights, property ownership, and government power collide. Schumacher…

Continue Reading New “Is That Even Legal” Pocast Ep: “This Land Is Your Land…Till It’s Not” (Clint Schumacher)

DSCF3117
If you know, you know.

Sad birthday wishes to what just might be our most un-favorite decision ever, Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), which turns 46 today. This in addition to the unhappy Kelo-versary earlier this week. A takings and regulatory takings one-two punch! 

Time has not treated the opinion well. Practitioners, judges, and legal scholars across the spectrum have called the three-factor Penn Central test for an ad hoc regulatory taking “demanding,” “fuzzy,” a four-part test, “neither defensible as a matter of theory nor mandated as a matter of precedent,” and “problematic” and “mysterious.”

No one but the Supreme Court professes to understand what that case means. Courts mess up the basic meaning of the factors, treat what is supposed to be a fact-centric “ad hoc”…

Continue Reading Not A Great Week For Property Rights Anniversaries: Penn Central Turns 46 Today

The key quote from the Illinois Appellate Court’s recent opinion in Robinson v. City of Chicago, No. 1-23-2174 (Mar. 24, 2025), in which a property owner challenged the inclusion of his property in a new Chicago historic preservation district? This seemingly innocuous sentence setting out the standard of review:

The plaintiff acknowledges that his substantive due process and equal protection challenges to the ordinance designating the District as a Chicago landmark are subject to rational basis review.

Slip op. at 13.

Those of you for whom this ain’t your first rodeo know that rational basis review (aka aliens might have done it) being invoked isn’t a good sign for a challenger. It nearly always tells the challenger “you lose, no matter what.” And here, that prediction plays out: the court rejected the property owner’s arguments that the city’s designation of his small neighborhood — a neighborhood that…

Continue Reading Who Cares Your “Evidence” Shows This Is Just An Old Part Of Chicago – All That Matters Is The City Says It’s Historic

Nothing to do with the case, beyond the owner’s name.
But c’mon, its ABBA.

Ms. Money and her spouse own a home in San Marcos, Texas. That home is in a historic district.

But it turns out that some of that history isn’t pretty: one of the previous owners was “notoriously associated with the Ku Klux Klan.” Yikes. And to make it worse, that owner, a certain Frank Zimmerman, branded the home by installing a Juliet balcony with a big ol’ wrought iron “Z” on the front of the house.

Very understandably, once they found out this detail (after they purchased the home), Ms. Money and her spouse wanted the Z gone. First the good news: although the home is in a historic district, the structure itself isn’t historic. So there’s that. But game not over, because even though it isn’t historic, the home nonetheless…

Continue Reading Show Me The Money: Reg Takings Claim Ripe Because City Made Its Decision Even If Owner Could Have Administratively Appealed