| |
EL DERECHO DE PROPIEDAD, EL PATRIMONIO ARQUITECTONICO Y LOS INCENTIVOS PARA SU PROTECCION
Autor: Diego Hickethier |
| |
propietarios restricciones más severas que a otros, ello es una característica común en cualquier legislación, y que ello no implica un “taking” a los fines de la Quinta Enmienda.193
ii) Que la restricción que se imponía a los propietarios de la Penn Station, les permitía seguir explotando la propiedad y obteniendo beneficios, tal cual lo habían hecho hasta ese momento desde hacía sesenta y cinco años. 194
iii) Que el derecho a usar el espacio aéreo de Penn Station no había sido abrogado, sino que podía ser transferido a otras parcelas.195
El Máximo Tribunal concluyó que la aplicación de la New York City´s Landamark Law a Penn Station no constituía un “taking” a los fines de la Quinta Enmienda, y que las restricciones impuestas a los fines de perseguir el bien común permitían a los reclamantes obtener un beneficio razonable de la propiedad que, además, contaban con la posibilidad de transferir derechos de construcción a otras parcelas.196
193 “It is, of course, true that the Landmarks Law has a more severe impact on some landowners than on others, but that itself does not mean that the law effects a “taking”. Legislation designed to promote the general welfare commonly burdens some more than others”.
194 “Its designation as a landmark not only permits but contemplates that apellants may continue to use the property precisely as it has been used for the past 65 years: as a railroad Terminal containing office space and concessions. So the law does not interfere with what must be regarded as Penn Central´s primary expectation concerning the use of the parcel. More importantly, on this record, we must regard the New York City law as permitting not only to profit from the Terminal but also to obtain a “reasonable return” on its investment”.
195 “Their ability to use these rights has not been abrogated; they are made transferable to at least eight parcels in the vicinity of the Terminal, one or two of which have been found suitable for the construction of nex office buildings”
196 “On this record we conclude that the application of New York City´s Landmarks Law has not effected a “taking” of appellants property. The restrictions imposed are substantially related to the promotion of the general welfare and not only permit reasonable beneficial use of the landmark site but also afford appellants opportunities further to enhance not only the Terminal site proper but also other properties”. |
