United Artists Theater Circuit, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Historical Com'n, 48
| Decision Date | 30 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 48,48 |
| Citation | 595 A.2d 6,528 Pa. 12 |
| Parties | UNITED ARTISTS THEATER CIRCUIT, INC., Appellant, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, Appellee. E.D. 1990 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Maria L. Petrillo, Chief Asst. City Sol., Katherine L. Niven, Chief Counsel, for amicus--Penna. Historical and Museum Com'n.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and CAPPY, JJ.
In this appeal of United Artists Theater Circuit, Inc., the question is whether the appellee, Philadelphia Historical Commission (Commission), acting pursuant to the "Historic Buildings, Structures, Sites, Objects and Districts" provisions of The Philadelphia Code (Section 14-2007) in designating the appellant United Artists' Boyd Theater building as historic is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant. The Commonwealth Court found no constitutional violation and affirmed the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court's order dismissing the action. We disagree. After review, we find that by designating the theater building as historic, over the objections of the owner, the City of Philadelphia through its Historical Commission has "taken" the appellee's property for public use without just compensation in violation of Article 1, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and we, therefore, reverse.
By a letter dated March 28, 1986, the Commission notified Sameric Corporation of Chestnut St., Inc., the predecessor owner of the Boyd Theater, that it, the Commission, pursuant to Section 14-2007 of the Philadelphia Code, planned to consider, at a public meeting scheduled for April 30, 1986, the proposed designation of the Boyd Theater as historic. The Commission's letter explained its views as to the benefits, limitations and responsibilities which derive from the ownership of property which is designated historic. The then owner, Sameric Corporation, investigated the Commission's proposal of historic designation and did not favor the idea. Sameric Corporation was able to obtain a continuance of the proposed consideration of its building for historic designation at the April 30, 1986 meeting. Subsequently, the matter was continued on five additional occasions. Eventually, consideration of the proposed historic designation was rescheduled for the Commission's meeting of January 28, 1987. Sameric Corporation responded by filing two consecutive lawsuits seeking to enjoin the Commission from holding a meeting on the proposed designation, both of which lawsuits ended without the injunction Sameric Corporation sought. Thereafter, on March 25, 1987, the Commission met, denied Sameric Corporation's motion for a further continuance, presumedly proceeded to hear evidence and argument, and then voted to designate the Boyd Theater as historic. On that same day, Sameric Corporation returned to court requesting an order that the historic designation be vacated and the matter be rescheduled at a Commission meeting held no earlier than April 2, 1987. Sameric Corporation's request was granted and the proposal to designate the Boyd Theater as historic was rescheduled by the Commission for consideration at a public meeting on April 2, 1987.
A public meeting was held before the Commission on April 2, 1987, commencing at 3:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Edward A. Montgomery, Jr. who recognized Commissioner David Brownlee. Commissioner Brownlee took the floor and, specifically referring to the unanimous recommendation of the Designation Committee, raised the matter of the proposed historic designation of the Boyd Theater. Commissioner Brownlee then gave testimony and argument in support of the Commission's proposal to designate the Boyd Theater as historic. (R.R., pps. 53a-63a). Commissioner Brownlee advanced three reasons in support of the recommendation of historic designation: (1) the building is an important example of art deco architecture; (2) the building is the work of an important Philadelphia architectural firm; and (3) the building as a movie palace represents a significant phase in American cultural history and in the history of Philadelphia. (R.R., pps. 53a-54a).
Following Commissioner Brownlee's testimony, Commissioner Randall Baron offered a slide presentation of the Boyd Theater property and furnished additional testimony and argument in favor of the recommendation to designate the Boyd Theater as historic. (R.R., pps. 63a-64a). The testimony of Commissioner Brownlee along with the slide presentation and testimony offered by Commissioner Baron constituted the "case" for historic designation presented "by the Commission", 1 to the Commission. (R.R., p. 64a). Commissioners Brownlee and Baron then answered questions posed by their fellow Commissioners (R.R. pps. 64a-80a), and by counsel for the owner, Sameric Corporation (R.R., pps. 83a-89a).
Mr. Merton Shapiro of Sameric Corporation gave testimony opposing the proposed historic designation. Also giving testimony in opposition to the proposed designation was Emanuel Reider an architect. 2 At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission voted for historic designation. By letter dated April 14, 1987, the Commission officially notified the owner, Sameric Corporation, that the Boyd Theater property had been designated historic.
