REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES

Historical and Statutory Notes

Act 1996-58 legislation

Section 301 of Act 1996, June 27, P.L. 403, No.58, 71 P.S. § 1709.301, provides that the following function of the Department of Community Affairs is transferred in the Department of Community and Economic Development: housing, community assistance and other functions under the act of May 24, 1945 (P.L. 991, No. 385), known as the Urban Redevelopment Law.

 

Cross References

Conservation and land development, open space uses of land, see 32 P.S. § 5001 et seq.

Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance Act, see 72 P.S. § 4722 et seq.

 

Pennsylvania Code References

Minority business development authority, see 12 Pa. Code § 81.1 et seq.

§ 1701.            Short title

This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Urban Redevelopment Law." 

1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 1.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Title of Act:

An Act to promote elimination of blighted areas and supply sanitary housing in areas throughout the Commonwealth; by declaring acquisition, sound replanning and redevelopment of such areas to be for the promotion of health, safety, convenience and welfare; creating public bodies corporate and politic to be known as Redevelopment Authorities; authorizing them to engage in the elimination of blighted areas and to plan and contract with private, corporate or governmental redevelopers for their redevelopment; providing for the organization of such authorities; defining and providing for the exercise of their powers and duties, including the acquisition of property by purchase, gift or eminent domain; the leasing and selling of property, including borrowing money, issuing bonds and other obligations, and giving security therefor; restricting the interest of members and employees of authorities; providing for notice and hearing; supplying certain mandatory provisions to be inserted in contracts with redevelopers; prescribing the remedies of obligees of redevelopment authorities; conferring certain duties upon local planning commissions, the governing bodies of cities and counties, and on certain State officers, boards and departments.  1945, May 24, P .L. 991.

 

Cross References

Tax Increment Financing Act, see 53 P.S. § 6930.1 et seq.

 

Notes of Decisions

Validity 1

 

 

1. Validity

The Urban Redevelopment Law does not violate Const. Art. 2, § 1 on ground that insufficient standards are set up in the law to guide the authority in exercising powers with which it is vested. Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 54 A.2d 277,357 Pa. 329, Sup.1947.

The Urban Redevelopment Law is not invalid because of any deficiency in its title, even though there is no mention of fact that properties acquired by the authorities pursuant to the law may be sold to private individuals after the redevelopment has been accomplished, where title does state that authorities have the power of leasing and selling of property, and also that they may contract with private redevelopers. Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 54 A.2d 277, 357 Pa. 329, Sup.1947.

§ 1702.            Findings and Declaration of Policy

It is hereby determined and declared as a matter of legislative finding—

(a) That there exist in urban communities in this Commonwealth areas which have become blighted because of the unsafe, unsanitary, inadequate or over-crowded condition of the dwellings therein, or because of inadequate planning of the area, or excessive land coverage by the buildings thereon, or the lack of proper light and air and open space, or because of the defective design and arrangement of the buildings thereon, or faulty street or lot layout, or economically or socially undesirable land uses.

(b) That such conditions or a combination of some or all of them have and will continue to result in making such areas economic or social liabilities, harmful to the social and economic well-being of the entire communities in which they exist, depreciating values therein, reducing tax revenues, and thereby depreciating further the general community-wide values.

(c) That the foregoing conditions are beyond remedy or control by regulatory processes in certain blighted areas, or portions thereof, and cannot be effectively dealt with by private enterprise under existing law without the additional aids herein granted, and that such conditions exist chiefly in areas which are so subdivided into small parcels and in divided ownerships that their assembly for purposes of clearance, replanning and redevelopment is difficult and impossible without the effective public power of eminent domain.

(c.l) That certain blighted areas, or portions thereof, may require total acquisition, clearance and disposition, subject to continuing controls as provided in this act, since the prevailing condition of decay may make impracticable the reclamation of the area by rehabilitation or conservation, and that other blighted areas, or portion thereof, through the means provided in this act, may be susceptible to rehabilitation or conservation or a combination of clearance and disposition and rehabilitation or conservation in such manner that the conditions and evils hereinbefore enumerated may be eliminated or remedied.

(d) That the replanning and redevelopment of such areas in accordance with sound and approved plans for their redevelopment will promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare.

(e) That there exist within the Commonwealth both within and outside of certified redevelopment areas, properties which have become derelict, abandoned or unfit for human habitation or other use by reasons of age, obsolescence, prolonged vacancy, dilapidation, deterioration, lack of maintenance and care or general neglect.

(f) That such derelict properties individually and collectively constitute a blight and nuisance in the neighborhood; create fire and health hazards; are used for immoral and criminal purposes; constitute unreasonable interferences with the reasonable and lawful use and enjoyment of other premises in the neighborhood; are harmful to the social and economic well-being of any municipality; depreciate property values; and, generally jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the public.

(g) That there exists a serious shortage of decent, safe or sanitary housing accommodations and for related usages, and that the acquisition of blighted properties for residential and related uses, by eminent domain is a proper public purpose which will promote public health, safety and welfare.

(h) That there exists within the Commonwealth, both within and outside certified redevelopment areas, an inadequate supply of residential owner-occupied and rental housing due, in part, to the deterioration of older dwellings, the elimination of substandard dwellings by governmental action, the increased cost of construction and the unavailability of affordable financing from the private sector.

(i) That there exists within the Commonwealth, both within and outside certified redevelopment areas, deteriorating commercial and industrial areas and/or individual structures, due, in part, to the fact that there are no private funds available to finance the purchase, construction, rehabil1tation, demolition or equipping of the commercial and industrial properties at interest rates that would make the commercial or industrial project economically feasible. Such commercial or industrial projects are needed for the social and economic well being of communities within the field of operation of authorities.

Therefore, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to promote the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants thereof by the creation of bodies corporate and politic to be known as Redevelopment Authorities, which shall exist and operate for the public purposes of the elimination of blighted areas through economically and socially sound redevelopment of such areas, as provided by this act, in conformity with the comprehensive general plan of their respective municipalities for residential, recreational, commercial, industrial or other purposes, and otherwise encouraging the provision of healthful homes, a decent living environment and adequate places of employment of the people of this Commonwealth. Such purposes are hereby declared to be public uses for which public money may be spent and private property may be acquired by the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 2. Amended 1957, May 27, P.L. 197, § 1; 1968, June 26, P.L. 263, No.125, § 1; 1978, June 23, P.L. 556, No.94, § 1, effective in 60 days; 1988, March 30, P.L. 304, No.39, § 1, imd. effective.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Act 1988-39 Legislation

The 1988 amendment added subsecs. (h) and (i).

Library References

Municipal Corporations  26 7.                                                                                            Westlaw Topic No.268.

C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 957.

Notes of Decisions

Blighted areas 4                                                                                                             Construction and application 2                                                                                           Jurisdiction 5

Purpose 3                                                                                                                               Validity 1

 

 

1. Validity

Under statutory declaration of policy of Urban Redevelopment Law, exclusion of warehouse from redevelopment area was not shown to be discriminatory. In re Franklin Town Project Philadelphia, 339 A.2d 885, 19 Pa.Cmwlth. 272, Cmwlth. 1975, certiorari dismissed 96 S.Ct. 409, 423 U.S. 992, 46 L.Ed.2d 312, certiorari denied 96 S.Ct. 453, 423 U.S. 1018, 46 L.Ed.2d 389.

The provision of Urban Redevelopment Law declaring purposes of the law to be public uses for which public money may be spent and private property acquired by exercise of power of eminent domain, although subject to judicial review, was entitled to a prima facie acceptance of its correctness. Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 54 A.2d 277, 357 Pa. 329, Sup.1947.

 

2. Construction and Application

Urban redevelopment law grants enormous powers and must carefully be examined under facts in each case, in light of constitutional guaranties which relate to right of private property. Redevelopment Authority of City of Erie v. Owners or Parties in Interest, 274 A.2d 244, 1 Pa.Cmwlth. 378, Cmwlth.1971.

The Urban Redevelopment Law is to be sharply distinguished from the Housing Authorities Law (§ 1541 et seq. of this title), in that the latter aims principally at the elimination of undesirable dwelling houses, whereas the former is intended to give wide scope to municipalities in redesigning and rebuilding such areas within their limits as no longer meet the economic and social needs of modem city life and progress, Oliver v, City of Clairton, 98 A.2d 47, 374 Pa. 333, Sup.1953.

 

3. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of both the Urban Redevelopment Law and the Housing Authorities Law (§ 1541 et seq. of this title) is the same, namely the clearance of slum areas, although the Housing Authorities Law is aimed more particularly at elimination of undesirable dwelling houses, whereas the Urban Redevelopment Law is not so restricted.  Schenck v. City of Pittsburgh, 70 A.2d 612, 364 Pa. 31, Sup. 1950.

The Urban Redevelopment Law is intended to give wide scope to municipalities in redesigning and rebuilding such areas within their limits as, by reason of passage of years and enormous changes in traffic conditions and types of building constructions, no longer meet economic and social needs of modern city life and progress.  Schenck v. City of Pittsburgh, 70 A.2d 612, 364 Pa. 31, Sup. 1950.

 

4. Blighted Areas

City planning commission's certification of blight is not "adjudication" under section of Local Agency Law providing that no adjudication of local agency shall be valid as to any party unless he has been afforded reasonable notice of hearing an opportunity to heard; certification of blight does not, in and of itself, have legal effect on property rights, as it does not necessarily lead to taking of all, or even any, of property in certified area by eminent domain, and certification merely sets stage for redevelopment of area.  Matter of Condemnation by Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 594 A.2d 1375, 527 Pa. 550, Sup. 1991, certiorari denied 112 S. Ct. 638, 502 U.S. 1004, 116 L. Ed. 2d 656.

A planning commission and redevelopment authority are presumed to act in good faith in declaring an area blighted; burden of proving fraud or abuse of discretion is a heavy one.  In re Condemnation of Premises 130 Court St., in City of Reading, Berks County, 388 A.2d 1108, 36 Pa. Cmwlth., 394, Cmwlth.1978.

Fact that condemnee’s buildings may themselves be structurally sound is not sufficient to prevent their condemnation when they are located in area properly determined to be blighted and designated for redevelopment, In re City of Harrisburg, 373 A.2d 774, 30 Pa. Cmwlth. 273, Cmwlth.1977.

            Court's determination of factual issue of blight in proceeding challenging condemnation of land for redevelopment is limited to a review of certification to that effect by the planning commission and to see that the authority has not acted in good faith or arbitrarily.  Simco Stores, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 302 A.2d 907, 8 Pa. Cmwlth. 374, Cmwlth. 1973, affirmed 317 A.2d 610, 455 Pa. 438.

            Power of discretion over what areas are to be considered blighted is solely within power of redevelopment authority.  Crawford v. Redevelopment Authority of Fayette County, 211 A.2d 866, 418 Pa. 549, Sup, 1965.

Determination of urban renewal board that whole area has taken on character of blight was not arbitrary merely because one small part was free from blight.  Crawford v. Redevelopment Authority of Fayette County, 211 A.2d 866, 418 Pa. 549, Sup,1965.

In order that city planning commission may certify an area as blighted, it is not necessary that each and every one of the conditions which cause areas to become blighted, as specified in this section, should exist, but existence of anyone of such conditions is sufficient to warrant certification and adoption of a redevelopment project.  Oliver v. City of Clairton, 98 A.2d 47, 374 Pa. 333, Sup.1953.

The term "blight" in the Urban Redevelopment Law signifies a condition characterized as urban obsolescence beyond salvage by private rehabilitation and denotes more than physical destruction resulting from a natural disaster for which there is no power of condemnation under the statute. Condemnation of Elsesser, 12 Pa. D. & C.3d 25 (1979).

 

5. Jurisdiction

            Public service commission did not have jurisdiction under the Urban Redevelopment Law over action by city and department of transportation to compel utility to relocate its utility lines and poles along city street for highway-widening project.  Corn., Dept. of Transp. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 383 A.2d 1314, 34 Pa.Cmwlth. 594, Cmwlth.1978.

§ 1703.            Definitions

The following terms where used in this act,¹ shall have the following meanings, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning.

(a) “Authority” or “Redevelopment Authority.” —A public body and a body corporate and politic created and organized in accordance with the provisions of this act.

(b) “Bonds.” —Any bonds, interim certificates, notes, debentures or other obligations of an Authority issued pursuant to this act.

(c) “City.” —Any city of the first, second, second class A or third class. “The city” shall mean the particular city for which a particular Authority is created.

(c.l) “Commercial and Industrial Redevelopment Program.” —The financing of the purchase, construction, rehabilitation, demolition or equipping of a commercial or an industrial project as part of the redevelopment of an area designated in the program as needing such assistance by the Authority and in accordance with the program.

(c.2) “Commercial or Industrial Project.” —A commercial or industrial facility, as those terms are used in the zoning ordinances of the municipality for the Authority's help of operation, within an area designated in the Commercial and Industrial Redevelopment Program which by its nature and location has or offers reasonable likelihood of preventing, slowing or reversing the deterioration of the designated area.

(c.3) “Conservation.” —The process of preserving or restoring existing buildings, public facilities or other improvements to an economically and socially sound condition.

(d) “County.” —Any county of this Commonwealth, other than a county of the first class. “The county” shall mean the particu1ar county for which a particular Authority is created.

(e) “Field of Operation.” —The area within the territorial boundaries of the city or county for which a particular authority is created: Provided, however, That the field of operation of any county authority shall not include a city having a redevelopment authority but may include, with the consent of any such city, parcels of land within the city limits which are necessary to the corporate purposes of the county authority or necessary to its successful redevelopment of a redevelopment area: And, provided further, That the field of operation of any authority may include parcels of land outside the territorial boundaries of the city or county, as the case may be, which are necessary to the corporate purposes of the authority or necessary to the successful redevelopment of a redevelopment area, with the consent of the governing body of the city or county and the municipality in which the said parcels are situated, as the case may be: Provided, however, That the field of operation of any Authority shall not include parcels of land outside the territorial boundaries of a county unless acquisition thereof has been approved by a majority of the electors voting in a primary or general election in the municipality in which said parcels are situated.

(f) “Governing Body.” —In the case of a city, the city councilor other legislative body thereof, and in the case of a county, the board of county commissioners or other legislative body thereof.

(g) “Government.” —Includes the State and Federal Governments or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality corporate or otherwise of either of them.

