Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 6 P24 docx

and negative environmental effects of the proposed undertaking and alternatives. The EIS must also examine the effect of not implementing the proposed action. This “no- action” alternative may result in the agency’s continuing to use existing approaches. Although NEPA requires agencies to consider the envi- ronmental consequences of their actions, it does not force them to take the most environmen- tally sound alternative, nor does it dictate that they pursue the least expensive option. The effect of environmental policies on land use has been substantial. State governments followed the lead of the federal government and passed statutes that create water and air pollution co ntrol agencies. Some states require an EIS, and a number have comprehensive legislation. Land-Use Conflicts Government and judicial bodies usually attempt to make land-use policies responsive to emerg- ing concerns and developing needs. Conflicts result from situations in which localities attempt to block or ignore those needs, or from situations in which the response is challenged as an overextension of the police power. The complexity of urban problems and the growth of urban areas place constant tension on the land-use process. Urban land-use is not all that causes tension between the government and land- owners. Decisions to set aside undeveloped or rural land for governmental use causes contro- versy as well. One example of this practice was the decision by the federal government in 2002 to set aside Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, for storing all U.S. nuclear waste. Various landowners and Native American tribes, as well as the state of Nevada, filed lawsuits attempting to stop this use of Yucca Mountain. In March 2009, the Obama Administration announced its intention to abandon f ederal plans for Yucca Mountain. With the population of states such as Nevada gro wing rapidly, resulting in a decrease of available land, these wrangles over land use are anticipated to become more frequent. FURTHER READINGS Juergensmeyer, Julian Conrad, et al. 2003. Land Use Planning and Development Regulation Law. St. Paul, Minn.: West. Main, Carla. 2007.Bulldozed: ‘Kelo,’ Eminent Domain and the American Lust for Land.New York: Encounter Books. Nolon, John, and Salkin, Patricia. 2006. Land Use in a Nutshell. 5th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson West. CROSS REFERENCES Adjoining Landowners; Endangered Species Act; Environ- mental Protection Agency; Fish and Fishing; Hunting; Pollution; Solid Wastes, Hazardous Substances, and Toxic Pollutants; Water Rights. v LANDIS, KENESAW MOUNTAIN Kenesaw Mountain Landis is remembered by some as the trust-busting federal judge who in 1907 imposed a whopping fine against millionaire John D. Rockefeller ’s Standard Oil. More often, sports fans remember Landis as the first and, arguably, most powerful commis- sioner of U.S. baseball. Landis earned a reputation as a stern, highly principled baseball commissio ner who ran a tight ship and disapproved of gambling. He antagonized many t eam owners with his ▼▼ ▼▼ Kenesaw Mountain Landis 1866–1944 18501850 19001900 19251925 19501950 18751875 ❖ 1939–45 World War II 1861–65 U.S. Civil War 1866 Born, Millville, Ohio ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 1944 Elected to Baseball Hall of Fame; died, Chicago, Ill. ❖ 1914–18 World War I 1934 Negotiated contracts to make radio stations pay leagues for privilege of broadcasting World Series 1921–44 Served as baseball's first commissioner 1905–22 Served as district judge for northern Illinois 1919 Eight members of Chicago White Sox accused of throwing World Series 1891 Admitted to Illinois bar 1907 Fined Standard Oil of Indiana a record $29.24 million for illegal freight rebates; fine thrown out on appeal 1915 Presided over antitrust suit brought by Federal (Baseball) League against American and National Leagues GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 218 LANDIS, KENESAW MOUNTAIN dictatorial style, yet was reelected several times during his 24-year reign. Although Landis is criticized for maintain- ing racially segregated major league teams, he is credited with restoring the integrity o f the sport after the Black Sox cheating scandal—in which e ight members of the Chicago White Sox were accused of throwing the 1919 World Series—nearly ruined baseball. Surprisingly popular with the public, the former judge was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1944. Landis was born November 20, 1866, in the small Ohio town of Millville. He was named after the mountaintop near Atlanta where his father, a Union Army surgeon, was wounded in battle during the U.S. CIVIL WAR. Although Landis did not finish high school, he attended the University of Cincinnati and the Union College of Law in Chicago. He practiced law in Chicago until 1905 when he was appointed by President THEODORE ROOSEVELT to serve as U.S. district judge for northern Illinois. Landis made headlines in 1907 when he fined Standard Oil of Indiana a record $29.24 milli on for illegal freight rebates. The decision was applauded by the public but thrown out on appeal. Landis remained on the federal bench from 1905 to 1922, also gaining national attention for his sedi t ion trials of labor leaders and socialists during WORLD WAR I. After becoming the first baseball commissioner in 1921, La ndis retained his judgeship for one year, until members of Congress complained about CONFLICT OF INTEREST in matters pertaining to the sport. In 1921 Landis replaced the three-person national commission set up in 1903 