Sameric Corporation reacted to the notice of designation by filing a suit in equity and a petition for a preliminary injunction in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Sameric's suit, inter alia, sought a declaratory judgment that the Commission was without authority to designate its Boyd Theater building as historic. The trial court properly treated the suit and petition as an appeal pursuant to the provisions of the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 752, and the matter was submitted to the lower court upon the record of the meeting before the Commission and the briefs of counsel. 3 The lower court dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, upon further appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed. We granted appellant's petition for allowance of appeal to consider, inter alia, the constitutionality of the Commission's actions. 4 While this matter was pending in this court, the Boyd Theater was sold by Sameric Corporation to United Artists and the new owner, United Artists, was substituted as the appellant.
Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides as follows:
The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania's natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.
Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the City of Philadelphia amended The Philadelphia Code by enacting Section 14-2007, Historic Buildings Structures, Sites, Objects and Districts which states that the purposes of the section are to:
(1) preserve buildings, structures, sites and objects which are important to the education, culture, traditions and economic values of the city;
(2) establish historic districts to assure that the character of such districts is retained and enhanced;
(3) encourage the restoration and rehabilitation of buildings, structures, sites and objects which are designated as historic or which are located within and contribute to the character of districts designated as historic without displacing elderly, long-term, and other residents living within those districts;
(4) afford the City, interested persons, historical societies and organizations the opportunity to acquire or to arrange for the preservation of historic buildings, structures, sites and objects which are designated individually or which contribute to the character of historic districts;
(5) strengthen the economy of the City by enhancing the City's attractiveness to tourists and by stabilizing and improving property values; and,
(6) foster civic pride in the architectural, historical, cultural and educational accomplishments of Philadelphia.
Section 14-2007 further provides that the Mayor shall appoint a Philadelphia Historical Commission which shall have the power, inter alia, to:
Designate as historic those buildings, structures, sites and objects which the Commission determines, pursuant to the criteria set forth in Subsection (5) of this Section, are significant to the City 5
Section 14-2007(4)(a). Subsection 5, which establishes criteria for historic designation, provides that: "A building ... may be designated for preservation if it;
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Forfeiture of 2000 GMC Denali & Contents
...property rights against encroachments by government as they were in liberty itself.’ " United Artists Theater Circuit, Inc. v. Philadelphia Historical Comm'n, 528 Pa. 12, 25, 595 A.2d 6 (1991), quoting First Presbyterian Church of York v. York City Council, 25 Pa.Cmwlth. 154, 164, 360 A.2d ......
-
Sameric Corp. of Delaware, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia
...just compensation in violation of Article I, Section 10, of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See United Artists Theater Circuit, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 528 Pa. 12, 595 A.2d 6 (1991). 4 Thus, the court did not decide whether the designation was proper under the ordinance. One justice fi......
-
In Re Realen Valley Forge Greenes
...the municipality as a whole but also for the common benefit of one another." United Artists Theater Circuit, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Historical Commission, 528 Pa. 12, 595 A.2d 6, 13 (1991). Spot zoning challenges have at their conceptual core the principle that lawful zo......
-
United Artists' Theater Circuit, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia
...in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution." United Artists' Theater Circuit, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Historical Commission, 528 Pa. 12, 26-27, 595 A.2d 6, 13-14 (1991). 1 This result stands in contrast to the result reached by the United State......
-
The 'Euclidean' Strategy: Authorizing and Implementing the Legislative Districting of Permissible Land Uses
...Supreme Court of Pennsylvania took two bites of this regulatory takings apple in United Artists Theater Circuit v. City of Philadelphia, 528 Pa. 12, 14, 595 A.2d 6, 7 (1991), rev’ d , 535 Pa. 370, 383, 389, 635 A.2d 612, 619, 622 (1993). In its first decision, the court determined “that by ......
-
The renaissance in state constitutional law: there are a few dangers, but what's the alternative?
...Constitutionalism, 90 MICH. L. REV. 761, 780-94 (1992)). (29) PLATO, PHAEDO IN PLATO COMPLETE WORKS 98 (John M. Coooper ed., 1997). (30) 595 A. 2d 6 (Pa. 1991), rev'd, 635 A. 2d 612 (Pa. 1993). (31) See United Artists' Theater Circuit, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 635 A. 2d 612 (Pa. 1993).......