(h) “Municipality.” —Any county, city, borough or township.

(i) “Obligee of the Authority” or “Obligee.” —Any bondholder, trustee or trustees for any bondholders, any lessor demising property to an Authority used in connection with a redevelopment project, or any assignee or assignees of such lessor's interest, or any part thereof, and the Federal Government, when it is a party to any contract with an Authority.

(j) “Planning Commission.” —Any planning commission established by law for a municipality of this Commonwealth. “The Planning Commission” shall mean the particular planning commission of the city or county in which a particular Authority operates. Redevelopment authorities shall be substituted for planning commission in any city or county in which a planning commission does not exist.

(k) “Real Property.” —Lands, lands under water, structures and any and all easements, air rights, franchises and incorporeal hereditaments and every estate and right therein, legal and equitable, including terms for years and liens by way of judgment, mortgage or otherwise.

(l) “Redeveloper.” —Any individual, government, partnership or public or private corporation that shall enter or propose to enter into a contract with an Authority for the redevelopment of an area, or any portion thereof, or any building or structure thereon, under the provisions of this act.

(m) “Redevelopment.” —Undertakings and activities for the elimination of blighted areas. Such undertakings and activities may include the planning, replanning, acquisition, rehabilitation, conservation, renewal, improvement, clearance, sale, lease or other disposition of real property, buildings or other improvements in blighted areas, or portions thereof, the relocation of businesses and families affected thereby into or outside of a redevelopment area, or any combination of such undertakings and activities, the installation, construction or reconstruction of streets, utilities, parks, playgrounds and other improvements necessary for carrying out in the blighted area the objectives of this act in accordance with the redevelopment area plan, and carrying out plans for a program of voluntary repair, rehabilitation, and conservation of real property; buildings or other improvements in accordance with the redevelopment area plan.

(n) “Redevelopment Area.” —Any area, whether improved or unimproved, which a planning commission may find to be blighted because of the existence of the conditions enumerated in section two of this act² so as to require redevelopment under the provisions of this act.

(o) “Redevelopment Area Plan.” —A plan for the redevelopment of all or a part of a redevelopment area made by a planning commission in accordance with the provisions of section ten of this act.³

(p) “Redevelopment Contract.” —A contract between an Authority and a redeveloper for the redevelopment of an area under the provisions of this act.

(q) “Redevelopment Project” or “Project.” —A project undertaken by a redeveloper under a contract with an Authority in accordance with the provisions of this act.

(r) “Redevelopment Proposal.” —A proposal, including a copy of the redevelopment area plan and supporting data submitted for approval to the governing body by an Authority, for the redevelopment of all or any part of a redevelopment area.

(s) “Residential Housing Redevelopment Program.” —The financing of the purchase, construction, rehabilitation, demolition or equipping of a residential housing project as part of the development of an area designated in the program as needing such assistance by the Authority and in accordance with the program.

(t) “Residential Housing Project.” —A facility within an area designated in the residential housing redevelopment program which provides residential housing.

1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 3. Amended 1955, May 31, P.L. 107, § 1; 1957, May 27, P.L. 197, § 1; 1959, Dec. 1, P.L. 1637, No. 603, § 1; 1965, Aug. 17, P.L. 351, § 1; 1968, June 26, P.L. 263, No.125, §§ 2 to 7; 1988, March 30, P.L. 304, No.39, § 2, imd. effective.

 

¹35 P.S. § 1701 et seq.

²35 P.S. § 1702.

³35 P.S. § 1710.

 

Historical and Statutory Notes

Act 1988-39 legislation

            The 1988 amendment redesignated former (c.1) defining: “conservation” as (c.3), and added definitions of “commercial and industrial redevelopment program”, “commercial or industrial project”, “residential housing redevelopment program”, and “residential housing project”.

Cross References

Tax exemption for improvements to deteriorated dwellings, see 72 P.S. § 4711-101 et seq.

 

Notes of Decisions

Redevelopment projects 1

 

1. Redevelopment Projects

Comprehensive plans of area certified by planning commission as blighted may, at the discretion of the redevelopment authority, be undertaken in stages, called projects, Golden Dawn Shops, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 282 A.2d 395, 3 Pa. Cmwlth. 314, Cmwlth.1971.

 

§ 1704.            Formation of Authorities

(a) There are hereby created separate and distinct bodies corporate and politic, one for each city and one for each county of the Commonwealth, as herein defined. Each such body shall be known as the Redevelopment Authority of the city or the county, as the case may be, but shall in no way be deemed to be an instrumentality of such city or county, or engaged in the performance of a municipal function. Each such Authority shall transact no business or otherwise become operative until and unless a finding is made as hereinafter provided in this section.

(b) At any time after passage of this act the governing body of any city or county may find and declare by proper ordinance or resolution that there is need for an Authority to function within the territorial limits of said city or county, as the case may be.

(c) The governing body shall cause a certified copy of such ordinance or resolution to be filed with the Department of State and a duplicate thereof with the Department of Community Affairs; upon receipt of the said certificate the Secretary of the Commonwealth shall issue a certificate of incorporation.

(d) In any suit, action or proceeding involving or relating to the validity or enforcement of any contractor act of an Authority, a copy of the certificate of incorporation duly certified by the Department of State shall be admissible in evidence and shall be conclusive proof of the legal establishment of the Authority.

1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 4. Amended 1949, May 20, P.L, 1621, § 1; 1968, June 26, P.L, 263, No.125, § 8.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Reorganization Plan No.2 of 1966

Under Reorganization Plan No.2 of 1966, certain functions of the State Planning Board, transferred to the Department of Commerce by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1955, including those created by subsection (c) of this section, are transferred from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Community Affairs and shall be administered by the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. See 71 P.S. § 751-10(1)(b).

 

Act 1968-125 Legislation

            The 1968 amendment in subsec. (c) substituted “Department of Community Affairs” for “State Planning Board”.

 

            Section 14 of the act of 1968 provided:

 

“Reorganization Plan No.1 of 1955, adopted by the House of Representatives June 7, 1955 and by the Senate on May 23, 1955 [71 P.S. § 751-1], is suspended in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of this act.”

Library References

Municipal Corporations 3, 5.                                                                                              Westlaw Topic No.268.                                                                                                               C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 10 to 12.

Notes of Decisions

Antitrust actions 4                                                                                                             Immunity 3                                                                                                                      Municipalities 2                                                                                                                      Nature and scope of authority 1

 

1. Nature and Scope of Authority

            Under Pennsylvania law, condemnation of parking garage by city’s redevelopment authority triggered a clear and unambiguous lease provision that allowed city to terminate lease upon condemnation of garage by “any governmental authority,” and thus, city’s termination of the garage lease did not constitute breach of the lease agreement.  Adams Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Scranton, C.A. 3 (Pa.) 2002, 33 Fed.Appx. 28, 2002 WL 465992, Unreported.

            Redevelopment authority is an agency of Commonwealth and not of local government body.  Herriman v. Carducci, 380 A.2d 761, 475 Pa. 359, Sup. 1977.

Redevelopment authority is completely separate entity from city.  Herriman v. Carducci, 380 A.2d 761, 475 Pa. 359, Sup.1977.

            A redevelopment authority created under the Urban Redevelopment Law for purpose of eliminating and rehabilitating blighted sections of the municipality is not a “municipal commission” within provision of Const. Art. 15, § 2, relating to debt limits for a municipal commission.  Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 54 A.2d 277, 357 Pa. 329, Sup. 1947.

 

2.  Municipalities

            Optional Third Class City Charter Law (53 P.S. § 41101 et seq.) which gives third class cities ability to organize and regulate their own internal affairs, does not empower city council to circumvent general assembly statutory scheme for creation of redevelopment authorities by investing cities with powers denied to them by the Urban Redevelopment Law.  Herriman v. Carducci, 380 A.2d 761, 475 Pa. 359, Sup.1977.

            Mayor of a third-class city lacked power to remove from office at his pleasure appointed members of an authority created under Urban Redevelopmei1L Law.  Com. ex rel. Hanson v. Reitz, 170 A.2d 111,403 Pa. 434, Sup.1961.

 

3. Immunity                                                                                                                            Although city redevelopment authority was agent of Commonwealth and not of local governmental body, such authority, which had localized nature in that its powers were subject to City approval, was not cloaked in Commonwealths sovereign immunity and thus was required to defend in action brought by plaintiff against authority for injuries and permanent disability resulting from accident which occurred while plaintiff was working on property owned by authority when fire escape collapsed. Greer v. Metropolitan Hospital, 341 A.2d 520, 235 Pa.Super. 266, Super. 1975.

 

 

4. Antitrust Actions                                                                                                                            City redevelopment authority was not part of Commonwealth and thus could not be considered sovereign when supervising actions of private development corporation, in order to afford corporation immunity from antitrust liability pursuant to state action doctrine, where under statutory scheme, redevelopment authority had fiscal autonomy from city, possessed great degree of autonomy over operations, and commissioners were appointed by local officials rather than by Commonwealth, despite fact that redevelopment authority was designated as “public body, corporate and politic, exercising public powers of Commonwealth.” Vartan v. Harristown Development Corp., M.D.Pa.1987, 661 F.Supp. 596, affirmed 838 F.2d 1208.

Grocery wholesaler's antitrust claims against local redevelopment authority were not barred by state action exception since municipal rather than state action was challenged. Jetro Cash and Carry Enterprises, Inc. v. Food Distribution Center, E.D.Pa.1983, 569 F.Supp. 1404.

State action immunity was controlling, in suit under the Sherman Act with respect to conduct of city, mayor's development council, and redevelopment authority and their members with respect to purchase of property which plaintiff allegedly sought to acquire for construction of a hotel, despite contention that state action immunity is inapplicable  where private enterprise might undertake a project.  Jonnet Development Corp. v. Caliguiri, W.D.Pa. 1983, 558 F.Supp. 962.

 

§ 1704.1.         Dissolution of City Authorities

If a city authority has never issued any bonds, or incurred any other debts or contractual obligations, or has paid and has been released from and discharged of all debts and bonded, contractual and other obligations, the governing body of the city may, after three years from the date of the certificate described in subsection (c) of section 4, or earlier if a proper resolution of the authority requests the action hereinafter described, find and declare by proper resolution that its functions can be more properly carried out by a county authority and that there is no longer any need for the authority created for such city to function. In such case the governing body shall issue a certificate reciting the adoption of such resolution, and shall cause such certificate to be filed with the Department of State and two duplicates thereof with the Department of Community Affairs. Upon such filing the city authority shall cease to function, and title to any assets held by the authority at that time shall pass to the city.  A copy of the certificate described in this section shall be admissible ¹ in any suit, action or proceeding and shall be conclusive proof that the authority has ceased to be in existence.

1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 4.1, added 1967, Nov. 16, P.L. 498, No.243, § 1.

¹ Enrolled bill read “admissible”.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Act 1967-243 Legislation

Section 2 of the act of Nov. 16, 1967, provided:

“Dissolutions of any authority heretofore made in substantial compliance with the terms of this act are hereby validated.”

Library References

Municipal Corporation  51.                                                                                                Westlaw Topic No. 268                                                                                                               C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 99 to 103.

 

Notes of Decisions

Constructions and Application 1

 

 

1.  Construction and Application

            City could not dissolve municipal redevelopment authority by passing resolution to dissolve authority and sending certificate reciting resolutions to Department of State and Department of Community Affairs; statute establishing procedures for dissolving redevelopment authorities permits governing body to declare dissolution only if the authority has paid and has been released from and discharged of all debts and obligations.  City of Chester v. Chester Redevelopment Authority, 686 A.2d 30, Cmwlth. 1996, reargument denied, appeal denied 695 A.2d 787, 548 Pa. 650.

§ 1704.2.         Dissolution of County Authorities

If a county authority has never issued any bonds, or incurred any other debts or contractual obligations, or has paid and has been released from and discharged of all debts and bonded, contractual and other obligations, the governing body of the county may, after three years from the date of the certificate described in subsection (c) of section 4, or earlier if a proper resolution of the authority requests the action hereinafter described, find and declare by proper resolution that there is no longer any need for the authority created for such county to function. In such case the governing body shall issue a certificate reciting the adoption of such resolution, and shall cause such certificate to be filed with the Department of State and two duplicates thereof with the Department of Community Affairs. Upon such filing the county authority shall cease to function, and title to any assets held by the authority at that time shall pass to the county. A copy of the certificate described in this section shall be admissible in any suit, action or proceeding and shall be conclusive proof that the authority has ceased to be in existence.

1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 4.2, added 1967, Nov. 16, P.L. 498, No.243, § 1.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Act 1967-243 Legislation

Section 2 of the act of Nov. 16, 1967, provided:

“Dissolutions of any authority heretofore made in substantial compliance with the terms of this act are hereby validated.”

 

 

 

 

Library References

Municipal Corporations  51.

Westlaw Topic No. 268.

C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 99 to 103.

§ 1705.            Appointment and Qualifications of Members of Authority

Upon certification of a resolution declaring the need for an Authority to operate in a city or county, the mayor or board of county commissioners thereof, respectively, shall appoint, as members of the Authority, five citizens who shall be residents of the city or county in which the Authority is to operate.

1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 5.

Library References

Municipal Corporations  129.

Westlaw Topic No. 268.

C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 350, 353 to 354, 367.

Notes of Decisions

Failure to appoint 1

Municipalities, generally 3

Removal of members 2

 

 

1. Failure to Appoint

Failure of a mayor to appoint successors to the redevelopment authority when terms of office, expired does not forfeit the mayor’s appointing power. Com. ex rel. Sortino v. Singley, 392 A.2d 1337, 481 Pa. 367, Sup.1978.

 

2. Removal of Members

Newly elected mayor could not remove two persons from the redevelopment authority who had been appointed by his predecessor; mayor does not have the right to remove members of the redevelopment authority at his pleasure. Com. ex rel. Sortino v. Singley, 392 A.2d 1337, 481 Pa. 367, Sup.1978.

Fact that two persons appointed to the redevelopment authority by the mayor were inexperienced did not provide cause for their removal on the theory that the Redevelopment Law, by specifying staggered terms of office, contemplated that members of a redevelopment authority would have varying degrees of experience in the office.  Com. ex. rel. Sortino v. Singley, 392 A.2d 1337, 481 Pa. 367, Sup. 1978.

