A Concrete Example

[Hamilton02 at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/23/2009 7:46:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
aebrownstein at ucdavis.edu writes:

But  that argument is much harder to make when courts repeatedly insist 
that  regulations which disfavor some architectural style (or expressive 
religious  activity) constitute prohibited viewpoint discrimination. Given that  
background, I would think a law that provides preferential protection to such 
 a style would be constitutionally problematic and subject to  challenge.


Alan-- surely this is an overstatement.  On this theory, places like  
Savannah, Georgia, where the land use laws assiduously preserve an architectural  
look are unconstitutional.  Or how about historic Boston or  Philadelphia?  
What about Capitol Hill in DC?  The problem with  this way of thinking is 
that it does not take into account the  entrenched fact of land use planning, 
and the contribution that land use  planning provides to the larger public 
good.  
 
The issue here echoes the problems that are now endemic in residential  
neighborhoods with RLUIPA in place.  RLUIPA was passed with no respect or  
deference to local communities in shaping their residential and other  goals.  
It is antithetical to civil society.  The members of Congress  completely 
ignored the long-settled constitutional doctrine that the federal  courts and 
government are supposed to defer to local determinations with respect  to 
land use.  
 
Marci
**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the 
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090624/57865d1c/attachment.htm>