Miller v. Beaver Falls
82 A.2d 34, 368 Pa. 189 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A governmental action that plots private land for a future public park, thereby preventing the owner from using or developing the property for an extended period without compensation, constitutes a taking of property that violates the state and federal constitutions.
Facts:
- On November 28, 1949, the predecessor in title to a 16-acre property in the City of Beaver Falls notified the city of plans to build 72 dwellings on the land.
- The predecessor requested that the City Council install sewers to facilitate the planned development.
- The appellants purchased the 16 acres of land on April 8, 1950.
- On April 10, 1950, two days after the purchase, the City Council of Beaver Falls passed Ordinance No. 960, which adopted a general plan for parks and playgrounds.
- This ordinance superimposed a park plan over approximately 4.5 acres of the appellants' property.
- The state law authorizing the ordinance, 'The Third Class City Law,' denied compensation for any buildings constructed on land designated for a park after it has been so ordained.
- The law also gave the city three years to decide whether to formally appropriate the land and pay for it, after which the ordinance would become void.
- The city did not condemn the property under its power of eminent domain nor did it appropriate any funds to pay for the land.
Procedural Posture:
- The property owners (plaintiffs) filed a bill in equity in a Pennsylvania court of first instance.
- Plaintiffs sought a decree declaring Ordinance No. 960 to be an unconstitutional encumbrance on their title.
- The trial court, after a hearing, found the park plan desirable and necessary and dismissed the plaintiffs' bill.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Supreme 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 a city ordinance, authorized by state statute, that designates private property for a potential future park and prohibits the owner from recovering damages for any improvements made for up to three years, constitute a taking of private property for public use without just compensation in violation of the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Bell
Yes. A city ordinance that plots private land for a potential park and freezes its development for up to three years without compensation is an unconstitutional taking of property. The Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions explicitly require that private property not be taken for public use without just compensation being first paid or secured. While a long-standing principle allows municipalities to plot future streets without it being a taking, that doctrine is founded on the unique necessity of streets and should not be extended to large, desirable-but-not-essential projects like parks. Freezing the property's use for three years deprives the owner of the beneficial use and enjoyment of their land, rendering it practically unsalable and constituting a taking 'by possibility, contingency, blockade and subterfuge.' This action abridges the owner's lawful rights to the possession and use of their land, which is the essence of a constitutional taking, regardless of whether title has been physically transferred. If the city desires the land for a public purpose, it must follow the constitutional mandate and acquire it through eminent domain with just compensation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the 'mere plotting' doctrine, confining its application to necessary infrastructure like streets and preventing its expansion to discretionary projects like parks. It reinforces the concept of a 'regulatory taking,' where government regulation, short of a physical seizure, so severely restricts a property's economic use that it amounts to a taking requiring compensation. The ruling protects property owners from having their land held in limbo by municipal planners, forcing governmental bodies to commit and pay if they wish to reserve private land for future public use. This strengthens private property rights against governmental overreach disguised as long-term planning.