Mayor of a third-class city lacked power to remove from office at his pleasure appointed members of an authority created under Urban Redevelopment Law.  Com. ex rel. Hanson v. Reitz, 170 A.2d 111, 403 Pa. 434, Sup. 1961.

 

3. Municipalities, Generally

            Optional Third Class City Charter Law (53 P.S. § 41101 et seq.) which gives third class cities ability to organize and regulate their own internal affairs, does not empower city council to circumvent general assembly statutory scheme for creation of redevelopment authorities by investing cities with powers denied to them by the Urban Redevelopment Law.  Herriman v. Carducci, 380 A.2d 761, 475 Pa. 359, Sup.1977.

            Fact that mayor was authorized to appoint members of redevelopment authority did not make appointment a matter concerning “internal affairs” of city, within charter empowering city to organize and regulate its internal affairs, but even if it had, in view of 53 P.S. § 41305 precluding city from exercising power contrary to act of General Assembly if act applies to all cities, city could not nullify this section which requires mayors to appoint members of authorities, by ordinance providing that where appointment is vested in city by statute, appointment shall be with consent of council; thus mayor's appointment of successor member on authority was valid without consent of council. Herriman v. Carducci, 380 A.2d 761, 475 Pa. 359, Sup.1977.

§ 1706.            Tenure and Compensation of Members of Authority

The members who are first appointed shall serve for terms of one, two, three, four and five years, respectively, from the date of their appointment as shall be specified at the time of their appointment. Thereafter, the term of office shall be five years. A member shall hold office until his successor has been appointed. Vacancies for unexpired terms shall be promptly filled by the appointing power. A member shall receive no compensation for his services, but shall be entitled to the necessary expenses, including traveling expenses, incurred in the discharge of his duties.

1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 6.

Library References

Municipal Corporations  149, 163.

Suicide  162.

Westlaw Topic Nos. 268, 368.

C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 361, 382 to 383.

C.J.S. Suicide §§ 6 to 7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes of Decisions

Removal 2

Tenure, Generally 1

 

 

1.  Tenure, Generally

            Where the term of a member of the board of a redevelopment authority expires, but he holds over for several months because of the failure of the appointing authority to appoint his successor, the successor, when appointed, holds office only for five years from the date of expiration of his predecessor’s term, and not for five years from the date he actually takes office.  Com. v. Volpe, 69 Pa. D. & C.2d 107 (1975).

 

2.  Removal

            Under Pennsylvania law, director of real estate department of city redevelopment authority did not have any property interest in his employment nor did Pennsylvania Urban Redevelopment Law (§ 1701 et seq. of this title), creating redevelopment authority, confer any power upon authority to create such a property right, and thus former director of real estate department was not entitled to due process protection and his alleged discharge by forced resignation without hearing and without cause did not constitute denial of due process.  Rosenberg v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, E.D.Pa. 1977, 428 F.Supp. 498.

            Fact that two persons appointed to the redevelopment authority by the mayor were inexperienced did not provide cause for their removal on the theory that the Redevelopment Law, by specifying staggered terms of office, contemplated that members of a redevelopment authority would have varying degrees or experience in the office.  Com. ex rel. Sortino v. Singley, 392 A.2d 1337, 481 Pa. 367, Sup. 1978.

            Mayor of a third-class city lacked power to remove from office at his pleasure appointed members of an authority created under Urban Redevelopment Law.  Com. ex rel. Hanson v. Reitz, 170 A.2d 111, 403 Pa. 434, Sup. 1961.

§ 1708.            Organization of Authority

The members of an Authority shall select from among themselves a chairman, a vice-chairman, and such other officers as the Authority may determine. An Authority may employ a secretary, an executive director, its own counsel and legal staff, and such technical experts, and such other agents and employees, permanent or temporary, as it may require, and may determine the qualifications and fix the compensation of such persons. Three members of an Authority shall constitute a quorum for its meetings. Members of an Authority shall not be liable personally on the bonds or other obligations of the Authority, and the rights of creditors shall be solely against such Authority.  An Authority may delegate to one or more of its agents or employees such of its powers as it shall deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this act, subject always to the supervision and control of the Authority.

1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 7.

Library References

Municipal Corporations  83.

Westlaw Topic No. 268.

C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 212.

§ 1708.            Interest of Members or Employees

No member or employee of an Authority shall acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in any redevelopment project or in any property included or planned to be included in any redevelopment area, or in any area which he may have reason to believe may be certified to be a redevelopment area, nor shall he have any interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or proposed contract for materials or services to be furnished or used by an Authority, or in any contract with a redeveloper or prospective redeveloper relating, directly or indirectly, to any redevelopment project. The acquisition of any such interest in a redevelopment project or in any such property or contract shall constitute misconduct in office. If any member or employee of an Authority shall already own or control any interest, direct or indirect, in any property later included or planned to be included in any redevelopment project under the jurisdiction of the Authority, or has any such interest in any contract for material or services to be furnished or used in connection with any redevelopment project, he shall disclose the same in writing to the Authority and to the Department of Community Affairs and the local governing body, and such disclosure shall be entered in writing upon the minute books of the Authority. Failure to make such disclosure shall constitute misconduct in office.

1945, May 24, P.L. 991 § 8.  Amended 1949, May 20, P.L. 1621, § 1; 1968, June 26, P.L. 263, No. 125, § 8.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Reorganization Plan No.2 of 1966                                                                                                                Under Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966, certain functions of the State Planning Board, transferred to the Department of Commerce by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1955, including those created by this section, are transferred from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Commerce to the Department of Community Affairs and shall be administered by the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs.  See 71 P.S. § 751-10(1)(b).

Act 1968-125 Legislation

            The 1968 amendment in the penultimate sentence substituted “Department of Community Affairs” for “State Planning Board”.

            Section 14 of the act of 1968 provided:

            “Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1955, adopted by the House of Representatives June 7, 1955 and by the Senate on May 23, 1955 [71 P.S. § 751-1], is suspended in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of this act.”

Library References

Municipal Corporations  231.

Westlaw Topic No.268.

C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 906.

 

Notes of Decisions

Acts of Authority 1

 

 

1. Acts of Authority

            Vote of member of redevelopment authority on resolutions would not be rendered void or nullified merely because of an undisclosed conflict of interest.  In re Certain Parcels of Real Estate in Lehigh-Washington St. Development Project, in Fifth Ward of City of Easton, 216 A.2d 774, 420 Pa. 289, Sup. 1966.

            Inasmuch as final and controlling declaration of taking was authorized and filed by vote taken by redevelopment authority when certain person was no longer a member or had any vote, fact that such person at time of his appointment as member of redevelopment authority and while he was member was under contract to furnish services to redeveloper selected by authority did not render declaration of taking invalid.  In re Certain Parcels of Real Estate in Lehigh-Washington St. Development Project, in Fifth Ward of City of Easton, 216 A.2d 774, 420 Pa. 289, Sup. 1966.

 

 

§ 1709.            Powers of an Authority

An Authority shall constitute a public body, corporate and politic, exercising public powers of the Commonwealth as an agency thereof, which 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:

(a) To procure from the planning commission the designation of areas in need of redevelopment and its recommendations for such redevelopment;

(b) To study the recommendations of the planning commission for redevelopment of any area and to make its own additional investigations and recommendations thereon; to initiate preliminary studies of possible redevelopment areas to make and assist in implementing (1) plans for carrying out a program of voluntary repair, rehabilitation and conservation of real property, buildings and improvements, (2) plans for the enforcement of laws, codes and regulations relating to the use of land and the use and occupancy of buildings and improvements, (3) plans for the relocation of persons (including families, business concerns and others) displaced by any other Government activities related to the purposes of this act or any activities of the Authority, (4) preliminary plans outlining redevelopment activities for neighborhoods to embrace two or more redevelopment areas, and (5) preliminary surveys to determine if the undertaking and carrying out of a redevelopment project are feasible;

(c) To cooperate with any government, school district or municipality;

(d) To act as agent of the State or Federal Government or any of its instrumentalities or agencies for the public purposes set out in this act;

(e) To arrange or contract with any municipality located, in whole or in part, within the Authority's field of operation, or with the State or Federal Government for the furnishing planning, replanning, constructing, installing, opening or closing of streets, roads, roadways, alleys, sidewalks or other places or facilities, or for the acquisition by such municipality, or State or Federal Government of property options or property rights or for the furnishing of property or services in connection with a redevelopment area;

(f) To arrange or contract with the Commonwealth, its agencies, and any municipality to the extent that it is within the scope of their, respective functions —(1) to cause the services customarily provided by each of them to be rendered for the benefits of such Authority or the occupants of any redevelopment area; and (2) to provide and maintain parks, recreational centers, schools, sewerage, transportation, water and other municipal facilities adjacent to or in connection with redevelopment areas; and (3) to plan, replan, zone or rezone any part of the municipality in connection with any redevelopment proposal of the Authority;

(g) To enter upon any building or property in order to make surveys or soundings;

(h) To assemble, purchase, obtain options upon, acquire by gift, grant, bequest, devise or otherwise any real or personal property or any interest therein from any person, firm, corporations, municipality or government: Provided, That no real property, located outside of a redevelopment area, which is not necessary to the corporate purposes of the Authority nor necessary to the successful redevelopment of a redevelopment area, shall be purchased by the Authority;

(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 herinafter provided, except real property located outside a redevelopment area;

(j) To own, hold, clear, improve and manage real property;

(k) To sell, lease or otherwise transfer any real property located outside of a redevelopment area and, subject to approval by the local governing body, any real property in a redevelopment area: Provided, That with respect to a redevelopment area the authority finds that the sale, lease or other transfer of any part will not be prejudicial to the sale or lease of other parts of the redevelopment area, nor be in any other way prejudicial to the realization of the redevelopment proposal approved by the governing body;

(l) To reimburse for their reasonable expenses of removal, any persons (including families, business concerns and others), who have been displaced as a result of any other Government activities related to the purposes of this act or any activities of the Authority;

(m) To insure or provide for the insurance of any property or operations of the Authority against any risks or hazards;

(n) To procure or agree to the procural of insurance or guarantees from the State or Federal Government of the payments of any debts or parts thereof incurred by the Authority, and to pay premiums in connection therewith;

(o) To borrow from private lenders or from the State or Federal Government funds, as may be necessary, for the operation and work of the Authority;

(p) To invest any funds held in reserves or sinking funds or any funds not required for immediate disbursement, in such investments as may be lawful for executors, administrators, guardians, trustees and other fiduciaries under the laws of this Commonwealth;

(q) To sue and be sued;

(r) To adopt a seal and to alter the same at pleasure;

(s) To have perpetual succession;

(t) To make and execute contracts and other instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of the powers of the Authority; and any contract or instrument when signed by the chairman or vice-chairman of the Authority, or by an authorized use of their facsimile signatures, and by the secretary or assistant secretary, or, treasurer or assistant treasurer of the Authority, or by an authorized use of their facsimile signatures, shall be held to have been properly executed for and on its behalf;

(u) To make and from time to time to amend and repeal by-laws, rules, regulations and resolutions;

(v) To conduct examinations and investigations and to hear testimony and take proof, under oath or affirmation, at public or private hearings, on any matter material for its information;

(w) To authorize any member or members of the Authority to conduct hearings and to administer oaths, take affidavits and issue subpoenas; 

(x) To issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers pertinent to any hearing before the Authority, or before one or more members of the Authority appointed by it to conduct such hearing;

(y) To, apply to any court having territorial jurisdiction of the offense to have punished for contempt any witness, who refuses to obey a subpoena, or who refuses to be sworn or affirmed, or to testify, or, who is guilty of any contempt after summons to appear;

(z) To make available to the government or municipality or any appropriate agency, board or commission, the recommendations of the Authority affecting any area in its field of operation or property therein, which it may deem likely to promote the public health, morals, safety or welfare;

(aa) To make, directly or indirectly, secured or unsecured loans to any purchaser or owner of a residential housing or a commercial or an industrial project for the purpose of financing the purchase, construction, rehabilitation, demolition or equipping of a residential housing or a commercial and industrial redevelopment program;

(bb) To make loans to or deposits with, at the option of the Authority, without requiring collateral security therefore, any financial institution, in order to enable that financial institution to finance the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation or equipping of a residential housing or a commercial and industrial redevelopment program. For such purposes, an Authority may make such loans as the Authority may determine; receive interest on such deposits as may be agreed to with the financial institution; purchase and hold notes or other obligations secured by mortgages, deeds of trust or security interests in residential housing, commercial or industrial projects or property used as additional security, notwithstanding anything to the contrary elsewhere contained in this act; sell, assign, pledge or encumber any security, including mortgages or other security agreements, held by or granted to the Authority or received in connection with the financing of residential housing or commercial or industrial projects and grant to any trustee, in addition to any other rights or remedies contained therein or in any documents granting such security, such other rights and remedies as may be approved by the Authority.                       1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 9. Amended 1951, Sept. 29, P.L.1650, § 1; 1953, July 27, P.L. 622, No.179, § 1; 1957, May27, P.L.197, § 2; 1959, Dec.1, P.L. 1637, No.603, § 2; 1963, June 6, P.L. 79, § 1; 1968, June 26, P.L.263, No.125, §§ 9 to 12; 1988, March 30, P.L. 304, No.39, § 3, imd. effective.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Act 1953-179 Legislation

Section 2 of the act of 1953 read as follows:

“All proceedings heretofore had and held by any Redevelopment Authority to sell, lease or otherwise transfer any of its real property located outside of a redevelopment area under the provisions of the act to which this is an amendment and the acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto be and the same are hereby ratified, confirmed and made va1id.”

“All of the deeds, leases or other conveyances issued, executed or made or to be issued, executed or made in pursuance of such proceedings be and the same are hereby ratified, confirmed and made valid; and the title to such interest as may be thereby conveyed to any grantee, lessee or other transferee be and the same is hereby ratified, confirmed and made valid in such grantee, lessee or other transferee.”

 

Act 1988-39 Legislation

            The 1988 amendment added subsecs. (aa) and (bb).

Library References

Eminent Domain  17.

Municipal Corporations  57, 221.

Westlaw Topic Nos. 148,268.

C.J.S. Eminent Doman §§ 52, 55.

C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 104, 106, 108, 110 to 115, 117 to 118, 122, 137 to 138, 143, 145 to 146, 873 to 876, 878 to 879.

