In re Condemnation of Land of Hamilton
| Citation | 962 A.2d 1257 |
| Decision Date | 22 December 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 1293 C.D. 2007.,No. 1294 C.D. 2007.,No. 1323 C.D. 2007.,No. 1324 C.D. 2007.,1293 C.D. 2007.,1294 C.D. 2007.,1323 C.D. 2007.,1324 C.D. 2007. |
| Parties | In re CONDEMNATION BY the REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF LAWRENCE COUNTY, Pennsylvania in Fee Simple, ABSOLUTE TITLE OF LAND OF David C. HAMILTON situate in Neshannock Township, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, being Parcel I.D. #25-168200 for the Millennium Park Redevelopment Project, Appeal of Estate of David C. Hamilton. In re Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania in Fee Simple, Absolute Title of Land of Thomas R. and Christy L. Whittaker situate in Neshannock Township, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, being Parcel I.D. # 25-168201 and # 25-438301 for the Millennium Redevelopment Park Project, Appeal of Thomas R. Whittaker and Christy L. Whittaker. In re Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania in Fee Simple, Absolute Title of Land of David C. Hamilton, situate in Neshannock Township, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, being Parcel I.D. #25-168200 for the Millennium Park Redevelopment Project, Appeal of Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County In re Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania in Fee Simple, Absolute Title of Land of Thomas R. and Christy L. Whittaker, situate in Neshannock Township, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, being Parcel I.D. # 25-168201 and # 25-438301 for the Millennium Redevelopment Park Project, Appeal of Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County. |
| Court | Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania |
Samuel P. Kamin, Pittsburgh, for appellee, Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County.
BEFORE: LEADBETTER, President Judge, McGINLEY, Judge, SMITH-RIBNER, Judge, PELLEGRINI, Judge, COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, SIMPSON, Judge, and LEAVITT, Judge.
OPINION BY President Judge LEADBETTER.
In consolidated appeals from separate condemnations, the Estate of David Hamilton, and Thomas R. Whittaker together with his wife, Christy L. Whittaker, challenge the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County (trial court), which overruled in part their preliminary objections to the legality of the condemnations. In a cross-appeal, the condemnor, Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County (RALC), challenges common pleas' order insofar as it sustained the condemnees' preliminary objections to the adequacy of the bond posted with the declaration of taking.
In September of 2004, RALC filed separate declarations of taking, pursuant to the authority provided under the Urban Redevelopment Law (URL),1 condemning the Hamilton and the Whittaker properties for the purpose of developing a high technology business park. At the time of the condemnation, David Hamilton owned 2.5 acres, on which he maintained a structure used for both residential and industrial purposes,2 and the Whittakers owned approximately 84 acres, where they lived with their children in a home constructed in 2002. These two properties are located within an approximately 530-acre area, identified as a prime location for industrial development, and labeled "Millenium Park," by the Lawrence County Economic Development Corporation (LCEDC), a private non-profit corporation formed by the County to reverse a loss of its industrial tax base.
In March of 2003, the County created the redevelopment authority, RALC, which then undertook in conjunction with the County Planning Commission and the County Commissioners, pursuant to the provisions in the URL, to designate a portion of the Millenium Park acreage as a "Redevelopment Area" and to draft a "Redevelopment Area Plan" for what is known as "Millenium Park Phase II." The May 2004-certification of the Millenium Park Phase II (MPII) acreage encompassed six properties, four of which had already been purchased by the L.C.E.D.C. between August of 2003 and March of 2004, and the improvements on those four properties had been razed. Consequently, at the time the Planning Commission found the Area to be blighted only the two properties owned by condemnees remained to be acquired.
Meanwhile, RALC and the LCEDC executed a written agreement calling for properties in the redevelopment area condemned by RALC to be conveyed to LCEDC and for LCEDC to cover RALC's expenses. Subsequently, asserting that condemnees' properties, inasmuch as they were maintained in economically undesirable uses and, therefore, qualified as blighted under provisions of the URL, RALC exercised its power of eminent domain under the URL to condemn the properties. RALC filed its declaration of taking, citing Section 9 of the URL.
Condemnees filed preliminary objections3 contending (1) that the procedures required under the URL were not followed, (2) that their properties are neither individually blighted nor in a blighted redevelopment area, (3) that the taking violated the constitutions of the United States and Pennsylvania insofar as RALC, in declaring the properties blighted, acted pretextually with an intent to facilitate private commercial/industrial development by the LCEDC, a private entity, and (4) that RALC filed an insufficient bond with the declaration of taking. Following a twelve-day hearing, common pleas overruled the preliminary objections challenging the legality of the taking and sustained the objection to the sufficiency of the bond.
