Redevelopment Authority of City of Erie v. Owners or Parties in Interest
Decision Date | 16 February 1971 |
Parties | REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF ERIE v. OWNERS OR PARTIES IN INTEREST. |
Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Irving Murphy, Erie, for appellant.
John M. Quinn, Erie, for appellee.
Before BOWMAN, President Judge, and CRUMLISH, KRAMER, WILKINSON, MANDERINO and MENCER, JJ.
This appeal involves the condemnation of a three-story building located at 924 State Street in the main business district of Erie, Pennsylvania. The Redevelopment Authority of the City of Erie filed, in connection with this property, a Declaration of Taking on December 13, 1968. Preliminary objections 1 challenging the taking of the property were filed by the owners, hereinafter referred to as the appellants, but they were dismissed by the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County. We believe the preliminary objections should have been sustained.
The property in question was purchased by appellants in 1954. At that time, and now, their neighbor to the north was a Murphy's Five and Ten Cent Store. Their neighbor to the south was a three-story structure owned by Mr. Achilles Pulakos, hereinafter referred to as Pulakos, and leased by him to a family corporation, known as Pulakos' Candies, for use as a retail candy store. These properties are located on the west side of State Street, and both the appellants' property and the property of Pulakos are small lots with frontages of twenty feet on State Street and depths of 147 feet.
Appellants' property was originally leased for a retail drug store and later subleased to a discount drug chain for the same purpose. The first floor was used as a drug store and the second and third floors were vacant.
In October of 1962, the City Planning Commission of the City of Erie certified the Downtown Erie Project Area, which included appellants' property, as a blighted area. The Council of the City of Erie, pursuant to the Urban Redevelopment Law of Pennsylvania, Act of May 24, 1945, P.L. 991, 35 P.S. § 1701, as amended, directed the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Erie to prepare a Redevelopment Proposal for the elimination of the blighted and substandard conditions in the project area. The proposal that was developed, with the help of a firm of expert planners, provided that appellants' property, the Pulakos property, and several other properties, be assembled to provide the needed land area for the construction of a downtown hotel. If this proposal had been followed, the appellants likely would not have had a basis to oppose the condemnation of their property because, as was said in Schenck v. Pittsburgh, 364 Pa. 31, 35--36, 70 A.2d 612, 614 (1950), '* * * in the absence of any indication that the Commission did not act in good faith or was wholly arbitrary in certifying the area designated by it as blighted, its certification to that effect is not subject to judicial review,' and, See also: Schwartz v. Urban Redev. A. of Pgh., 416 Pa. 503, 206 A.2d 789 (1965).
It is the phrase 'palpable bad faith' that is the root consideration raised in this appeal. These words have vital meaning when used as a limitation on the power of a governmental authority to condemn property. Bad faith is generally the opposite of good faith and, under the factual situation of the present case, implies a tainted motive of interest. Bad faith becomes palpable when such motive is obvious or readily perceived. The courts have the responsibility to see that an authority has not acted in bad faith, and that property be taken by eminent domain only to the extent reasonably required for the purpose for which the power is exercised.
Activities of public authorities should be subject to judicial scrutiny. We agree with what Justice Roberts said in Price v. Philadelphia Parking Ahthority, 422 Pa. 317, 329, 221 A.2d 138, 145 (1966):
In the instant case the original proposal was changed. What caused the change to be made? An examination of the record discloses that Pulakos decided that he would fight the taking of his property. He was determined to show the Redevelopment Authority that acquiring his property was not going to be as easy as taking candy from a baby. He had a recipe which he believed would produce for himself a sweet result. The chief ingredient that he had at his disposal was political influence. Mr. Adolph Agresti, Vice Chairman of the Authority, testified that Pulakos (and family) 'had doors open to him.' A review of what transpired to satisfy Pulakos is indeed revealing of how the doors swung open to Pulakos and shut to appellants.
The Authority began by offering Pulakos several other downtown properties but none was acceptable to him. If this was not the answer, what would be satisfactory to Pulakos? How about deleting appellants' lot from the property being assembled for hotel development and selling it to Pulakos? If this could be accomplished, then Pulakos could merely move his candy store next door and everything would be dandy.
The mix was started in 1966 by John Corapi, Executive Director of the Authority, travelling to Memphis, Tennessee, in an effort to convince Holiday Inns that the hotel could be built in Erie without using appellants' property. The effort was unsuccessful. The Authority next turned its attention to Metropolitan Hotels, Inc., of Baltimore, Maryland. The Vice Chairman, the Executive Director and the Assistant Director of the Authority, together with the Mayor of the City of Erie, travelled to Baltimore with Gus Pulakos and his son, Achilles Pulakos. The testimony of Adolph Agresti, Vice Chairman of the Authority, is most enlightening as to what occurred at the meeting in Baltimore: (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, not having been successful in previous negotiations, the Authority and the Mayor applied pressure to force Metropolitan Hotels, Inc., to modify its plans with an adjustment of the land price offer from $125,000 to $100,000. The Pulakos interests were to be served at the expense of the public and of the appellants.
Much paperwork and backtracking then had to be done to move the plan from the back burner of the Baltimore meeting to the front burner of legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Susquehanna Area Reg. Airport
......v. . SUSQUEHANNA AREA REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Defendant . No. CIV.A. 1:05-CV-1814. . United ... Page 477 . laws. The parties have fully briefed these issues and the motion is ... Langford v. City of Atlantic City, 235 F.3d 845, 847 (3d ...("[T]he `interest in protecting the acts of the sovereign state, ...Auth. of Erie v. Owners or Parties in Interest, 1 Pa.Cmwlth. ......
-
In re Redevelopment Auth. of Philadelphia
...... Proceeding In Rem by the REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF PHILADELPHIA for the purpose of ... Condemnee's Daughter shared an ownership interest in the Property and was due relocation costs. . ...In addition, in Redevelopment Authority of Erie v. Owners or Parties in Interest, 1 Pa.Cmwlth. ......
-
In re Opening Private Road ex rel. O'Reilly
......Zecchino, as their interest may appear, . Timothy P. O'Reilly . v. . (a) ..., along with its 124 constituent property owners (collectively, "Association") contends that the ... a public purpose allowing a condemning authority to take private property by eminent domain as a ...City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 ... Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority, 357 Pa. 329, 54 A.2d 277, 283 (1947). ...Erie v. Owners or Parties in Interest, 1 Pa. Cmwlth. ......
-
In re Condemnation of Land for Area #1
......Mancini, Media, for appellee, Redevelopment" Authority of the City of Chester. . \xC2"... enhanced it is immaterial that a private interest also may be benefited." Id. at 341, 54 A.2d at ...In Redevelopment Authority of Erie v. Owners or Parties in Interest, 1 Pa.Cmwlth. ......