Notes of Decisions

In General 2                                                                                                                         Blighted Areas, Eminent Domain 4                                                                            Contracts 7                                                                                                                               Eminent Domain 3-5                                                                                                                In general 3                                                                                                                Blighted Areas 4                                                                                                                        Public Purposes 5                                                                                                      Judicial Review 9                                                                                                                      Public Purposes, Eminent Domain 5                                                                                        Sell, Lease, Transfer 6                                                                                                             Suits, Generally 8                                                                                                              Validity 1

 

1.  Validity

Redevelopment authorities created under Urban Redevelopment Law are purely administrative bodies and are not “special commissions” or “private corporations” within provision of Const. Art. 3, § 20 (see, now, Const. Art. 3, § 31) prohibiting legislature from delegating to any special commission or private corporation any power to make, supervise or interfere with municipal improvement or perform any municipal functions. Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 54 A.2d 277, 357 Pa. 329, Sup.1947.

The provision of Redevelopment Cooperation Law (§ 1741 et seq. of this title) that any city, borough, etc., may contract with a redevelopment authority with respect to any sums which the authority may agree to pay for special improvements, services, and facilities to be provided by such city etc for the benefit of the redevelopment does not have any bearing on the subject of tax exemption of property within the redevelopment so as to be violative of provision of Const. Art. 9, §§ 1 and 3 (see, now, Const. Art. 8, §§ 1, 2, and 6) requiring all taxes to be uniform and listing only certain prescribed property which may be exempted from taxation. Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 54 A.2d 277, 357 Pa. 329, Sup. 1947.

 

2.  In General

Urban redevelopment law grants enormous powers and must carefully be examined under facts in each case, in light of constitutional guaranties which relate to right of private property. Redevelopment Authority of City of Erie v. Owners or Parties in Interest, 274 A.2d 244, 1 Pa. Cmwlth. 378, Cmwlth.1971.

The Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh is a public body exercising public powers of Commonwealth as an agency thereof, and stands in fiduciary relationship to the public and to taxpayers, and its conduct must always be guided by rule of good faith, fidelity and integrity. Schwartz v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh 192 A.2d 371, 411 Pa. 530, Sup.1963.

Under the Urban Redevelopment Law, the responsibility of the planning commission to make a study of a purportedly blighted area may be discharged by the joint effort of the commission and the Redevelopment Authority. Condemnation of Elsesser, 12 Pa. D. & C.3d 25 (1979).

In compliance with federal laws and regulations, local housing authorities and redevelopment authorities are eligible under state law, § 1541 et seq. of this title and § 1701 et seq., to be sponsors for below-market interest rate mortgages for rental housing. 1968 Op.Atty.Gen. No. 278.

 

3. Eminent Domain — In General

In the absence of statutory authority under the Urban Redevelopment Law (URL), county redevelopment authority could not impair its ability to exercise its power of eminent domain, through contract or agreement with a redeveloper requiring private-party redeveloper’s prior written consent to commence a condemnation. In re Condemnation of 110 Washington Street, Borough of Conshohocken: Pennsylvania, by Redevelopment Authority of County of Montgomery, for Urban Renewal Purposes, 767 A.2d 1154, Cmwlth.2001, appeal denied 788 A.2d 379, 567 Pa. 748.

Redeveloper’s surety agreement with county redevelopment authority, to pay condemnation costs that were not funded by grants from Commonwealth, was an improper delegation of authority to redeveloper, where the surety agreement also required redeveloper's prior written consent before the authority could exercise its eminent domain powers. In re Condemnation of 110 Washington Street, Borough of Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, by Redevelopment Authority of County of Montgomery, for Urban Renewal Purposes, 767 A.2d 1154, Cmwlth.2001, appeal denied 788 A.2d 379, 567 Pa. 748.

Injunctive relief sought by property owners based on malicious interference with beneficial property rights and contracts on continuing basis based on allegedly improper condemnation proceedings was precluded until it was determined in Eminent Domain Code proceedings whether city urban redevelopment authority had power and right to condemn plaintiffs' properties. Cass Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. v. PPG Industries, Inc., 416 A.2d 1142, 52 Pa.Cmwlth. 600, Cmwlth.1980.

In condemnation by political subdivision, full fee simple is taken unless condemnor expressly states that it is taking less. Curtis v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 367 A.2d 401, 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 360, Cmwlth.1976, reversed 393 A.2d 377, 482 Pa. 58.

Failure of a redevelopment authority to comply with the Urban Housing Act of 1949, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1450 et seq., or regulations adopted pursuant to it has no effect on the power of the authority, under state law, to condemn real estate. In re Taking in Eminent Domain of Certain Parcels of Real Estate in Northside Urban Renewal Area No.1, Project Penna. R-389 in City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, 349 A.2d 781, 22 Pa.Cmwlth. 487, Cmwlth.1976.

Redevelopment authority's filing of a bond provided sufficient security for redevelopment project, even though the authority was without power of taxation and the bond was filed without surety.  In re Taking in Eminent Domain of Certain Parcels of Real Estate in Northside Urban Renewal Area No.1, Project Penna. R-389 in City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, 349 A.2d 781, 22 Pa. Cmwlth. 487, Cmwlth.1976.

Landowner's averment, by way of preliminary objections to taking, that bond furnished by redevelopment authority on filing of declaration of taking of properties for purpose of urban renewal was inadequate, insufficient and valueless was, coupled with undisputable facts that authority has no taxing power and that bond was without surety, was sufficient to command evidentiary hearing on merits. Golden Dawn Shops, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 282 A.2d 395, 3 Pa.Cmwlth. 314, Cmwlth. 1971.

Fact that urban renewal project was of great magnitude and public importance and that cost would be increased because of litigation brought by owner of one parcel of property in affected area did not mandate affirmance of dismissal of land-owner's preliminary objections to taking.  Golden Dawn Shops, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 282 A.2d 395, 3 Pa.Cmwlth. 314, Cmwlth. 1971.

Although declaration of taking failed to state eo nominee that purpose of condemnation was elimination of blighted area, inasmuch as it averred purpose of taking was to effectuate approved proposal and plan of redeveloping a certified blighted area and repeatedly used term “redevelopment,” averment was sufficient to meet statutory requirements as to description of the purpose of the condemnation.  In re Certain Parcels of Land in First Ward of City of Lancaster, 216 A.2d 769, 420 Pa. 295, Sup.I966.

Resolution of redevelopment authority condemning realty divested owners of all interest in realty, and subsequent agreements by owners to confirm condemnation proceedings did not result in “transfers” within borough ordinance and school district resolution imposing tax on “transfer” of realty.  Borough of Braddock v. Bartoletta, 186 A.2d 243, 409 Pa. 281, Sup.1962.

It is for the redevelopment authority and not for the courts to determine whether eminent domain power should be exercised in the particular instance. Oliver v. City of Clairton, 98 A.2d 47, 374 Pa. 333, Sup.1953.

Redeveloper is not required to make instant use of all land taken, and to exclude from redevelopment area patches of ground here and there would violate one of the purposes of the act, which is to assemble parcels of land into a unified whole and thereby to make area available for redevelopment purposes. Oliver v. City of Clairton 98 A.2d 47 374 Pa. 333 Sup. 1953.

Third class county is liable for the compensation of viewers for services in connections with views of properties condemned under this act (§ 1701 et seq. of this title). Cassol v. Keck, 39 Pa. D. & C.2d 614, 48 Wes.C.L.J. 77 (1966).

A writ of possession may properly be granted to a redevelopment authority to occupy real property acquired under this section, before the amount of damages is finally determined.  Theofilos v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Sharon, 31 Pa. D. & C. 2d 457 (1963).

Although § 1701 et seq. of this title empowers a redevelopment authority to reimburse a landowner for reasonable expenses of removal, nothing in act empowers a board of view to make award for relocation or removal costs in eminent domain proceedings instituted by such an authority.  Delaware County Redevelopment Authority v. Carminatti, 18 Pa. D. & C. 2d 704 (1959), motion denied 21 Pa. D. & C. 2d 85.

 

4.  — Blighted Areas, Eminent Domain

            A planning commission and redevelopment authority are presumed to act in good faith in declaring an area blighted; burden of proving fraud or abuse of discretion is a heavy one.  In re Condemnation of Premises 130 Court St., in City of Reading, Berks County, 388 A.2d 1108, 36 Pa.Cmwlth. 394, Cmwlth. 1978.

            Fact that condemnee’s buildings may themselves be structurally sound is not sufficient to prevent their condemnation when they are located in area properly determined to be blighted and designated for redevelopment.  In re City of Harrisburg, 373 A.2d 774, 30 Pa. Cmwlth. 273, Cmwlth. 1977.

            Declaration of taking filed by city redevelopment authority stating that landowner’s properties were located in area which had been certified as blighted and that they were being condemned in order to redevelop them in accordance with duly approved redevelopment plan adequately set forth purpose of condemnation. In re City of Harrisburg, 373 A.2d 774, 30 Pa.Cmwlth. 273, Cmwlth.1977.

            In eminent domain proceeding instituted by city redevelopment authority, issue as to whether the area in question was in fact blighted was properly raised by preliminary objections to the declaration of taking, and the burden of proof in respect to that issue was on the authority. Nixon Hotel, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Butler, 315 A.2d 366, 11 Pa. Cmwlth. 519, Cmwlth.1974, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 74, 419 U.S. 842, 42 L.Ed.2d 70.

Where blighted area to be redeveloped formed a single large tract bounded on three sides by major streets and on the remaining side by a railroad, such fact, alone, would justify taking of whole area, notwithstanding redevelopment plan did not contemplate immediate use of all such area. Oliver v. City of Clairton, 98 A.2d 47, 374 Pa. 333, Sup.1953.

Certification of blighted areas is not limited to improved property, but redevelopment authorities have power, where conditions prescribed in act are found to exist, to exercise right of eminent domain pursuant to a redevelopment proposal, even though redevelopment area may be predominantly open, vacant or unimproved. Oliver v. City of Clairton, 98 A.2d 47, 374 Pa. 333, Sup.1953.

            Under provision of Urban Redevelopment Law granting power to redevelopment Law granting power to redevelopment authorities to exercise right of eminent domain for purpose of eliminating and rehabilitating blighted sections of municipalities, it was for redevelopment authority and not for courts to determine whether the power should be exercised in particular instance.  Schenck v. City of Pittsburgh, 70 A.2d 612, 364 Pa. 31, Sup. 1950.

            Under Urban Redevelopment Law, it is necessary that areas considered for redevelopment be blighted areas, and if such condition does not exist there is no substantial need for a taking.  Crawford v. Redevelopment Authority, 25 Fay.L.J. 28 (1962)

 

5.  — Public Purposes, Eminent Domain

            City redevelopment authority could properly condemn property in blighted area and designate it for private residential development as part of redevelopment plan. In re City of Harrisburg, 373 A.2d 774, 30 Pa.Cmwlth. 273, Cmwlth. 1977.

Owners of property in redevelopment area failed to prove that their properties were being condemned for other than the public purposes described by planning commission director, who, while stating that an objective of the project was the achievement of a higher level of commercial business activity in the downtown area, also stated that the reestablishment of institutional, recreational and residential uses was another objective of the program; indeed, the owners failed to identify either the private use or the private user allegedly intended to be benefitted by the project. In re Taking in Eminent Domain of Certain Parcels of Real Estate in Northside Urban Renewal Area No.1, Project Penna. R-389 in City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, 349 A.2d 781, 22 Pa.Cmwlth. 487, Cmwlth.1976.

On record, taking of private property by city redevelopment authority was for public purpose, notwithstanding incidental private gain. In re Franklin Town Project Philadelphia, 339 A.2d 885, 19 P.a.Cmwlth. 272, Cmwlth.1975, certiorari dismissed 96 S.Ct.. 409, 423 U.S. 992, 46 L.Ed.2d 312, certiorari denied 96 S.Ct. 453, 423 U.S. 1018, 46 L.Ed.2d 389.

Redevelopment authority has no power to condemn property, under guise of urban renewal, for a private, not public purpose.  Golden Dawn Shops, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 282 A.2d 395, 3 Pa. Cmwlth. 314, Cmwlth. 1971.

Landowner, which by way of preliminary objections to taking asserted that condemnation of its land under guise of urban renewal was undertaken not for purpose of replanning of blighted area but in order to acquire prime commercial land for private development, was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on question.  Golden Dawn Shops, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 282 A.2d 395, 3 Pa. Cmwlth. 314, Cmwlth. 1971.

Policy of authority under urban redevelopment law to accord preferential treatment in land disposition must be applied only to disposition of land which authority has in fact acquired for public purpose, and only when land is no longer needed because public purpose has been fulfilled, and such policy does not provide authority with any power to acquire one man’s land by condemnation in order to satisfy another man’s needs. Redevelopment Authority of City of Erie v. Owners or Parties in Interest, 274 A.2d 244, 1 Pa.Cmwlth. 378, Cmwlth.1971.

Where there was pressure exerted on redeveloper under urban redevelopment law, as result of which redevelopment plan was modified to prejudice of plan and defendants were refused permission to eradicate blighted condition of their property and, on contrary, there was understanding with other owner that latter would receive defendants’ property, prior to filing declaration of taking, so that, in effect, real reason for condemning defendant's property was to provide new home for such other owner and not to remove substandard building, there was “palpable bad faith,” and taking was beyond power conferred upon authority by law.  Redevelopment Authority of City of Erie v. Owners or Parties in Interest, 274 A.2d 244, 1 Pa.Cmwlth. 378, Cmwlth.1971.

Courts have responsibility to see that an authority has not acted in bad faith, and that property be taken by eminent domain only to extent reasonably required for purpose for which power is exercised. Redevelopment Authority of City of Erie v. Owners or Parties in Interest, 274 A.2d 244, 1 Pa.Cmwlth. 378, Cmwlth.1971.

The commercial redevelopment of an existing commercial district in city was a “public purpose” for which private property could be required by redevelopment authority by exercise of power of eminent domain under Urban Redevelopment Law.  Schenck v. City of Pittsburgh, 70 A.2d 612, 364 Pa. 31, Sup. 1950.

 

6.  Sell, Lease, Transfer

Power of authority under urban redevelopment law to sell any real property in redevelopment area does not exist when prejudice will result.  Redevelopment Authority of City of Erie v. Owners or Parties in Interest, 274 A.2d 244, 1 Pa. Cmwlth. 378, Cmwlth. 1971.