to oversee the sport of baseball. Although his official title was commissioner for the American and National Leagues of Professional Baseball Clubs and for the National Association of Professional Baseball, Landis was often called simply the czar of baseball. Landis was asked to do nothing less than save professional baseball. The game suffered a public relations disaster after the White Sox conspiracy and bribery scandal. To cleanse the sport of corruption or the mere appearance of cheating, Landis imposed lifetime bans on the eight White Sox players who had collaborated with gamblers during the 1919 World Series. He also did not hesitate to ban other ballplayers for gambling offenses. Landis died in Chicago, at age 78, on November 25, 1944. LANDLORD A lessor of real property; the owner or possessor of an estate in land or a rental property, who, in an exchange for rent, leases it to another individual known as the tenant. CROSS REFERENCE Landlord and Tenant. LANDLORD AND TENANT Landlord and tenant have an asso ciation arising from an agreement by which one individual occupies the other’s real property with permission, subject to a rental fee. The term LANDLORD refers to a person who owns property and allows another person to use it for a fee. The person using the property is called a tenant. The agreement between a landlord and a tenant is called a lease or rental agreement. The landlord and tenant relatio nship has its roots in FEUDALISM, a system of land use and ownership that flourished in Europe between the tenth and thirteenth centuries. Under feudalism land was owned and controlled by a military or political sovereign ruler. This ruler gave portions of land he owned to another person, called a lord. The lord, in turn, could Kenesaw Mountain Landis. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. REGARDLESS OF THE VERDICT OF JURIES , NO PLAYER THAT THROWS A BALL GAME , … SITS IN CONFERENCE WITH A BUNCH OF CROOKED PLAYERS AND GAMBLERS WHERE THE WAYS AND MEANS OF THROWING A GAME ARE DISCUSSED , AND DOES NOT PROMPTLY TELL HIS CLUB … WILL EVER AGAIN PLAY PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL . —KENESAW MOUNTAIN LANDIS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION LANDLORD AND TENANT 219 allow another person, called a vassal, to use smaller portions of the lord’s l and. The vassal pledged allegiance and military or other service to the lord in exchange for the right to live and work on the land. In 1066 the Normans of France conquered England, and William the Conqueror installed himself as king, becoming William III of England. He used the feudal framework of land control to retain political power in faraway lands. Feudalism as a means of political control became obsolete by the fourteenth century, but the hierarchical system of land use and owner- ship remained. Legal Relationship The contemporary landlord and tenant relation- ship derives from the relationship between the lord and the vassal. However, in the early 2000s the landlord is the owner of the property—not, like the feudal lord, merely the manager. The tenant is similar to the vassal because the tenant does not own the property but is allowed to use it for a fee. The landlord and tenant relationship usually refers to a living arrangement. In this respect landlord and tenant law differs from the law regarding leases. In a landlord and tenant relationship, the part ies are often referred to as lessor (landlord) and lessee (tenant). Indeed, a lease is a contract that creates the same relationship as exists between a landlord and tenant: The lessor owns property and allows the lessee to use it for a fee. However, the law of leases does not necessarily concern itself with living arrangements. A lease agreement may, for example, relate to the use of a good or service. Because living arrangements are vital to human existence, landlord and tenant relationships are treated differently from lease contracts. Generally, a landlord and tenant relation- ship exists if (1) the property owner consents to occupancy of the premises; (2) the tenant acknowledges that the owner has title to the property and a FUTURE INTEREST in the property; (3) the owner actually has title to the property; (4) the tenant receives a limited right to use the premises; (5) the owner transfers possession and control of the premises to the tenant; and (6) a contract to rent exists between the parties. A rental contract may be implied under the law. That is, landlord and tenant law may apply even in the absence of a written and signed rental agreement between the owner of the property and the person living on the property. Whether a court will imply a relationship depends on the facts of the case. The court will look at a number of factors, including the owner’s consent to occupancy of the property, the length of the occupancy, and the exchange of monies, goods, or services. A court’s finding that a landlord and tenant relationship exists between two or more persons is sign ificant because the law places duties on both parties in such a relationship. Landlord and Tenant Reforms Traditionally, landlord and tenant law was favorable to landlords. Courts resolved disputes between landlords and tenants according to strict contract and property principles, and tenants often were forced to pick up and move without notice or an opportunity to present an argument to a court. Also, landlords had no obligation to maintain the premises, and many tenants were forced to live in uninhabitable conditions. In the twentieth century, as urban popula- tions increased and workers became more specialized, landlord and tenant law was forced