In Re Condemnation Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence Cty.
962 A.2d 1257, 2008 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 626 (2008)
Rule of Law:
The Pennsylvania Urban Redevelopment Law permits condemnation of private property under eminent domain only when an area or individual property is genuinely blighted due to actual, objectively negative conditions, and not merely because its current use is less economically profitable than a proposed private development.
Facts:
- The Lawrence County Economic Development Corporation (LCEDC), a private non-profit, identified an approximately 530-acre area, including the Hamilton and Whittaker properties, as 'Millenium Park' for potential industrial development.
- In March 2003, Lawrence County created the Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County (RALC).
- Between August 2003 and March 2004, LCEDC purchased four of the six properties within the designated Millenium Park Phase II (MPII) acreage, and the improvements on those properties were subsequently razed.
- In May 2004, the County Planning Commission, County Commissioners, and RALC designated a portion of Millenium Park acreage (MPII) as a 'Redevelopment Area' and drafted a 'Redevelopment Area Plan'.
- At the time the Planning Commission certified the area as blighted, only the 2.5-acre property owned by David Hamilton (used for residential and industrial purposes) and the approximately 84-acre property owned by Thomas and Christy Whittaker (their residence built in 2002) remained to be acquired within the MPII.
- RALC and LCEDC executed a written agreement stipulating that properties condemned by RALC in the redevelopment area would be conveyed to LCEDC, and LCEDC would cover RALC's expenses.
- In September 2004, RALC filed separate declarations of taking to condemn the Hamilton and Whittaker properties, asserting that their existing uses were 'economically undesirable' and thus qualified as blighted under the Urban Redevelopment Law.
Procedural Posture:
- Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County (RALC) filed separate declarations of taking in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County (trial court) to condemn the Hamilton and Whittaker properties.
- The Estate of David Hamilton and Thomas R. Whittaker and Christy L. Whittaker (condemnees) filed preliminary objections in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, challenging the legality of the taking and the sufficiency of the bond posted by RALC.
- Following a twelve-day hearing, the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County (trial court) overruled the condemnees' preliminary objections challenging the legality of the taking but sustained their objection to the sufficiency of the bond.
- The condemnees appealed the trial court's order, insofar as it overruled their preliminary objections to the legality of the taking, to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
- RALC cross-appealed the trial court's order, insofar as it sustained the condemnees' preliminary objections to the adequacy of the bond, to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Pennsylvania Urban Redevelopment Law authorize the condemnation of private property for 'economic development' when the property lacks physical indicia of blight and its current use is deemed 'economically undesirable' only in comparison to a proposed, more profitable industrial use?
Opinions:
Majority - President Judge Leadbetter
No, the Pennsylvania Urban Redevelopment Law does not authorize the condemnation of private property for 'economic development' solely because its current use is deemed 'economically undesirable' in comparison to a proposed, more profitable industrial use, especially when the property lacks the ordinarily understood indicia of blight. The court held that the term 'economically undesirable land uses,' as used in Section 2 of the URL, must be construed in the same manner as other descriptors in that section (e.g., 'unsafe, unsanitary, overcrowded'), which refer to actual, objectively negative conditions of deterioration, not merely a use that is less profitable than an alternative. The court found that interpreting 'economically undesirable' to mean simply 'not the most economically profitable' improperly shifts the inquiry from the actual condition of the properties to a comparison with a proposed redevelopment use. The public purpose of condemnation under the URL is the 'elimination of blighted areas,' which implies addressing existing societal harm, not facilitating private economic gain. The court noted that while Kelo v. City of New London allowed states to permit takings for pure economic development under federal eminent domain power, Pennsylvania's legislature imposed stricter public use requirements. Testimony from county officials explicitly stated that the 'blight' determination was driven by the desire to put the properties to industrial use to provide jobs, rather than any physical blight or affirmative harm inflicted by their current use. Therefore, the court concluded that the County Planning Commission failed to apply the proper standard for determining blight, as the properties inflicted no affirmative harm and lacked physical blight conditions, thus the public purpose of blight elimination was absent. The court reversed the trial court's order, sustaining the condemnees’ preliminary objections to the legality of the taking.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrows the scope of eminent domain power for economic development in Pennsylvania, distinguishing state law from the more expansive federal interpretation established in Kelo v. City of New London. It sets a precedent that 'blight' under the Urban Redevelopment Law requires demonstrable, objective physical deterioration or genuinely harmful land use, rather than a subjective assessment that a property could generate more tax revenue or private profit in a different use. This ruling offers stronger protection for private property rights in Pennsylvania, preventing municipalities from condemning healthy properties solely to facilitate private commercial or industrial projects deemed more 'economically desirable'.