Action of The Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh in rejecting proposal of bidder to purchase parcel of realty in redevelopment area for the erection of a motor hotel was not unconstitutional application of Urban Redevelopment Law. Schwartz v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 206 A.2d 789, 416 Pa. 503, Sup.1965.

Under 35 P.S. § 1709 to effect that redevelopment authority shall constitute a public body exercising public powers of commonwealth with authority to sell any redevelopment area to a single redeveloper or in parts to several redevelopers, redevelopment authority was authorized to sell tract given to it by city to one company for industrial development. Starkey v. City of Philadelphia, 156 A.2d 101, 397 Pa. 512, Sup.1959.

Since the assignment of a ground lease by a municipality’s redevelopment authority to a developer is not a transfer of real estate under section 9(k) of the Urban Development Law, 35 P.S. § 1709(k), the approval of the municipality’s city council is not required.  Tenants Ass’n v. Redevelopment Authority, 33 Pa. D. & C.3d 410 (1984).

Where, after the specified time for completion of rehabilitation of property conveyed by the redevelopment authority had expired, the authority encouraged performance under the agreement without specifically waiving completion date and attempted unsuccessfully to obtain an estimated completion date from the purchasers, and at the time of trail the purchaser finally stated that he believed restoration could be completed within a year and a half from the hearing date, one year from the hearing date was a reasonable period within which to complete performance which had originally been scheduled for almost seven years earlier.  Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia v. Calesnick, 62 Pa. D. & C. 2d 305 (1973).

 

7.  Contracts

Redevelopment authority’s counsel lacked proper authorization to enter into agreement to reinstate contractor to authority’s list of approved contractors in return for contractor’s completion of certain repairs and modification of a home.  Vona v. Redevelopment Authority of Delaware County, 530 A.2d 1018, 109 Pa. Cmwlth. 156, Cmwlth. 1987, appeal denied 548 A.2d 258, 519 Pa. 670.

 

8.  Suits, Generally

The Housing Act of 1949, either prior or subsequent to 1959 amendment, gave hotel association and hotel owners and operators no standing to sue Urban Redevelopment Authority, city, motor hotel company and others, to enjoin erection by such company of motor hotel on parcel of land in redevelopment area until city had caused survey of need for transient housing to be made.  Pittsburgh Hotels Ass’n v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, C.A.3 (Pa.) 1962, 309 F.2d 186, certiorari denied 83 S. Ct. 730, 372 U.S. 916, 9 L.Ed.2d 723.

Although city redevelopment authority was agent of Commonwealth and not of local governmental body, such authority, which had localized nature in that its powers were subject to city approval, was not cloaked in Commonwealth’s sovereign immunity and thus was required to defend in action brought by plaintiff against authority for injuries and permanent disability resulting from accident which occurred while plaintiff was working on property owned by authority when fire escape collapsed. Greer v. Metropolitan Hospital, 341 A.2d 520, 235 Pa.Super. 266, Super.1975.

The Urban Redevelopment Law of 1945 giving a municipal redevelopment authority the power, inter alia, “to sue and be sued” does not constitute a. waiver of sovereign immunity from vicarious liability in ex delicto actions but applies only to those actions necessary to carry out its ordinary business and functions.  Miller v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of  Pgh., 64 Pa. D. & C.2d 262 (1973).

Absent any interest independent from that of the public at large, a citizens’ association has no standing to maintain an action in mandamus against a city redevelopment authority and the city to compel the authority to file an audit of its financial transactions, nor in such case does any duty rest upon defendants to make such an audit. Greater Williamsport Association of Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Williamsport, 49 Pa. D. & C.2d 589 (1970).

In the absence of express Statutory Authority, a Redevelopment Authority or a Public Parking Authority is not subject to attachment execution as garnishee.  Richter v. George Doherty Lumber Co., 50 Mun.L.R. 177, 16 Pa. D.& C.2d 181, 106 Pitts.L.J. 313 (1959).

 

9.  Judicial Review

Commonwealth Court's review of urban redevelopment law condemnation cases is to see that Redevelopment Authority has not acted in bad faith or arbitrarily, that it has followed mandated statutory procedures in preparing redevelopment plan, and that there are no constitutional violations. In re City of Scranton, 572 A.2d 250, 132 Pa.Cmwlth. 175, Cmwlth.1990, appeal denied 589 A.2d 204, 527 Pa. 131, appeal denied 590 A.2d 760, 527 Pa. 619.

Finding that city redevelopment authority acted in good faith in issuing declaration of taking of blighted property precluded Commonwealth Court from scrutinizing the, wisdom of the redevelopment authority’s decision to exercise its power. Nixon Hotel, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Butler, 315 A.2d 366, 11 Pa. Cmwlth. 519, Cmwlth.1974, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 74, 419 U.S. 842, 42 L.Ed.2d 70.

Judicial interference with an urban redevelopment authority’s performance of its discretionary duties can only be sustained where it is clearly shown that the authority acted outside the scope of its authority, or in improper exercise of its discretion. Sherman v. Haddington Leadership Organization, Inc., 302 A.2d 919, 8 Pa.Cmwlth. 309, Cmwlth.1973.

Court had jurisdiction to inquire into whether discretionary action of redevelopment authority not to commence eviction proceedings against condemnee was or was not in accord with powers and duties given to Authority by Urban Redevelopment Law. Sherman v. Haddington Leadership Organization, Inc., 302 A.2d 919, 8 Pa.Cmwlth. 309, Cmwlth.1973.

Courts have no right to substitute their discretion in place of legislatively granted discretion of redevelopment housing authority. Crawford v. Redevelopment Authority of Fayette County, 211 A.2d 866, 418 Pa. 549, Sup.1965.

Equity has inherent power to examine constitutionality of actions of a redevelopment authority. Crawford v. Redevelopment Authority of Fayette County, 211 A.2d 866, 418 Pa. 549, Sup.1965.

Only function of courts with respect to what areas are to be considered blighted is to see that redevelopment authority has not acted in bad faith, arbitrarily, or unconstitutionally and that it has followed statutory procedures. Crawford v. Redevelopment Authority of Fayette County, 211 A.2d 866, 418 Pa. 549, Su .1965.

Attack in equity of redevelopment authority certification that area is blighted is proper when it is alleged and proved that authority, in making its certification, acted in bad faith, arbitrarily, or failed to follow a statutory requirement. Crawford v. Redevelopment Authority of Fayette County, 211 A.2d 866, 418 Pa. 549, Sup.1965.

Issue as to whether Redevelopment Plan was unconstitutional on ground that it permitted parochial schools but excluded public schools did not go to propriety of certification of blight and dealt with questions not proper subject matter for appeal from decree forbidding taking of plaintiff’s property on ground that area in which her property was located was not blighted. Crawford v. Redevelopment Authority of Fayette County, 211 A.2d 866, 418 Pa. 549, Sup.1965.

Court will not and cannot substitute its judgment as to what is sound economic and social redevelopment of project for that of The Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, where the Authority’s judgment was based on proper exercise of discretion vested by law. Schwartz v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 206 A.2d 789, 416 Pa. 503, Sup.1965.

 

 

 

§ 1710.            Preparation and Adoption of Redevelopment Proposal

(a) An Authority shall prepare a redevelopment proposal for all or part of any area certified by the planning commission to be a redevelopment area and for which the planning commission has made a redevelopment area plan.

(b) The planning commission’s certification of a redevelopment area shall be made in conformance with its comprehensive general plan (which may include, inter alia, a plan of major traffic arteries and terminals and a land use plan and projected population densities) for the territory under its jurisdiction or for any greater area for which the field of operation of the Authority has been extended under clause (e) of section 3 of this act.¹

(c) The planning commission’s redevelopment area plan shall include, without being limited to, the following:

(1) The boundaries of the area, with a map showing the existing uses of the real property therein;

(2) A land use plan of the area showing proposed uses following redevelopment;

(3) Standards of population densities, land coverage and building intensities in the proposed redevelopment;

(4) A preliminary site plan of the area;

(5) A statement of the proposed changes, if any, in zoning ordinances or maps;

(6) A statement of any proposed changes in street layouts, street levels, and proposed traffic regulation, including the separation or excluding of vehicular traffic partially or totally from pedestrian traffic;

(7) A statement of the extent and effect of the rehousing of families which may be made necessary from the redevelopment area plan, and the manner in which such rehousing may be accomplished;

(8) A statement of the estimated cost of acquisition of the redevelopment area, and of all other costs necessary to prepare the area for redevelopment;

(9) A statement of such continuing controls as may be deemed necessary to effectuate the purposes of this act.

(d) In conformity with such redevelopment area plan, the Authority shall prepare a proposal for the redevelopment of all or part of such area. The Authority may, if it deems it desirable, hold public hearings prior to its final determination of the redevelopment proposal.

(e) The Authority shall submit the redevelopment proposal to the planning commission for review. The planning commission shall, within forty-five days, certify to the governing body its recommendation on the redevelopment proposal, either of approval, rejection or modification, and in the latter event, specify the changes recommended.

(f) Upon receipt of the planning commission’s recommendation, or at the expiration of forty-five days, if no recommendation is made by the planning commission, the Authority shall submit to the governing body the redevelopment proposal with the recommendation, if any, of the planning commission thereon.

(g) The governing body upon receipt of the redevelopment proposal and the recommendation, if any, of the planning commission shall hold a public hearing upon said proposal.  Notice of the time, place and purpose of such hearing shall be published at least once each week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the field of operation of the Authority, the time of the hearing to be at least ten days from the last publication of notice. The notice shall describe that portion of the redevelopment area affected by the proposal by boundaries and by city block, street and house number. The redevelopment proposal with such maps, plans, contracts or other documents as form part of said proposal, together with the recommendation, if any, of the planning commission and supporting data shall be available for public inspection for at least ten days prior to the hearing.

At the hearing the governing body shall afford an opportunity to all persons or agencies interested to be heard and shall receive, make known and consider recommendations in writing with reference to the redevelopment proposal.

(h) The governing body shall approve or reject the redevelopment proposal as submitted. The governing body shall not approve a redevelopment proposal unless it is satisfied that adequate provisions will be made to rehouse displaced families, if any, without undue hardship, or if the municipality in which the project is to be located has filed its objections thereto.

(i) Upon approval by the governing body of the redevelopment proposal, as submitted by the Authority, the Authority is authorized to take such action as may be necessary to carry it out.

(j) The redevelopment proposal may contain the form of the redevelopment contract with the redeveloper selected and upon approval by the governing body of the proposal, as hereinbefore provided, the Authority is authorized to execute the said redevelopment contract. If the proposal does not contain the form of the redevelopment contract with the redeveloper selected, the Authority shall not execute a redevelopment contract with a redeveloper thereafter selected, until the said redevelopment contract shall have been approved by the governing body and found to be in substantial conformity with the proposal theretofore approved by the governing body. No additional public hearing notice or publication shall be required with respect to such approval.

1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 10.  Amended 1955, May 31, P.L. 107, §§ 1 – 3; 1968, June 26, P.L. 263, No.125, § 12.

¹35 P.S. § 1703.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Act 1968-125 Legislation

The 1968 amendment in subsec. (a) inserted “all or part of”, in subsec. (b) added “or for any ... of this act” and in subsec. (c), clause (6), added “and proposed ... pedestrian traffic”.

Library References

Municipal Corporations  267, 282 (1).                                                                               Westlaw Topic No.268.

C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 957.

Notes of Decisions

In General 1                                                                                                                       Approval of Contract 7                                                                                              Carrying Out Proposal 8                                                                                                  Certification of area 3                                                                                            Condemnation 9                                                                                                                Inspection of Proposal 6                                                                                                            Judicial Review 10                                                                                                                    Notice 5                                                                                                                         Redeveloper 2                                                                                                             Rehousing Displaced Families 4

 

1.  In General

Under Urban Redevelopment Law providing that city redevelopment authority shall prepare a redevelopment proposal for any area certified by planning commission, and for which the latter has made a redevelopment area plan, the order in which such transactions occurred was of no real importance, and where certification was made by planning commission after full consideration, and redevelopment proposal was adopted by authority and approved by planning commission, requirements of the law were fulfilled, notwithstanding fact that the authority prepared and adopted redevelopment proposal and submitted it to planning commission for review before the commission had certified the area as blighted. Oliver v. City of Clairton, 98 A.2d 47, 374 Pa. 333, Sup.1953.

Where city planning commission approved redevelopment proposal which complied strictly with requirements of Urban Redevelopment Law in regard to a redevelopment area plan, fact that planning commission failed to prepare the redevelopment area plan containing all information specified in the statute did not constitute a serious irregularity. Oliver v. City of Clairton, 98 A.2d 47, 374 Pa. 333, Sup.1953.

 

2.  Redeveloper

A redevelopment authority was not precluded by this section from appointing as the redeveloper the tenant of a building marked for redevelopment. Friedman v. Redevelopment Auth. of County of Chester, 24 Pa. D. & C.3d 377 (1982).

 

3.  Certification of Area

Certification of blight under urban redevelopment law (URL) does not in and of itself give condemnor authority to condemn all property within the area.  Redevelopment Authority of City of Scranton v. Kameroski, 616 A.2d 1102, 151 Pa. Cmwlth. 345, Cmwlth.1992.

Under urban redevelopment law (URL), certification of blight is merely internal finding that certain physical conditions exist in project area that make the area “blighted.” Redevelopment Authority of City of Scranton v. Kameroski, 616 A.2d 1102, 151 Pa.Cmwlth. 345, Cmwlth. 1992.

Certification of area as blighted under urban redevelopment law (URL) does not itself affect property rights but only sets date for redevelopment. Redevelopment Authority of City of Scranton v. Kameroski, 616 A.2d 1102, 151 Pa.Cmwlth. 345, Cmwlth.1992.