to change. Typical tenants were no longer as handy at makin g repairs as were tenants in previous years. They worked long hours, they did not have the time to maintain premises, and building designs and utilities were more com- plex than before. These developments made maintenance a specialized task that could be carried out only by the landlord. Before the 1960s, landlords were not required to rent out properties that were fit for habitation. Landlords could rent filthy, rat- infested apartments lacking hot water and heat. Although no one was physically forced to live in such an apartment, for many persons it was the only kind they could afford. In the 1960s and 1970s states began to enact landlord and tenant laws requiring that domes- tic rental properties be made fit for their particular purpose. The IMPLIED WARRANTY of HABITABILITY established by statute meant that rental property must have proper plumbing, water, heat, struc- tural integrity, and other basic features necessary for human habitability. These laws required landlords to make domestic rental property habitable even if they did not promise tenants habitable conditions in the rental agreement. Subsequent landlord and tenant statutes further required cities to create housing agencies GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 220 LANDLORD AND TENANT to enforce the laws governing habitability. These agencies are charged with inspecting domestic rental properties to make sure they meet maintenance standards set forth in statutes and agency regulations. The agencies report to a state agency such as the department of health. State legislation also governs the financial aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship. Such statutes regulate security deposits, require plain language in rental contracts, require inventory checklists, set rules on damage to rental units, and establish rights and duties upon termina- tion of the rental agreement. In some states some of these laws are set out in court opinions or CASE LAW. However, most landlord and tenant laws are set out in statutes in an attempt to make information about rights and duties accessible and understandable to both parties. Contemporary landlord and tenant laws vary from state to state. Local lawmaking bodies may enact additional landlord and tenant laws, provided they do not conflict with state laws. Generally, landlords must deliver the rented premises to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy and must disclose to the tenant any potential dangers and defects in the premises. The length of the tenancy should be set out in the rental agreement. If no term is written into the agreement, courts will usually deem the tenancy to be month to month. This means that either party must give the other one month’s written notice before terminating the tenancy. The cost of rent is usually governed by market forces, which means that it is usually dictated by what landlords in a similar area charge. Local laws in some urban areas, such as New York City, provide for rent control. Rent control laws limit the amount of rent that a landlord may charge a tenant. Most rent control laws, however, put limits on the amount that a landlord may increase therent.Alandlordmayraiserentduringarental period only with sufficient notice to a tenant. The terms of this notice are usually set forth in statutes or ordinances. Implied Warranty of Habitability One important issue in landlord and tenant law is the implied warranty of habitability. If a landlord breaches the warranty of habi tability, the landlord may lose the right to collect rent from the tenant, and the tenant may lose a place to live. Mannie Joseph, Inc. v. Stewart (71 Misc. 2d 160, 335 N.Y.S. 2d 709 [1972]) illustrates this process. In Mannie Joseph, a landlord brought suit against a tenant, seeking back rent. The tenant testified in court that the apartment had no heat, no gas for the stove, no hot water, no running water in the kitchen, low water pressure in the bathroom, “ever-present rats and cockroaches,” soggy ceilings and walls, broken windowpanes, no superintendent, and a toilet that did not flush. This testimony was supported in court by the housing director of the West Harlem Community Organization and verified in a personal visit by Judge Richard S. Lane, who noted that the oral testimony had not been sufficient to prepare him for what he saw. Judge Lane found that the landlord had breached the implied warranty of habitability and refused to order the tenant to make back rent payments. In his opinion, Lane wondered why the tenant should have to pay for what she was receiving. He abated, or forgave, the rent and ordered the landlord to pay the tenant’s court costs. Lane could have ordered the landlord to make repairs, but there were not enough people still living in the building to warrant such an order. In fact, the department of health had recently ordered the building vacated, and Lane lamented that the tenant would “soon follow her many former co-tenants out into the streets.” Implied Warranty of Quiet Enjoyment Landlords have additional duties and restric- tions under landlord and tenant statutes. Under the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment, a landlord must give notice to the tenant and receive permission from the tenant before entering rented premises. This rule does not apply if there is a BONA FIDE emergency, such as a fire or some other danger to the premises. A concept related to quiet enjoyment is the tenant’s right to reasonable use of the premises. Landlords may not substantially interfere with this right. Whether actions by the landlord substantially interfere w ith a tenant’s reasonable use of the premises is determined by the facts of the case. To illustrate, assume that a tenant rents an apartment and works there repairing elec- tronic equipment. The landlord’s refusal to allow the tenant to co nduct such activity may constitute substantial interference of a reason- able use. If, however, the tenant uses the premises to mix explosive materials, the land- lord may have the right to interfere because such a use is unreasonable. