RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    미국에 있어서 역사보존을 위한 토지이용규제

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A76268521

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    In the United States, a historic preservation movement had been conducted by two different sectors; public and private. However, both sectors came to merge into one by virtue of the establishment of the National Trust and the enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and finally a new legal system was set up for historic preservation. The government has generally designated landmarks or historic districts in a way to prevent histori presevation. This kind of land use regulation for historic preservation has caused many constitutional problems. Out of them, a key issue is whether or not this regulation regulatory taking. Being asked about whether or not the land use regulation for historic preservation is to regulatory taking, the U.S. Supreme Court presented the three factors in a decision-making process; economic impact of the regulation, interference with investment-backed expectations, character of the governmental action. In this regard, there is no clear distinction between landmark designation and historic district setup. In general, as long as a land use regulation for historic preservation leaves a room for reasonable and economic use, the U.S. Courts do not regard it as taking. However, the U.S. government has adopted various tax reliefs and transferable development rights (TDRs) to alleviate the damages of property owners, showing a good guide for our government.
    번역하기

    In the United States, a historic preservation movement had been conducted by two different sectors; public and private. However, both sectors came to merge into one by virtue of the establishment of the National Trust and the enactment of the National...

    In the United States, a historic preservation movement had been conducted by two different sectors; public and private. However, both sectors came to merge into one by virtue of the establishment of the National Trust and the enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and finally a new legal system was set up for historic preservation. The government has generally designated landmarks or historic districts in a way to prevent histori presevation. This kind of land use regulation for historic preservation has caused many constitutional problems. Out of them, a key issue is whether or not this regulation regulatory taking. Being asked about whether or not the land use regulation for historic preservation is to regulatory taking, the U.S. Supreme Court presented the three factors in a decision-making process; economic impact of the regulation, interference with investment-backed expectations, character of the governmental action. In this regard, there is no clear distinction between landmark designation and historic district setup. In general, as long as a land use regulation for historic preservation leaves a room for reasonable and economic use, the U.S. Courts do not regard it as taking. However, the U.S. government has adopted various tax reliefs and transferable development rights (TDRs) to alleviate the damages of property owners, showing a good guide for our government.

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