Procedures set out in Redevelopment Law, Eminent Domain Code, and case law are adequate to protect property interests at initial stage of redevelopment process where area is certified as redevelopment area, and thus, planning commissions are not required to hold public hearings to consider whether to certify area for redevelopment; requirement that governing body hold public hearings and give notice of those hearings by publication, prior to formal adoption of proposal for redevelopment, is sufficient to satisfy due process requirement that those affected have opportunity to voice their objections. Matter of Condemnation by Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 594 A.2d 1375, 527 Pa. 550, Sup.1991, certiorari denied 112 S.Ct. 638, 502 U.S. 1004, 116 L.Ed.2d 656.                                                                                                 Mere certification of blight is not local agency law adjudication, as no rights of property owner at time of certification of blight are affected; thus, notice, record hearing, and written findings of fact and conclusions of law are not required. In  re City of Scranton, 572 A.2d 250, 132 Pa.Cmwlth. 175, Cmwlth.1990, appeal denied 589 A.2d 204, 527 Pa. 131, appeal denied 590 A.2d 760, 527 Pa. 619.

Blight certification, rendered almost ten years before filling of declaration of taking for property in regard to redevelopment project, was not stale, and new blight certifications was not required; urban redevelopment authority had continually engaged in redevelopment activities throughout postcertification period.  Matter of Condemnation by Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 544 A.2d 87, 117 Pa.Cmwlth. 475, Cmwlth. 1988, appeal granted in part 558 A.2d 529, 521 Pa. 539, affirmed 594 A.2d 1375, 527 Pa. 550, certiorari denied 112 S.Ct. 638, 502 U.S. 1004, 116 L.Ed.2d 656.

City planning commission’s certificate of blight, made preliminary to declaration of taking in regard to urban renewal project, was not void for vagueness due to absence of specific and detailed findings; no statute or regulation required such findings.  Matter of Condemnation by Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 544 A.2d 87, 117 Pa.Cmwlth. 475, Cmwlth.1988, appeal granted in part 558 A.2d 529, 521 Pa. 539, affirmed 594 A.2d 1375, 527 Pa. 550, certiorari denied 112 S.Ct. 638, 502 U.S. 1004, 116 L.Ed.2d 656.

Period of almost ten years between blight certification and declaration of taking by urban redevelopment authority did not deprive condemnees of due process; condemnees made only bare assertions that time lapse resulted in loss of critical witnesses, and had 11 months subsequent to declaration of taking to obtain discovery. Matter of Condemnation by Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 544 A.2d 87, 117 Pa.Cmwlth. 475, Cmwlth.1988, appeal granted in part 558 A.2d 529, 521 Pa. 539, affirmed 594 A.2d 1375 527 Pa 550 certiorari denied 112 S.Ct. 638, 502 U.S. 1004, 116 L.Ed.2d 656.

City redevelopment authority could properly produce redevelopment plan which involved only portion of area originally certified as blighted. In re City of Harrisburg, 373 A.2d 774, 30 Pa.Cmwlth. 273, Cmwlth.1977.

There was no evidence before court in proceeding challenging taking of property for redevelopment area that would indicate that the planning commission acted in a capricious or fraudulent manner in certifying area as blighted or that its actions were based on private motives contrary to the public interest.  Simco Stores, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 302 A.2d 907, 8 Pa.Cmwlth. 374, Cmwlth. 1973, affirmed 317 A.2d 610, 455 Pa. 438.

In order that city planning commission may certify an area as blighted, it is not necessary that each and every one of the conditions which cause areas to become blighted, as specified in § 1702 (a) of this title, should exist, but existence of any one of such conditions is sufficient to warrant certification and adoption of a redevelopment project.  Oliver v. City of Clairton, 98 A.2d 47, 374 Pa. 333, Sup. 1953.

 

4. Rehousing Displaced Families

Redevelopment proposal, which stated that redevelopment authority would assist in rehousing and that those needing rehousing would be relocated into private housing and low-rent public housing, and which, by reference to maps attached to proposal, gave sufficient notice to public as to who would be required to relocate, gave adequate statement of extent and effect of necessary rehousing of families and manner of such rehousing despite fact that there was not a breakdown of exact number of persons to be relocated into various types of housing. Feagley v. Huntingdon County Planning Commission, 330 A.2d 281, 16 Pa.Cmwlth. 520, Cmwlth.1974.

 

5. Notice

Trial court did not err in finding that redevelopment plan did not include property where the property was not specifically listed as property to be condemned in redevelopment plan, even though it may have been connected to property properly listed to be condemned in the plan. Redevelopment Authority of City of Scranton v. Kameroski, 616 A.2d 1102, 151 Pa.Cmwlth. 345, Cmwlth.1992.

While urban redevelopment law (URL) allows taking of property to effectuate redevelopment plan, plan must be specific enough to notify potential condemnees of their future. Redevelopment Authority of City of Scranton v. Kameroski, 616 A.2d 1102, 151 Pa.Cmwlth. 345 Cmwlth. 1992.

Amended complaint, which alleged that urban redevelopment law denied plaintiff property owners due process because it did not require, and they were not provided, notice or hearing before area in which their properties were located was certified as blighted, and which spoke as of time before city had, or was obliged to conduct public hearing, stated cause of action. Cass Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. v. PPG Industries, Inc., 416 A.2d 1142, 52 Pa.Cmwlth. 600, Cmwlth.1980.

Advertising of public hearing on redevelopment proposal complied with requirement that notice of hearing “shall be published at least once each week for three consecutive weeks,” though first two advertisements were only three days apart. Feagley v. Huntingdon County Planning Commission, 330 A.2d 281, 16 Pa.Cmwlth. 520, Cmwlth.1974.

 

6. Inspection of Proposal

Under paragraph (g) of this section, fact that lease agreement between redevelopment authority and redeveloper was not available for public inspection during ten day period prior to hearing, did not render proceedings void, where contract itself was on file for public inspection for the required period and terms of lease were discussed at public hearing, and where lease, although not before council when redevelopment proposal was approved, was approved by it within a month thereafter. Oliver v. City of Clairton, 98 A.2d 47, 374 Pa. 333, Sup.1953.

 

7. Approval of Contract                                                                                                                     A provision of this section that if redevelopment proposal does not contain form of redevelopment contract with redeveloper selected, authority shall not execute a redevelopment contract with a redeveloper thereafter selected until said contract shall have been approved by governing body and found to be in substantial conformity with proposal theretofore approved by it did not require contract to be submitted to city council for its approval, since District Court’s order specifically provided that town houses were to be constructed in accordance with plans which had previously been approved by city council; in any event, District Court, for purpose of remedying city’s constitutional violations involving racial discrimination, had power to suspend such section’s operation. Resident Advisory Bd. v. Rizzo, E.D.Pa.1979, 463 F.Supp. 694, affirmed 595 F.2d 1211, affirmed 595 F.2d 1214, certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 2895, 442 U.S. 947, 61 L.Ed.2d 319.

 

8. Carrying Out Proposal

Although certain area was part of project No.13 of comprehensive plan for redevelopment, election to begin that project before projects 7 through 12 were undertaken was within discretionary power of urban redevelopment board. Crawford v. Redevelopment Authority of Fayette County, 211 A.2d 866, 418 Pa. 549, Sup.1965.

Choice of priority of any project over any other is well within discretion and power of urban redevelopment board. Crawford v. Redevelopment Authority of Fayette County, 211 A.2d 866, 418 Pa. 549, Sup.1965.

In carrying out a redevelopment contact under Urban Redevelopment Law, title of property to be redeveloped must either be transferred to the redeveloper pending process of redevelopment, with redevelopment authority relying meanwhile upon redeveloper’s covenants for performance of its obligations under the contract, or the title must remain during that interim in the authority, with redeveloper relying meanwhile upon obligation of authority to convey title after redevelopment shall have been performed, and whether the one or the other of such alternatives should be adopted is an administrative matter for contracting parties. Schenck v. City of Pittsburgh, 70 A.2d 612, 364 Pa. 31, Sup.1950.

 

9. Condemnation

Where Redevelopment Authority announced its intention to pay al1 property owners in redevelopment project area 150% of appraised value as determined by Redevelopment Authority's real estate broker, property owners’ equal protection rights were not violated by fact that several property owners settled for substantially in excess of 150% of value set forth by Redevelopment Authority; each property is unique, and to increase offer for one property and not other may simply be result of normal negotiation that takes place between condemnor and condemnee as to whose appraiser’s value is correct. In re City of Scranton, 572 A.2d 250, 132 Pa.Cmwlth. 175, Cmwlth.1990, appeal denied 589 A.2d 204, 527 Pa. 131, appeal denied 590 A.2d 760, 527 Pa. 619.

Redevelopment Authority's taking of property did not violate property owner’s state or federal constitutional rights, despite argument that, because property was subsequently conveyed to private party to build mall, there was no public purpose advanced; there was more than substantial evidence in record that area was certified as blighted, and that purpose of redevelopment plan was to eliminate that blight. In re City of Scranton, 572 A.2d 250, 132 Pa.Cmwlth. 175, Cmwlth.1990, appeal denied 589 A.2d 204, 527 Pa. 131, appeal denied 590 A.2d 760, 527 Pa. 619.                                                                                                                         The redevelopment of a blighted commercial district was a proper public purpose for which public funds could be expended and private property acquired by the exercise of the power of eminent domain under this section. Friedman v. Redevelopment Auth. of County of Chester, 24 Pa. D. & C.3d 377 (1982).

 

10. Judicial Review

United States district court had no jurisdiction under Civil Rights Act over landowners’ action to enjoin city and city redevelopment authority from taking steps to condemn landowners’ property where state procedures were adequate to preserve fully all constitutional rights due landowners in anticipated condemnation proceedings.  Kadash v. City of Williamsport, M.D.Pa.1973, 362 F.Supp. 1343.

Courts determination of factual issue of blight in proceeding challenging condemnation of land for redevelopment is limited to a review of certification to that effect by the planning commission and to see that the authority has not acted in good faith or arbitrarily. Simco Stores, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 302 A.2d 907, 8 Pa. Cmwlth. 374, Cmwlth.1973, affirmed 317 A.2d 610, 455 Pa. 438.

Parties challenging municipal housing authority’s rejection of proposal to purchase certain land were required to show that authority had acted capriciously, arbitrarily or in bad faith. Schwartz v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 192 A.2d 371, 411 Pa. 530, Sup. 1963.

Purpose of Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh is to deal with an area rather than with individual properties, and unless bad faith, arbitrary action, or failure to follow a statutory requirement are shown, the certification by the authorities that an area is blighted and the plan for improving it are not subject to judicial review. St. Peter's Roman Catholic Parish v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 146 A.2d 724, 394 Pa. 194, Sup. 1958, appeal dismissed, certiorari denied 79 S.Ct. 940, 359 U.S. 435, 3 L.Ed. 2d 931.

In absence of any indication that city planning commission did not act in good faith or was wholly arbitrary in certifying area designated by it as blighted within meaning of Urban Redevelopment Law, its certification to that effect was not subject to judicial review.  Oliver v. City of Clairton, 98 A.2d 47, 374 Pa. 333, Sup. 1953.

In absence of any indication that city planning commission did not act in good faith or was wholly arbitrary in certifying the area designated by it as blighted within meaning of Urban Redevelopment Law, its certification to that effect was not subject to judicial review.  Schenck v. City of Pittsburgh, 70 A.2d 612, 364 Pa. 31, Sup. 1950.

 

§ 1711.            Provisions of the Redevelopment Contract

(a) The contract between the Authority and a redeveloper shall contain, without being limited to, the following provisions:

(1) A legal description of the redevelopment area covered by the contract, and a covenant running with land to the effect that no person shall be deprived of the right to live in the redevelopment project, or to use any of the facilities therein by reason of race, creed, color or national origin, and such other easements, or other rights as are to be reserved therein by the Authority;

(2) Plans and such other documents as may be required to show the type, material, structure and general character of the redevelopment project;

(3) A statement of the use intended for each part of the project;

(4) A guaranty of completion of the redevelopment project within specified     time limits;

(4-1) A requirement that every contract for construction, installation, alteration, repair of, or addition to, the redevelopment project, where the estimated cost shall exceed $10,000.00, shall contain a provision obligating the contractor to the prompt payment of all material furnished, labor supplied or performed, rental for equipment employed, and services rendered by public utilities in or in connection with the prosecution of the work, whether or not, the said material, labor, equipment and services enter into and become component parts of the work or improvement contemplated. Such provision shall be deemed to be included for the benefit of every person, co-partnership, association or corporation, who as subcontractor, or otherwise, has furnished material, supplied or performed labor, rented equipment, or supplied services in or in connection with the prosecution of the work as aforesaid, and the inclusion thereof in any contract shall preclude the filing by any such person, co-partnership, association or corporation of any mechanics’ lien claim for such material, labor or rental of equipment, and further requiring that the contractor shall give to the redeveloper an appropriate bond for the prompt payment by the contractor for materials, supplies, labor, services and equipment in such form as the Authority may prescribe;

(5) A provision that the redeveloper shall be without power to sell, lease or otherwise transfer the redevelopment area, or project, or any part thereof, without the prior written consent of the Authority, until the Authority shall have certified in writing that the redevelopment project has been completed;

(6) The amount of the consideration to be paid by the redeveloper to the Authority;

(7) Adequate safeguards for proper maintenance of all parts of the project;

(8) Prohibition against discrimination in the use, sale or lease of any part of the project against any person because of race, color, religion or national origin;

(9) Such other continuing controls as may be deemed necessary to effectuate the purposes of this act;

(b) Any deed or lease to a redeveloper in furtherance of a redevelopment contract shall be executed in the name of the Authority, by its proper officers, and shall contain in addition to all other provisions, such provisions as the Authority may deem desirable to run with the land in order to effectuate the purposes of this act;

(c) Any lease to a redeveloper may provide that all improvements shall become the property of the Authority. The execution of such a lease shall not in itself impose upon the Authority any liability for or by reason of the financing, construction, management or operation of any redevelopment project.                                                                                                        1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 11., Amended 2002, Oct. 2, P.L. 796, No. 113, § 1, effective in 60 days.

 

Historical and Statutory Notes

Act 2002-113 Legislation

            Act 2002-113, § 1, in subsec. (a) (4 –1), substituted “$10,000.00” for “$500.00”.

            Section 4 of 2002, Oct. 2, P.L. 796, No. 113, effective in 60 days, provides:

            “The amendment of section 11 of the act shall apply to contracts entered into after the effective date of this act.”

 

Library References

 

Municipal Corporations  338, 339 (1).

Westlaw Topic No. 268.

C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 1044 to 1045, 1047 to 1050.

