| |
EL DERECHO DE PROPIEDAD, EL PATRIMONIO ARQUITECTONICO Y LOS INCENTIVOS PARA SU PROTECCION
Autor: Diego Hickethier |
| |
ley, transferir los derechos de desarrollo a otras parcelas en la misma zona de la ciudad, posibilidad que había sido ampliada por distintas ordenanzas. 188
v) Que el propietario de Penn Central Station tenía la posibilidad de transferir sus derechos de desarrollo a otras parcelas.189
Luego en relación a la Quinta Enmienda precisó:
i) Que discernir que se considera “taken” –vocablo equivalente, en nuestro derecho, a “expropiado”- a los fines de la garantía de la Quinta Enmienda había sido un problema de considerable dificultad y que si bien el Tribunal había reconocido que la garantía fue diseñada para impedir al Gobierno hacer soportar a un individuo en particular cargas que deben ser soportadas por toda la población, no había podido determinar una fórmula concreta que permitiera establecer cuándo los daños económicos causado por una política pública deben ser compensados, lo que dependía profundamente de las circunstancias de cada caso.190
188 “Although the designation of a landmark site restricts the owner’s control over the parcel designation also enhances the economic position of the landmark owners in one significant respect. Under New York City’s zoning laws, owners of real property who have not developed their property to the full extent permitted by the applicable zoning laws are allowed to transfer development rights to contiguous parcels on the same block. A 1968 ordinance gave the owners of landmark sites additional opportunities to transfer development Rights to other parcels”
189 “The Terminal is one of a number of properties owned by appellant Penn Central in this area of midtown Manhattan. (…) At least eight of these are eligible to be recipients of development rights afforded the Terminal by virtue of landmark designation..”
190 “Before considering appellants specific contentions, it will be useful to review the factors that have shaped the jurisprudence of the Fifth Amendment injunction “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. The question of what constitutes a “taking” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment has proved to be a problem of considerable difficulty. While this Court has recognized that the “Fifth Amendment’s guarantee… is designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole, “Armstrong v. United States, 364-U.S. 40, this Court, quite simply, has been unable to develop any “set formula” for determining |