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION LANDLORD AND TENANT 221 If a landlord is found to have interfered with a tenant’s quiet enjoyment or reasonable use of the premises, the tenant may recover damages. The measure of damages varies by jurisdiction. Usually, the tenant will not have to pay rent for the period of interference, and the tenant may seek damages for any losses caused by the interference. Reciprocal Duties There are several reciprocal duties between landlords and tenants. A landlord must keep the premises in good repair, but the tenant must not damage the premises. The tenant must leave the premises in their original condition, ac- counting for reasonable wear and tear, or risk losing the security deposit. A security deposit is money deposited by the tenant with the landlord to guarantee the tenant’s performance under the lease. If the tenant damages the premises, the landlord may keep the security deposit and sue the tenant for damages not covered by the deposit. A landlord must give a tenant notice to vacate the premises if the landlord wishes to rent the premises to another tenant. The landlord may not do this during a rental period. For example, if a tenant has signed a lease for one year, the landlord may not force the tenant to move until the end of the year. If the lease period expires and the landlord has not found a new tenant and has not issued a new lease to the present tenant, the present tenant may be allowed to stay on the premises on a month-to- month basis. If the tenant plans to move during a rental period, the tenant must give at least a one- month written notice to the landlord. If the tenant fails to give notice to the landlord and leaves the premises, the tenant may be respon- sible for future rental payments. However, in this situation, the landlord is under a duty to take reasonable steps to find another tenant. This is called the duty to mitigate damages. Once the landlord finds another tenant, or the original lease expires, the tenant’s duty to pay expires. Eviction If the lease period expires and the landlord has found a new tenant, but the present tenant refuses to leave the premises, the landlord may sue the present tenant for damages if the landlord could be charging the new tenant more rent. The landlord may also have the tenant evicted by filing suit in court. Such a suit is called a wrongful or unlawful detainer. Unlawful detainers are governed by statute and may be based on damage to the property, nonpayment of rent, or unforeseen changes in the economic conditions of the landlord. All states provide for unlawful detainer hearings. These proceedings help landlords avoid financial loss. Depending on the statute, a court will schedule an unlawful detainer hearing from one to thre e weeks after the landlord files suit. In most states the hearing is limited to issues concerning the tenant’s and landlord’s rights and duties. The majority of states prohibit landlords from removing a tenant’s personal property from the premises until after the court orders an eviction. A tenant may avoid eviction for nonpay- ment of rent by paying the past due rent along with any filing costs incurred by the landlord. If the tenant is unable to pay rent before the court date, the tenant can still present defenses to the eviction in court. For example, the tenant may argue that the rent is not due because the landlord failed to make nece ssary repairs. If the tenant i s unable to defend successfully the failure to pay rent, the court will order the tenant to vacate the premises by a certain date in the near future. In order to collect the unpaid rent, the landlord usually must file a separate action against the tenant. Sometimes the action or inaction of a landlord may constitute a CONSTRUCTIVE EVIC- TION . A constructive eviction occurs when the landlord has made living on the premises unbearable or impossible. For example, assume that a landlord has refused to provide heat to rented premises. This constitutes a constructive eviction, and the tenant is not liable for rent. Eviction from Public Housing The law of eviction differs for tenants in public housing. Public housing is low-cost housing provided by the federal government to impo- verished persons. Under the National Public Housing Asset Forfeiture Project (28 U.S.C.A. § 881[a][7]), the HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT and the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT may evict persons from public housing without notice and without a hearing, under exigent circumstances—that is, when the eviction is directly necessary to secure an important GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 222 LANDLORD AND TENANT government or public interest, and there is a special need for prompt action. An eviction from public housing can be initiated only by the proper government authorities. Whether exigent circumstances exist to justify eviction without notice and a hearing depends on the facts of the case. The mere use or possession of illegal narcotics, for example, does not warrant summary eviction. However, if an apartment in a public housing project