 

Notes of Decisions

 

In General 1

Approval of Contract 4

Leases 3

Statutory Provisions 2

 

 

1.  In General

            Fact that offer contemplated execution and delivery of an agreement which was not in fact executed or delivered did not preclude existence of contract based on authority’s resolution approving offeror’s proposed use and designating offeror as sole developer.  Hatalowich v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Monessen, 312 A.2d 22, 454 Pa. 481, Sup. 1973.

            Under Urban Redevelopment Law, it is for the redevelopment authority and the redeveloper to decide upon terms of redevelopment contract and for city council to approve or reject them, and if contract contains provisions stipulated in the law, it is not for the courts to pass upon merits of suggestions as to how contract might be strengthened by amendments the desirability and effectiveness of which are for consideration solely of the agencies and governing body to which the Urban Redevelopment Law has committed that responsibility.  Schenck V. City of Pittsburgh, 70 A.2d 612, 364 Pa. 31, Sup. 1950.

           

2.  Statutory Provisions

            Contract for redevelopment of a blighted area, in which the redeveloper agreed to abide by all provisions of the redevelopment contract set forth in the Urban Redevelopment Law, was not an unfair, inequitable and unreasonable agreement.  Oliver v. City of Clairton, 98 A.2d 47, 374 Pa. 333, Sup. 1953.

3.  Leases

            Under Urban Redevelopment Law, a lease to redeveloper made in furtherance of redevelopment contract need merely contain such provisions as redevelopment authority may deem desirable to run with the land in order to effectuate purposes of the act.  Oliver v. City of Clairton, 98 A.2d 47, 374 Pa. 333, Sup. 1953.

 

4.  Approval of Contract       

            Fact that city redevelopment authority executed contract with the redeveloper, for redevelopment of a blighted area, before city council had approved such contract, did not render redevelopment proceedings void, in view of fact that the contract itself provided that it was to be binding upon the parties when approved by the council, and that the council subsequently approved it, giving right to authority to execute it.  Oliver v. City of Clairton, 98 A.2d 47, 374 Pa. 333, Sup. 1953.  

 

§ 1711.1.         Preparation and Provisions of a Residential Housing Redevelopment Program and Commercial and Industrial Redevelopment Program

 

(a) The Authority may develop a residential housing redevelopment program or a commercial and industrial redevelopment program for all or part of its field of operation.

(b) The Authority shall submit the redevelopment program to the planning commission for review and approval.

(c) The planning commission, within forty-five days, shall either approve, reject or modify the program as satisfying the public purpose of this act. If the planning commission takes no action within forty-five days, the program shall be deemed approved on the forty-sixth day.

(d) Upon approval by the planning commission, or at the expiration of forty-five days, if no recommendation is made by the planning commission, the Authority is authorized to take such action as may be necessary to carry out the redevelopment program.                                       1945, May 24, P.L. 991; § 11.1, added 1988, March 30, P.L. 304, No.39, § 4, imd. effective.

 

Library References

Municipal Corporations  282 (1), 293.

Westlaw Topic No. 268.

C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 977.

 

 

§ 1712.            Eminent Domain

Title to any property acquired by an Authority through eminent domain shall be an absolute or fee simple title, unless a lesser title shall be designated in the eminent domain proceedings. The Authority may exercise the right of eminent domain in the manner provided by law for the exercise of such right by cities or counties, as the case may be, of the same class as the city or county in which such Authority is organized to operate. If any of the real property in the redevelopment area which is to be acquired has, prior to such acquisition, been devoted to another public use, it may, nevertheless, be acquired by condemnation: Provided, That no real property belonging to a city, county or to the Commonwealth may be acquired without its consent. No real property belonging to a public utility corporation may be acquired without the approval of the Public Utility Commission.

1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 12.

 

Library References

Eminent Domain  18.5, 45.

Westlaw Topic No. 148.

C.J.S. Eminent Domain §§ 24, 53, 56.

 

 

Notes of Decisions

Blighted Areas 5                                                                                                                  Consent 2                                                                                                                                    Costs 12                                                                                                                            Damages 6                                                                                                                             Evidence 10

Interest Acquired 7                                                                                                       Prerequisites to Taking  3                                                                                             Procedure, Generally  9                                                                                                    Public Purposes  4                                                                                                    Rehabilitation of Property  8                                                                                                 Review  13                                                                                                                             Validity  1                                                                                                                               Validity of Taking  11

 

 

1.  Validity

            The taking of property by redevelopment authorities under this section for purpose of eliminating and rehabilitating blighted sections of municipalities is a taking for a “public use” within constitutional provision respecting eminent domain.  Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 54 A.2d 277, 357 Pa. 329, Sup. 1947.

This section is not unconstitutional because it provides that land be retransferred to private ownership when need for public ownership has terminated, subject only to such restrictions as are necessary to effectuate purposes of the act, on ground that it takes property from one or more individuals and gives it to another or others.  Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 54 A.2d 277, 357 Pa. 329, Sup. 1947.

 

2.  Consent

City’s failure to object after receiving partially erroneous notice of declaration of taking of city property by urban redevelopment authority did not constitute implied consent to such taking within meaning of statute, 35 P.S. § 1712, prohibiting authority from acquiring real property belonging to city without its consent; declaration of taking erroneously listed prior owner, rather than city, as owner of property purportedly taken.  Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh v. Hackaday, 501 A.2d 349, 93 Pa.Cmwlth. 378, Cmwlth. 1985.

 

3.  Prerequisites to Taking

Under redevelopment act, choosing of redeveloper or entering into contract with redeveloper for re-use of land are not prerequisites to condemnation.  In re Certain Parcels of Land in First Ward of City of Lancaster, 216 A.2d 769, 420 Pa. 295, Sup. 1966.

Lack of redevelopment contract was not fatal to power of redevelopment authority of city to condemn land, in absence of showing of any fraud, abuse of discretion or bad faith.  In re Certain Parcels of Land in First Ward of City of Lancaster, 216 A.2d 769, 420 Pa. 295, Sup. 1966.

 

4.  Public Purposes

City redevelopment authority could properly condemn property in blighted area and designate it for private residential development as part of redevelopment plan.  In re City of Harrisburg, 373 A.2d 774, 30 Pa.Cmwlth. 273, Cmwlth. 1977

Owners of property in redevelopment area failed to prove that their properties were being condemned for other than the public purposes described by planning commission director, who, while stating that an objective of the project was the achievement of a higher level of commercial business activity in the downtown area, also stated that the reestablishment of institutional, recreational and residential uses was another objective of the program; indeed, the owners failed to identify either the private use or the private user allegedly intended to be benefited Authority by the project. In re Taking in Eminent Domain of Certain Parcels of Real Estate in Northside Urban Renewal Area No.1, Project Penna. R-389 in City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, 349 A.2d 781, 22 Pa.Cmwlth. 487, Cmwlth.1976.

Property cannot be taken by government without owner’s consent for mere purpose of devoting it to private use of another, even though there be involved in the transaction an incidental benefit to the public.  Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 54 A.2d 277, 357 Pa 329, Sup. 1947.

The taking of property by redevelopment authorities under this section, does not lose its public character because there may exist in the operations some feature of private gain. Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 54 A.2d 277 , 357 Pa. 329, Sup. 1947.

 

5. Blighted Areas

In order for county redevelopment authority to acquire any property by eminent domain pursuant to urban redevelopment law, area in question must first be certified as blighted. Matter of Condemnation of Surface of Certain Tract of Land Located in Borough of Centralia, Columbia County, Pa., 658 A.2d 481, Cmwlth.1995, appeal denied 666 A.2d 1059, 542 Pa. 651, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 1351, 517 U.S. 1119, 134 L.Ed.2d 520.

Certification of blight under urban redevelopment law (URL) does not in and of itself give condemnor authority to condemn all property within the area. Redevelopment Authority of City of Scranton v. Kameroski, 616 A.2d 1102, 151 Pa. Cmwlth. 345, Cmwlth.1992.

Under urban redevelopment law (URL), certification of blight is merely internal finding that certain physical conditions exist in project area that make the area “blighted.” Redevelopment Authority of City of Scranton v. Kameroski, 616 A.2d 1102, 151 Pa.Cmwlth. 345, Cmwlth. 1992.

Certification of area as blighted under urban redevelopment law (URL) does not itself affect property rights but only sets date for redevelopment.  Redevelopment Authority of City of Scanton v. Kameroski, 616 A.2d 1102, 151 Pa.Cmwlth. 345, Cmwlth. 1992.

Fact that condemnee’s buildings may themselves be structurally sound is not sufficient to prevent their condemnation when they are located in area properly determined to be blighted and designated for redevelopment.  In re City of Harrisburg, 373 A.2d 774, 30 Pa.Cmwlth. 273, Cmwlth. 1977.

In eminent domain proceeding instituted by city redevelopment authority, issue as to whether the area in question was in fact blighted was properly raised by preliminary objections to the declaration of taking, and the burden of proof in respect to that issue was on the authority.  Nixon Hotel, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Butler, 315 A.2d 366, 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 519, Cmwlth. 1974, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 74, 419 U.S. 842, 42 L.Ed.2d 70.

A finding that an urban area, declared to be a federal disaster area, was in need of redevelopment did not constitute a finding of blight as required under the Urban Redevelopment Law to support a condemnation of premises in such area.  Condemnation of Elsesser, 12 Pa. D. & C. 3d 25 (1979).

 

6.  Damages

Pennsylvania law does not authorize payment of relocation expenses as part of eminent domain proceedings.  Merge v. Sharott, C.A.3 (Pa.) 1965, 341 F.2d 989.

Where verdict in condemnation case fell well within the range of testimony on value, it was reversible error to grant new trail on ground of inadequacy of the verdict.  Lorenzo v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 358 A.2d 130, 24 Pa.Cmwlth. 593, Cmwlth. 1976.

Where redevelopment authority was fully aware that one of the homeowners also operated a business on the premises, authority would not have been prejudiced by the assertion, at trial, of homeowner’s claims for compensable losses relating to the business. Cohen v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 315 A.2d 372, 12 Pa.Cmwlth. 125, Cmwlth. 1974.

 Condemnee, who both lived on the premises and operated a business on the premises, should have been permitted to introduce testimony relating to all compensable damages, including equipment and fixtures required to be removed and business dislocation damages. Cohen v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 315 A.2d 372, 12 Pa.Cmwlth. 125, Cmwlth.1974.

Although § 1701 et  seq. of this title empowers a redevelopment authority to reimburse a landowner for reasonable expenses of removal, nothing in act empowers a board of view to make award for relocation or removal costs in eminent domain proceedings instituted by such an authority. Delaware County Redevelopment Authority v. Carminatti, 18 Pa. D. & C.2d 704 (1959), motion denied 21 Pa. D. & C.2d 85.

 

7.  Interest Acquired

In condemnation by political subdivision, full fee simple is taken unless condemnor expressly states that it is taking less. Curtis v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia 367 A.2d 401 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 360, Cmwlth.1976, reversed 393 A.2d 377 482 Pa. 58.

Where city redevelopment authority condemned tract, such condemnation extinguished easement in favor of adjoining property owner and redevelopment authority acquired title to condemned tract in absolute fee simple. Curtis v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 367 A.2d 401, 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 360, Cmwlth.1976, reversed 393 A.2d 377, 482 Pa. 58.

 

8.  Rehabilitation of Property

Condemnee was not entitled to one-year period to eliminate blight to defeat declaration of taking by redevelopment authority, as condemnee took no action within thirty days to eradicate blight by acquiring building permit, to provide rehabilitation plan to complete work within year period, and to post cash deposit.  In re Condemnation by Redevelopment Authority of City of Lancaster of Real Estate in City of Lancaster, 682 A.2d 1369, Cmwlth. 1996, appeal denied 692 A.2d 567, 547 Pa. 758.

Urban redevelopment authority is not required to offer self-rehabilitation in every case before issuing declaration of taking of property in regard to urban renewal project.  Matter of Condemnation by Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 544 A.2d 87, 117 Pa.Cmwlth. 475, Cmwlth. 1988, appeal granted in part 558 A.2d 529, 521 Pa. 539, affirmed 594 A.2d 1375, 527 Pa. 550, certiorari denied 112 S.Ct. 638, 502 U.S. 1004, 116 L.Ed.2d 656.

A city redevelopment authority, which intends to condemn a blighted area, is not obliged to offer self-rehabilitation in every case.  Nixon Hotel, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Butler, 315 A.2d 366, 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 519, Cmwlth. 1974, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 74, 419 U.S. 842, 42 L.Ed.2d 70.

 

9.  Procedure, Generally

By not properly following urban redevelopment law (URL) and by failing to include property in the plan, redevelopment authority’s condemnation actions were premature.  Redevelopment Authority of City of Scranton v. Kameroski, 616 A.2d 1102, 151 Pa.Cmwlth. 345, Cmwlth. 1992.

Where trial court elaborated on portion of charge at request of parties and parties therafter, in response to court’s question, indicated that there was nothing further, and no exceptions were filed to charge, any alleged inadequacy of charge could not be asserted as reason for new trial in condemnation case.  Lorenzo v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 358 A.2d 130, 24 Pa.Cmwlth. 593, Cmwlth. 1976.

Redevelopment authority’s filing of a bond provided sufficient security for redevelopment project, even though the authority was without power of taxation and the bond was filed without surety.  In re Taking in Eminent Domain of Certain Parcels of Real Estate in Northside Urban Renewal Area No. 1, Project Penna. R-389 in City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, 349 A.2d 781, 22 Pa. Cmwlth. 487, Cmwlth. 1976.

Failure of a redevelopment authority to comply with the Urban Housing Act of 1949, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1450 et seq., or regulations adopted pursuant to it has no effect on the power of the authority, under state law, to condemn real estate. In re Taking in Eminent Domain of Certain Parcels of Real Estate in Northside Urban Renewal Area No. 1, Project Penna. R-389 in City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, 349 A.2d 781, 22 Pa.Cmwlth. 487, Cmwlth.1976.

Declaration of taking is actual condemnation which becomes binding and effective only after authorized by final vote of redevelopment authority and filing of the declaration. In re Certain Parcels of Real Estate in Lehigh-Washington St. Development Project, in Fifth Ward of City of Easton, 216 A.2d 774, 420 Pa, 289, Sup.1966.

1974, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 74, 419

Where preliminary objections to a declaration of taking challenge the finding of blight, consideration of the adequacy of inspections of the condemned premises appears very relevant. Condemnation of Elsesser, 12 Pa. D. & C.3d 25 (1979).

