界面已本地化;技能介绍与说明文档按所选语言由 AI 自动翻译,代码、命令、路径和专业术语保留原文,以原作者文档为准。
探索技能
设计与创意 · SKILL.md

historic-preservation-law-summary

historic-preservation-law-summary

【设计与创意】Produces a structured U.S. historic preservation law summary covering federal, state, and local authorities, key cases, takings analysis, designation procedures, enforcement, and zoning intersections. Use when asked about historic preservation law, NHPA, Section 106, preservation ordinances, landmark designation, demolition review, takings challenges…

独立 GitHub 快照 · 自动分类 · 以原作者文档为准

技能说明

GitHub

name: historic-preservation-law-summary language: en description: Produces a structured U.S. historic preservation law summary covering federal, state, and local authorities, key cases, takings analysis, designation procedures, enforcement, and zoning intersections. Use when asked about historic preservation law, NHPA, Section 106, preservation ordinances, landmark designation, demolition review, takings challenges, or Penn Central analysis.

Historic Preservation Law Summary

Generates a jurisdiction-aware legal summary of historic preservation statutes, cases, and regulatory frameworks. Not legal advice — informational analysis only.

Prerequisites

Gather before starting:

  1. Jurisdiction scope — federal, specific state(s), and/or locality(ies)
  2. Audience — developer, agency, advocate, counsel, or internal memo
  3. Focus topics — designation, takings, enforcement, incentives, zoning, environmental review
  4. Sources — uploaded materials, known ordinances, or request to locate authorities

Quick Start

  1. Confirm jurisdiction and focus topics with user
  2. Build the Authority Map table (federal → state → local)
  3. Populate Thematic Analysis for each in-scope topic
  4. Draft Case Digest with 5–12 cases across court levels
  5. Produce Procedure Checklist for the target jurisdiction
  6. Flag open questions, splits, and missing sources

Output Structure

1. Scope Header

State jurisdictions covered, coverage period, and source list.

2. Executive Overview

4–8 bullets on core principles and practical effects.

3. Authority Map

LevelAuthorityCitationCore FunctionNotes
FederalNational Historic Preservation Act[VERIFY]Identification and review frameworkSection 106 process
FederalTax incentive statute(s)[VERIFY]Credits/deductionsEligibility triggers
StateState preservation statute[VERIFY]Enables/sets standardsPreemption or delegation
LocalLandmark ordinance[VERIFY]Designation + reviewDemolition/alterations

4. Thematic Analysis

TopicRule/StandardLeading AuthorityPractical Implication
Designation criteriaHistoric significance criteriaLocal ordinance; state statuteLandmarking threshold
Alteration/demolition reviewCertificate of appropriatenessLocal ordinanceAgency discretion scope
Takings limitsRegulatory takings frameworkPenn Central v. NYC, 438 U.S. 104 (1978)Balancing test constraints
Economic hardshipHardship standard and proofOrdinance/case lawBasis for relief
EnforcementInjunctions, penalties, permitsOrdinance/statuteCompliance leverage
IncentivesCredits/grantsFederal/state programsOffsets compliance cost
Zoning overlapZoning vs. preservation approvalsLocal codeSequencing risks
Environmental reviewNEPA/state equivalents[VERIFY]Additional review layer

5. Case Digest

Include 5–12 cases with parentheticals:

CaseCourt/YearIssueHoldingTakeaway
Penn Central v. NYCU.S. 1978Landmark restrictions as takingsNo taking under multi-factor testFoundation for takings analysis

6. Procedure Checklist

For the target jurisdiction:

  • Identify applicable designation criteria
  • Confirm notice and hearing requirements
  • Document administrative record standards
  • Map appeal routes and timelines
  • Verify permit sequencing with zoning/building

7. Evidentiary Standards

Summarize how agencies/courts assess: historical significance, architectural integrity, economic hardship, and alternatives analysis.

8. Jurisdiction Variations

Compare state/local differences. Note preemption, delegation, and home-rule impacts.

9. Open Questions and Splits

Flag unresolved issues, circuit splits, and items needing updated research.

10. Forward-Looking Trends

Note emerging categories (mid-century, cultural sites), climate/adaptation pressures, and pending legislation.

Pitfalls

  • Conflating levels — always separate federal, state, and local rules
  • Missing ordinance text — state the gap explicitly and request it from the user
  • Advocacy tone — summarize holdings neutrally
  • Uncited assertions — use Bluebook citations for every legal claim; mark uncertain authority with [VERIFY]
  • Procedural traps — flag jurisdiction-specific notice, appeal, and record requirements
  • Constitutional constraints — always note takings and due process limits on preservation restrictions

It looks like I don't have write permissions to that path. Could you grant write access so I can save the file, or would you like to copy the content above manually?

我的收藏