is being used for constant, high-level drug dealing, such activity may constitute exigent circumstances (Richmond Tenants Organization v. Kemp, 956 F.2d 1300 [4th Cir. 1992]). Although public housing tenants have increased eviction risks, the additional eviction procedures that must be followed by governments make eviction of public housing tenants a longer, more complicated process than eviction of private tenants. The Supreme Court in Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) v. Rucker (535 U. S. 125, 122 S. Ct. 1230, 152 L. Ed. 2d 258 [2002]), upheld the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to address the problem of drug-related criminal activity in federally subsi- dized public housing. The act mandated that every local public housing agency insert a clause in its standard lease document that gives the agency the right to evict tenants if they use or tolerate the use of illegal drugs on or near their premises. Assignment of a Lease A tenant may give his or her rights as a tenant to another person. This is called an assignment, and it is permissible unless the landlord objects or unless it is prohibited in the rental agreement. If a tenant assigns his or her rights, the tenant is still responsible for the payment of rent. In essence the recipient of the rental rights, or assignee, is a tenant of the original tenant, and there is no legal relationship between the assignee and the landlord. Courts often examine lease agreements for unconscionability. Unconscionable agreements are ones that unduly favor one party over the other. For example, assume that a rental agreement calls for the payment of damages to the landlord if the tenant leaves the apartment without sufficient notice. If the court considers the amount of damages to be too high, it may reduce the damages owed to the landlord. Some lease agreements allow either party to break the agreement, and specify an amount of damages that the breaching party must pay to the other in the event of breach. Landlord- tenant relationships governed by such agree- ments are called tenancies at sufferance. Courts usually examine these agreements to ensure that they are not unconscionable. Tenant-Rights Organizations In many cities tenant organizations operate to protect the interests of tenants. These organiza- tions offer information and services to tenants. Most tenant groups offer information and services to nonmembers for a fee based on the tenant’s ability to pay and the amount of work necessary to resolve the tenant’s rental issues. Most states have statutes that prohibit landlords from evicting a tenan t based on the tenant’s membership or participation in a tenant organization. Landlords are under no obligation to rent to tenants. However, under the FAIR HOUSING ACT OF 1968 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 3601–3619 [1988 & Supp. III 1991]), they may not refuse to rent based on race, color, RELIGION, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. FURTHER READINGS Bartley, Robert L. 2003. “Rent Control: New York’s Self- Destruction.” Wall Street Journal (May 19). Brennan, Gabriel, ed. 2002. Landlord and Tenant Law. 2d ed. Oxford, New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Federlein, Walter J. 1996. “1995 PA 79: An Affirmative Act for Senior Citizen Tenants.” Michigan Bar Journal 75. Gerchick, Randy G. 1994. “No Easy Way Out: Making the Summary Eviction Process a Fairer and More Efficient Alternative to Landlord Self-Help.” University of California at Los Angeles Law Review 41. Kelley, Robert H. 1995. “Any Reports of the Death of the Property Law Paradigm for Leases Have Been Greatly Exaggerated.” Wayne Law Review 41. Korona, Raymond I. 2001. Landlord and Tenant Law. 5th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group. Kurtzberg, Joel, and Jamie Henikoff. 1997. “Freeing the Parties from the Law: Designing an Interest and Rights Focused Model of Landlord/Tenant Mediation.” Jour- nal of Dispute Resolution 1997 (spring): 53–118. McCurley, Robert L., Jr. 2002. “Landlord-Tenant Act.” Alabama Lawyer 63 (November): 348–49. CROSS REFERENCES Mitigation of Damages; Rent Strike; Subletting LANDMARK A structure that has significant historical, architec- tural, or cultural meaning and that has been given legal protection from alteration and destruction. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION LANDMARK 223 Although landmark preservation laws vary by city and state, they have the same basic purpose: to keep landmarks as close to their original condition as possible. As a legal specialty, landmark and preservation law has developed as the number of designated land- marks has grown in the United States. Landmarks are often buildings such as hotels, homes, skyscrapers, theaters, museums, stores, libraries, churches, and synagogues. Other structures, such as bridges, and even natural points of interest, such as trees, can also be designated as landmarks if they have special historical, architectural, or cultural significance. New York City divides its landmarks into four categories: individual, interior, scenic, and historic district. Individual landmarks are designated for their exterior. Interior landmarks are noted for the portions of their interior that are open to the public. Scenic landmarks encompass structures that are not buildings, such as bridges, piers, parks, cemeteries, side- walks, clocks, and trees. Historic district landmarks include entire areas that have archi- tectural unity and quality or that represent a specific architectural period or style. All build- ings within a designated historical district are protected from alteration