Common pleas deemed it "significant that the L.C.E.D.C. owned or was in the process of acquiring MPII properties prior to formal creation of a certified redevelopment area and subsequent condemnations." Common pleas opined:
The argument that Condemnees' properties were within a blighted redevelopment area would seem specious where the ultimate "developer" of said redevelopment area already possessed all of the MPII properties apart from Condemnees' properties. Accordingly, this Court would be hard pressed to determine that the relevant properties were properly condemned merely because they fell within the relevant redevelopment area.
Common pleas' op. at 21. Based on the conclusion "that the L.C.E.D.C. had physical control of 88% of the MPII prior to the creation of a redevelopment plan," common pleas stated that "Condemnors must demonstrate a finding that condemnees' properties are individually blighted." Common pleas' op. at 22 n. 15. In evaluating RALC's assertion that the properties qualified as blighted because they were maintained in socially or economically undesirable uses, the court rejected the notion that single family residential use is socially undesirable, calling such an assertion "capricious and not in good faith." But the court concluded that condemnees failed to establish bad faith with regard to RALC's determination that the properties were maintained in economically undesirable uses. Thus the court upheld the legality of the taking. Finally, common pleas ordered that RALC post security in the form of cash or surety rather than the "naked" bond filed with the declaration of taking. The parties filed the instant cross-appeals.
On appeal, condemnees reassert the contentions pressed before common pleas. They argue that the properties are neither blighted nor located in a blighted redevelopment area as those terms are used in the URL, that common pleas misinterpreted and misapplied the URL to sustain the condemnation where RALC acted pretextually to condemn on behalf of LCEDC, a private entity, for private economic benefit and without adhering to the process prescribed under the URL. In its cross-appeal, RALC challenges the finding that it had not provided evidence of sufficient financial security to compensate for the takings.
In reviewing a common pleas court decision on preliminary objections to a condemnation, our inquiry looks to whether sufficient evidence supports the findings of fact or whether the court committed an error of law. Review of a certification of blight and subsequent taking is limited to a determination that the [redevelopment authority] has not acted in bad faith, not acted arbitrarily, has followed the statutory procedures, and has not violated any constitutional safeguards. See Appeal of Redev. Auth. of Phila., 595 Pa. 241, 247, 938 A.2d 341, 345 (2007). See also Crawford v. Redev. Auth of Fayette County, 418 Pa. 549, 554, 211 A.2d 866, 868 (1965).
In Section 2 of the URL, our General Assembly expressed its determination that the elimination of blight through economically and socially sound redevelopment serves a public purpose that justifies the acquisition of private property by the exercise of the power of eminent domain.4 See Belovsky v. Redev. Auth. of Phila., 357 Pa. 329, 54 A.2d 277 (1947) (). The URL authorizes condemnation by a Redevelopment Authority in two separate Sections. Section 9 conveys the power of eminent domain to condemn property within a redevelopment area, stating in pertinent part:
An Authority['s] ... powers shall include all powers necessary or appropriate to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions of this act, including the following powers in addition to those herein otherwise granted:
. . . .
(i) To acquire by eminent domain any real property, including improvements and fixtures for the public purposes set forth in this act, in the manner hereafter provided, except real property located outside a redevelopment area;
35 P.S. § 1709(i) (emphasis added). Where property targeted for redevelopment is located outside a redevelopment area, Section 12.1, added by the Act of June 23, 1978, P.L. 556, as amended, 35 P.S. § 1712.1, authorizes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whittaker v. County of Lawrence
... 674 F.Supp.2d 668 ... Thomas R. WHITTAKER, Christy L. Whittaker, Estate of David C. Hamilton, and Edna J. Hamilton, as Executrix of the Estate of David C. Hamilton, Plaintiffs, ... COUNTY OF ... ( Id., ¶ 29). Hamilton's property consisted of approximately 2.5 acres of land, while the property owned by the Whittakers consisted of roughly 84 acres of land. In Re: ... allegedly devised a scheme to have the RALC created in order to facilitate the condemnation of the parcels and their eventual transfer to the LCEDC. ( Id., ¶¶ 35-36) ... ...
-
In re Kaur v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 2009 NY Slip Op 08976 (N.Y. App. Div. 12/3/2009)
... ... the project commonly referred to as the Columbia University Educational Mixed Use Development Land Use Improvement and Civic Project ... Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP, New ... This case involves the acquisition, by condemnation or voluntary transfer, of approximately 17 acres in the Manhattanville area of West Harlem for the ... ...
-
In re Condemnation By the Redevelopment Auth. of Lawrence Cnty.
... In Re: Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, in Fee Simple, Absolute Title, of Land of David C. Hamilton, situate in Neshannock Township, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, being Parcel I.D. #25-168200, for the Millennium Park ... ...
-
Kaur v. NYS Urban Dev. Corp.
...would be eligible for redevelopment"]; In re Condemnation by Redevelopment Auth. of Lawrence County, Absolute Tit. of Land of Hamilton, 962 A2d 1257, 1265 [Pa 2008], appeal denied 973 A2d 1008 [Pa 2009] [holding use to less than full potential does not constitute "economically undesirable" ......