or destruction. The Chrysler Building in New York City is an example of an individual landmark. At the time of its completion, in 1930, it was the tallest buil ding in New York City, at 77 stories and 1,04 6 feet. Built by Walter P. Chrysler, the founder of the Chrysler Corporation, the buil ding remains a part of the New York City skyline. The building’s art deco style is unique. Outside the 31st floor, a line of cars made of gray and w hite bricks encircles the building. The cars have chrome hubcaps, which are embedded in the wall. On each of the FOUR CORNERS of this fl oor is a buttress, and atop each buttress is a giant steel eagle similar in style to the ornament that used to adorn the Chrysler radiator cap. The floors from the 31st to the 59th make up a tower, and the 59th floor is marked with eight gargoyles . A sp ire begins on the 59th floor, constructed of arches with triangular windows. At night the spire is lit from the inside, highlighting its place in the Manhattan skyline. Once a landmark has been designated, it is legally protected from alteration or destruction. If the owner of a landmark wishes to change it, the alterations must be approved by the commission or council that governs the land- marks in the city or state in which the landmark is located. The Landmarks Preservation Commission of New York City is one such body. Since its creation in 1965, the commission has designated more than a thousand landmarks in New York City. The commission creates guidelines for landmark designation, designates landmarks, and reviews applications for the alteration of previously designated landmarks. The group is made up of 11 commissioners, including at least one from each of the five boroughs of New York City. Many U.S. cities have ordinances regulating historical preservation of landmarks. Under these ordinances a landmark owner basically has two obligations: First, the owner is respon- sible for the upkeep of the building or structure, which is a basic requirement for any property owner; and second, the owner is required to get advance approval for any exterior improve- ments or alterations to the landmark. Requests for alterations are made to the appropriate city or state preservation commission. New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Law was passed in 1965, two years after the New York City’s Chrysler Building (foreground) and Empire State Building (left) are examples of individual landmarks. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 224 LANDMARK historic Pennsylvania Station in New York City was demolished to make way for Madison Square Garden. The demise of this historical structure was one among many that spark ed the movement to enact preservation laws to protect landmarks. Despite their prevalence landmark laws are often challenged by property owners who feel that the law s create undue interference with their use of their property. Typically, a land- mark owner argues that a taking has occurred because a city or state preservation council has rejected the owner’s application to alter the landmark. A taking is defined as interference with or damage to a private property owner’s land-use rights. In zoning law cases, a taking can occur if a property owner is denied economically viable use of the land or the buildings on the land. In landmark cases the line between taking and a legitimate government-imposed limita- tion is often blurred. The 1978 case of Penn Central Transporta- tion Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S. Ct. 2646, 57 L. Ed. 2d 631, illustrates the strength of New York City’s landmark preservation laws over the desires of a landmark owner. Penn Central, the owner of the Grand Central Terminal, leased the building to a company that planned to construct a 50-story office tower on top of it. However, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission had des- ignated the terminal as a historic landmark, and the commission refused to allow the building’s exterior to be altered by the planned tower. Penn Centra l sued the city, and the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Penn Central argued that the construction denial was a taking. New York City argued that “regulating private property for historical, cultural or aesthetic values, if it is done in accord with a comprehensive plan that provides benefit to all, is in the public interest.” The city also argued that the meaningful preservation of landmarks meant that any additions should “protect, enhance and perpetuate the original design, rather than overwhelm it.” The Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional, “as part of a comprehensive program to preserve historic landmarks and historic districts, [to] place restrictions on the development of individual historic landmarks … without effecting a ‘taking.’” Penn Central established three factors for determining whether a taking has occurred in landmark land-use cases: the economic effect of the regulation on the claimant; how much the regulation affected investment-backed expecta- tions; and the character of the government action—whether there was a legitimate state interest, such as an interest in preserving existing landmarks. New York City’s refusal to permit construction did not reduce Penn Central’s income or interfere with its original intent of operating the terminal, and because New York City had a legitimate state interest (preserving the landmark in its original state), the Supreme Court ruled that a taking had not occurred and that the landmark law was constitutional. In the 1980 case of Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 100 S. Ct. 2138, 65 L. Ed. 2d 106, the Supreme Court ruled that “regulation is a taking if it doesn’t substantially advance legiti- mate state interests or denies an owner econom- ically viable use of his land.” Agins established a two-part test to determine whether a taking has occurred. Under Agins a regulation is a taking if it does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest and if it denies the landmark owner all economically viable use of the land. The Agins RULING clarified the amount of economic effect necessary for a regulation to be considered a taking. If a regulation prevented all economically viable use of the land, it was a taking. However, if a regulation left some economically viable use, it was not considered a taking. Twelve years later, in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1992), the Court clarified its definition of economically viable use, stating that it was any use that was greater than zero. FURTHER READINGS Diamonstein, Barbaralee. 1992. Landmarks: Eighteen Won- ders of the New York World. New York: Abrams. Kayden, Jerold S. 1996. “Hunting for Quarks: Constitutional Takings, Property Rights, and Government Regula- tion.” Washington Univ. Journal of Urban and Contem- porary Law 50 (fall). ———. 1994. “Historic Preservation and the New Takings Cases: Landmarks Preserved.” Fordham Environmental Law Journal 6. National Historic Landmarks Program. Available online at http://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/; website home page: http://www.nps.gov (accessed August 5, 2009). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. Available online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/ home/home.shtml; website home page: http://www. nyc.gov (accessed August 5, 2009). GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION LANDMARK 225 Nivala, John. 1996. “The Future for Our Past: Preserving Landmark Preservation.” New York Univ. Environmen- tal Law Journal 5. Available online at http://works. bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context= john_nivala; website home page: http://works.bepress. com (accessed August 5, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Eminent Domain; Land -Use Control. LANDRUM-GRIFFIN ACT The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclo- sure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C.A. § 401 et seq.), commonly known as the Landrum-Griffin Act, is an important component of federal LABOR L AW. The act was named after its sponsors, Represen- tative Phillip M. Landrum of Georgia and Senator Robert P. Griffin of Michigan. The provisions of Landrum-Griffin seek to prevent union corruption and to guarantee union members that unions will be run democratically. The act resulted from a highly publicized investigation of union corruption and RACK- ETEERING chaired by Senator JOHN L. MCCLELLAN of Arkansas. The Senate Select Committee on Labor and Management Practices, popularly known as the McClellan Committ ee, was created in 1957 in large part because of the perception that the Teamsters Union was corrupt and under the influence of organized crime. The McClellan Committee’s investiga- tion revealed that officials of the Teamsters Union and other groups had taken union funds for private use and that the union was clearly linked to organized crime. One result of the probe was the expulsion of the Teamsters and two other unions from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions (AFL-CIO). The AFL-CIO is the largest U.S. labor organization, a federation of auto- nomous labor unions that is dedicated to enhancing and promoting unionism. The other result was the passage of the Landrum-Griffin Act. To prevent abuses and acts of oppression, the act attempts to regulate some internal union affairs and provides for reporting to the government on various union transactions and affairs. Senator JOHN F. KENNEDY of Massachusetts was instrumental in inserting title I of the act (29 U.S.C.A. § 411 et seq.), which has been dubbed the union BILL OF RIGHTS. Title I mandates FREEDOM OF SPEECH and assem- bly in the conduct of union meetings, equality of rights regarding voting in elections, the nomination of candidates, and attendance at meetings. A secret ballot is required for voting on increases in dues or assessments. In regard to disciplinary actions, a member must be given written charges, time to prepare a defense, and a FAIR HEARING. The act also guarantees that a member will not be subject to union discipline for attempting to exercise statutory rights. A member must have access to union financial records and has the right to recover misappro- priated union assets on behalf of the union when the union fails to do so. Title II (29 U.S.C.A. § 431 et seq.) deals with the management and reporting of union finances, a particular area of concern for Congress in the wake of the Teamsters Union’s misappropriation of funds. The act requires unions to have constitutions and bylaws and to file copies of both with the U.S. secretary of labor. They must file reports that show dues, fees, and assessments; qualifications for mem- bership; financial auditing; and authorization for the disbursement of funds and other types of spending. Unions must also file financial reports that show assets and liabilities at the beginning and end of the fiscal year, receipts, salaries, expense reimbursements, and loans to any officer, employee, member, or busines s enterprise. Officers and employees of unions may be required to disclose in written reports any personal financial interests that may conflict with duties owed to union members and any transactions or business interests that would present a CONFLICT OF INTEREST with union duties. The act also has provisions that apply w hen a labor organization suspends the autonomy of a union local and places the local or another unit under a trusteeship. This provision addresses a concern that corrupt national union leaders may take over control of union locals to maintain power. The law provides the condi- tions under which a trusteeship may be imposed and certain restrictions under which it may operate. Landrum-Griffin also addresses the personal responsibility and integrity of union officers and representatives. Under the act, officers and representatives are held to common-law prin- ciples of trust relationships through express provisions that they occupy positions of trust in relation to the organization and its members as a group. This means that persons in union leadership positions must act in the best GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 226 LANDRUM-GRIFFIN ACT interests of the union. If a union official acts for personal gain, the official can be held account- able for breach of duty. Embezzlement of union funds is a federal offense under the act. And persons who have been convicted of certain specified crimes are barred from serving as union officers, agents, or employees for five years after being released from prison. The Landrum-Griffin Act provides the tools for union democracy, but it also provides greater government contro l over union affairs previously believed to be the province of the unions themselves. FURTHER READINGS Boetticher, Helene. 2000. “How to Hold a Union Election and Stay out of Trouble.” Labor Law Journal 51 (winter). Nelson, Michael J. 2000. “Slowing Union Corruption: Reforming the Landrum-Griffin Act to Better Combat Union Embezzlement.” George Mason Law Review 8 (spring). United Auto Workers. 2009. “Unions and Their Members: The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.” Detroit, MI: International Union, UAW. Available online at http://www.uaw.org/other/lmrda.cfm; website home page: http://www.uaw.org (accessed September 6, 2009). v LANFRANC Lanfranc served as archbishop of Canterbury under William the Conquerer. He reformed the English church, established strong church- state relations, and introduced components of Roman and CANON LAW to England. Under William’s reign, he laid the foundation for what succeeding theorists would build into England’s secular common-law court system. Early U.S. law derived some elements from this system. Lanfranc was born in about 1005 in Pavia, Italy. He studied law in Pavia and became a respected scholar, principally because of his studies in Roman law, which was a subject of growing interest in Italy at the time. Lanfranc established a school at Avranches, Normandy, and taught for three years, until about 1042. After being attacked and almost killed by a highway robber, he went into seclusion at Saint Stephens Abbey at Bec, a newly established monastery. After three years of total seclusion, he returned to teaching, this time at the monastery. He taught there for 18 years, earning high respect throughout Europe as an instructor of theology. The school became one of the most famous in Europe under his leadership. The future pope Alexan- der II was among his students. When William the Conquerer decided to marry Matilda of Flanders, Lanfranc declared that the union would be a violation of canon law. Because of Lanfranc’s strong opposition, William threatened to exile him. Lanfranc eventually gave up his stand against the MARRIAGE. In about 1051 William married Matilda, despite a papal ban on the union. Lanfranc sought support from the pope and engineered an eventual reconciliation of the papacy with the king. Six years after the wedding, William received the pope’s approval to marry Matilda. In 1063 the grateful king appointed Lanfranc the first abbot of Saint Stephens. Lanfranc also successfully lobbied for papal support for William’s subsequent invasion of England. Because of these efforts, Lanfranc became William’s closest and most trusted adviser by the time of the invasion in 1066, which resulted in the Norman Conquest. ▼▼ ▼▼ Lanfranc c.1005–1089 10001000 10501050 10751075 11001100 10251025 ❖ ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 1087 William I died 1055 Council of Tours 1051 William the Conqueror married Matilda of Flanders 1066 William the Conqueror led the Norman Conquest of England c.1005 Born, Pavia, Italy 1089 Died, Canterbury, England 1076 Wrote ordinance separating secular and ecclesiastical courts 1063 Appointed first abbot of Saint Stephens 1070 Appointed archbishop of Canterbury and chief justiciar by William I ◆ 1045–66 Taught theology at Saint Stephens Abbey ◆ 1042 Attacked by highway robbers; joined Benedictine order at Saint Stephens Abbey at Bec YOU CAN OFFER GOD NO GREATER OR MORE PLEASING GIFT THAN YOUR DESIRE TO GOVERN DIVINE AND HUMAN AFFAIRS BY THE APPROPRIATE LAWS . —LANFRANC GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION LANFRANC 227 . 5, 2009). GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION LANDMARK 225 Nivala, John. 19 96. “The Future for Our Past: Preserving Landmark Preservation.” New York Univ. Environmen- tal Law Journal. Bec YOU CAN OFFER GOD NO GREATER OR MORE PLEASING GIFT THAN YOUR DESIRE TO GOVERN DIVINE AND HUMAN AFFAIRS BY THE APPROPRIATE LAWS . —LANFRANC GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION LANFRANC. commissioner for the American and National Leagues of Professional Baseball Clubs and for the National Association of Professional Baseball, Landis was often called simply the czar of baseball. Landis