The contention that a certification of blight was not made by the proper planning commission may be raised by preliminary objections to the declaration of taking. Condemnation of Elsesser, 12 Pa. D. & C.3d 25 (1979).

Under the Eminent Domain Code of June 22, 1964, P.L. 84 (26 P.S. § 1-101 et seq.) where a redevelopment authority condemned by a declaration of taking the property of petitioners, following which petitioners tendered possession of their property to the authority and demanded that it pay to them its estimate of just compensation, and where the authority then sent petitioners agreements to be executed and delivered to the authority upon payment of its estimate of just compensation, the authority will be ordered to file its estimate of just compensation forthwith, or in default thereof, the court will appoint an appraiser, since the authority's demand upon petitioners to execute the agreements is arbitrary and unreasonable. In re Condemnation of Certain Lands, 40 Pa. D. & C.2d 554, 114 Pitts.L.J. 459 (1966).

 

10. Evidence

Written offer from condemnor prior to condemnation to purchase at $7,700 was inadmissible to contradict condemnor’s testimony at trail of a value of $5,000.  Lorenzo v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 358 A.2d 130, 24 Pa.Cmwlth. 593, Cmwlth. 1976.

Condemnee may testify on the same basis as a qualified expert in regard to valuation and the elements considered in arriving at a figure and comment by condemnor on failure of condemnee to produce an expert witness was an improper attempt to depict the condemnee as being unqualified to testify.  Cohen v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 315 A.2d 372, 12 Pa.Cmwlth. 125, Cmwlth. 1974.

In eminent domain proceeding, trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to permit condemnee’s alleged “expert witnesses” to express their opinions on issue of whether the area in question was, in fact, blighted, where the first witness, an engineer, stated he was familiar with the area but admitted he had never studied or investigated it, where the second witness, an architect, admitted that the last project he worked on in the area was in 1960, where the third witness, who owned hotel being condemned, testified that the last renovation of the hotel was in 1958, and where none of the witnesses had made a current evaluation of the area for the purpose of determining blight.  Nixon Hotel, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Butler, 315 A.2d 366, 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 519, Cmwlth. 1974, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 74, 419 U.S. 842, 42 L.Ed.2d 70.

Condemnee had the heavy burden of proving its allegation that city redevelopment authority was acting in bad faith.  Nixon Hotel, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Butler, 315 A.2d 366, 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 519, Cmwlth.1974, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 74, 419 U.S. 842, 42 L.Ed.2d 70.

 

 

11.  Validity of Taking

County redevelopment authority was not acting ultra vires of its powers and authority vested in it pursuant to urban redevelopment law when it acted as agent of Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and sought to acquire condemnees’ property pursuant to state planning code section giving DCA power, in name of Commonwealth, to exercise right of eminent domain; no provision in state planning code or urban redevelopment law was shown to prohibit DCA, as agency of Commonwealth, from contracting with another agency of Commonwealth to act as DCA's agent, to assist DCA in carrying out its statutory duties and oblicagtions, nor was there any prohibition in urban redevelopment law precluding redevelopment authority from acting as DCA’s agent. Matter of Condemnation of Surface of Certain Tract of Land Located in Borough of Centralia, Columbia County, Pa., 658 A.2d 481, Cmwlth.1995, appeal denied 666 A.2d 1059, 542 Pa. 651, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 1351, 517

U.S. 1119, 134 L.Ed.2d 520.

Failure to include condemnees’ property in redevelopment proposal did not render urban redevelopment authority’s declaration of taking in regard to property invalid; condemnees’ property had been contemplated for acquisition since inception of redevelopment project, and only purpose of listing properties in proposal was to reflect properties to be acquired in that given year. Matter of Condemnation by Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 544 A.2d 87, 117 Pa.Cmwlth. 475, Cmwlth.1988, appeal granted in part 558 A.2d 529, 521 Pa. 539, affirmed 594 A.2d 1375, 527 Pa. 550, certiorari denied 112 S.Ct. 638, 502 U.S. 1004, 116 L.Ed.2d 656.

Where city redevelopment authority filed declaration of taking, in full compliance with terms of its authority, condemnation was effective and valid as of such date, and subsequent legal or factual objections could not render such taking invalid so long as land was taken for authorized purpose. Simco Stores v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Phi1adelphia, 317 A.2d 610, 455 Pa. 438, Sup. 1974.

Where city redevelopment authority filed declaration of taking in full compliance with terms of its authority, taking land for authorized purpose, property owners could not raise, by preliminary objections to the taking, grievances that authority failed to comply with city ordinance requiring authority to enter into redevelopment contract within one year thereafter, that authority had harassed them by demands for possession subsequent to condemnation but prior to one-year removal period set by city council, or that authority erred in not offering the condemned land back to owners for redevelopment.  Simco Stores v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 317 A.2d 610, 455 Pa. 438, Sup.1974.

Inasmuch as final and controlling declaration of taking was authorized and filed by vote taken by redevelopment authority when certain person was no loner a member or had any vote, fact that such person at time of his appointment as member of redevelopment authority and while he was member was under contract to furnish services to redeveloper selected by authority did not render declaration of taking invalid.  In re Certain Parcels of Real Estate in Lehigh-Washington St. Development Project, in Fifth Ward of City of Easton, 216 A.2d 774, 420 Pa. 289, Sup. 1966.

12.  Costs                                                                                                                                                        Condemnees, who did not obtain larger amount on their appeal to Common Pleas Court after condemnation by redevelopment authority authorized to operate in county of second class, were not entitled to witness fees.  Kelly v. Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County, 191 A.2d 393, 411 Pa. 210, Sup. 1963.

 

13.  Review                                                                                                                                                     Appellate review of Urban Redevelopment Law (URL) condemnation cases is to see that the redevelopment authority has not acted in bad faith or arbitrarily, that it has followed the mandated statutory procedures in preparing a redevelopment plan, and that there are no constitutional violations. In re Condemnation of 110 Washington Street, Borough of Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, by Redevelopment Authority of County of Montgomery, for Urban Renewal Purposes, 767 A.2 1154, Cmwlth.2001, appeal denied 788 A.2d 379, 567 Pa. 748.

On review, in condemnation proceeding by redevelopment authority, condemnee should be given opportunity to prove that certification of blight is arbitrary or capricious, but it is not required that lower court substitute its discretion for that of legislatively granted discretion of the city planning commission. Simco Stores v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 317 A.2d 610, 455 Pa. 438, Sup.1974.

Finding that city redevelopment authority acted in good faith in issuing declaration of taking of blighted property precluded Commonwealth Court from scrutinizing the wisdom of the redevelopment authority’s decision to exercise its power. Nixon Hotel, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Butler, 315 A.2d 366, 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 519, Cmwlth.1974, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 74, 419 U.S. 842, 42 L.Ed.2d 70.

§ 1712.1.         Blighted Property Removal

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, any Redevelopment Authority shall have the power to acquire by purchase, gift, bequest, eminent domain or otherwise, any blighted property as defined in this section, either within or outside of a certified redevelopment area and, further, shall have the power to hold, clear, manage and/or dispose of said property for residential and related reuse and commercial or industrial reuse. This power shall be exercised in accord with the procedures set forth in this section.

(b) Such power on the part of any Redevelopment Authority shall be conditioned upon the creation or existence of a blighted property review committee by ordinance of the governing body of the municipality.  The committee shall be made up of members as determined in the said ordinance, but shall include at least one member of the governing body, a representative of the Redevelopment Authority, a representative of the appropriate planning commission, and a representative to be designated by the chief executive officer or officers from the executive branch of the government of the municipality.

(c) Blighted property shall include:

(1) Any premises which because of physical condition or use is regarded as a public nuisance at common law or has been declared a public nuisance in accordance with the local housing, building, plumbing, fire and related codes.

(2) Any premises which because of physical condition, use or occupancy is considered an attractive nuisance to children, including but not limited to abandoned wells, shafts, basements, excavations, and unsafe fences or structures.

(3) Any dwelling which because it is dilapidated, unsanitary, unsafe, vermin-infested or lacking in the facilities and equipment required by the housing code of the municipality, has been designated by the department responsible for enforcement of the code as unfit for human habitation.

(4) Any structure which is a fire hazard, or is otherwise dangerous to the safety of persons or property.

(5) Any structure from which the utilities, plumbing, heating, sewerage or other facilities have been disconnected, destroyed, removed, or rendered ineffective so that the property is unfit for its intended use.

(6) Any vacant or unimproved lot or parcel of ground in a predominantly built-up-neighborhood, which by reason of neglect or lack of maintenance has become a place for accumulation of trash and debris, or a haven for rodents or other vermin.

(7) Any unoccupied property which has been tax delinquent for a period of two years prior to the effective date of this act, and those in the future having a two year tax delinquency.

(8) Any property which is vacant but not tax delinquent, which has not been rehabilitated with in one year of the receipt of notice to rehabilitate from the appropriate code enforcement agency.

(9) Any abandoned property. A property shall be considered abandoned if:

(i) it is a vacant or unimproved lot or parcel of ground on which a municipal lien for the cost of demolition of any structure located on the property remains unpaid for a period of six months;

(ii) it is a vacant property or vacant or unimproved lot or parcel of ground on which the total of municipal liens on the property for tax or any other type of claim of the municipality are in excess of 150% of the fair market value of the property as established by the Board of Revisions of Taxes or other body with legal authority to determine the taxable value of the property; or

(iii) the property has been declared abandoned by the owner, including an estate that is in possession of the property.

(d) Residential and related use shall include residential property for sale or rental and related uses, including, but not limited to, park and recreation areas, neighborhood community service, and neighborhood parking lots.

(e) The blighted property review committee and the appropriate planning commission, upon making a determination that any property is blighted within the terms of this section, must certify said blighted property to the Redevelopment Authority, except that:

(1) No property shall be certified to the Redevelopment Authority unless it is vacant. A property shall be considered vacant if:

(i) the property is unoccupied or its occupancy has not been authorized by the owner of the property;

(ii) in the case of an unimproved lot or parcel of ground, a lien for the cost of demolition of any structure located on the property remains unpaid for a period of six months; or

(iii) in the case of an unimproved lot or parcel of ground, the property has remained in violation of any provision of local building, property maintenance or related codes applicable to such lots or parcels, including licensing requirements, for a period of six months.

(2) No property shall be certified to the Redevelopment Authority unless the owner of the property or an agent designated by him for receipt of service of notices within the municipality has been served with notice of the determination that the property is blighted, together with an appropriate order to eliminate the conditions causing the blight and notification that failure to do so may render the property subject to condemnation under this act. The notice shall be served upon the owner or his agent in accord with the provisions of a local ordinance pertaining to service of notice of determination of a public nuisance. The owner or his agent shall have the right of appeal from the determination in the same manner as an appeal from the determination of public nuisance.

(3) No blighted property shall be certified to the Redevelopment Authority until the time period for appeal has expired and no appeal has been taken, or, if taken, the appeal has been disposed of, and the owner or his agent has failed to comply with the order of the responsible department or other officer or agency.

(f) Acquisition and disposition of blighted property under this section shall not require preparation, adoption or approval of a redevelopment area plan or redevelopment proposal as set forth in section 10, ¹ but at least thirty days prior to acquisition of any property under this section, the Redevelopment Authority shall transmit identification of the property to the planning commission of the municipality and shall request a recommendation as to the appropriate reuse of the property. The Redevelopment Authority shall not acquire the property where the planning commission certifies that disposition for residential or related use would not be in accord with the comprehensive plan of the municipality.

(g) Power of eminent domain shall be exercised pursuant to a resolution of the Redevelopment Authority and the procedure set forth in the act of June 22, 1964 (Sp.Sess., P.L. 84, No. 6), ² known as the "Eminent Domain Code," as amended.

(h) Property disposed of within a redevelopment area shall be disposed of under a redevelopment contract in accordance with the provisions of this act.

Property disposed of outside an urban renewal project area shall be disposed of by deed in accordance with the provisions set forth in applicable law.                                             1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 12.1, added 1978, June 23, P.L. 556, No. 94, § 2, effective in 60 days. Amended 1988, March 30, P.L. 304, No.39, § 5, imd. effective; 2002, Oct. 2, P.L. 796, No.113, § 2, effective in 60 days.

 

¹35 P.S. § 1710.

²26 P.S. § 1-101 et seq.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Act 2002-113 Legislation

            Act 2002-113, § 2, in subsec. (b), substituted “blighted” for “vacant”; added subsec. (c)(9); and rewrote subsec. (e)(1), which prior thereto read:

            “(1) No property shall be certified to the Redevelopment Authority unless it is vacant.”

Library References

Eminent Domain  18.5.                                                                                                  Municipal Corporations  221, 267.                                                                                Westlaw Topic Nos. 148, 268.                                                                                         C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 53.                                                                                                                C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 873 to 876, 878 to 879, 957.

 

Notes of Decisions

Review 1

 

 

1.  Review

            Condemnee could not appeal certification of blight by city planning commission, as appeal could only be taken within thirty days from notice of blight.  In re Condemnation by Redevelopment Authority of City of Lancaster, 682 A.2d 1369, Cmwlth. 1996, appeal denied 692 A.2d 567, 547 Pa. 758.

§  1713            Bonds of an Authority

An Authority shall have power to issue bonds for any of its corporate purposes, the principal and interest of which are payable from its revenues generally. Any of such bonds may be secured by a pledge of any revenues, including grants or contributions from the Federal or State Government, or any agency, and instrumentality thereof, or by a mortgage of any property of the Authority.

The bonds issued by an Authority are hereby declared to have all the qualities of negotiable instruments under the law merchant and the negotiable instruments law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The bonds of an Authority created under the provisions of this act and the income therefrom shall at all times be free from taxation for State or local purposes under any law of this Commonwealth.

Neither the members of an Authority nor any person executing the bonds shall be liable personally on any such bonds by reason of the issuance thereof. Such bonds or other obligations of an Authority shall not be a debt of any municipality or of the Commonwealth, and shall so state on their face, nor shall any municipality or the Commonwealth nor any revenues or any property of any municipality or of the Commonwealth be liable therefor.

1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 13.

Library References

Municipal Corporations  906, 911.                                                                                   Westlaw Topic No.268.                                                                                                                C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 1645 to 1646, 1649, 1702.

Notes of Decisions

Validity 1

 

 

1. Validity

The Urban Redevelopment Law creating redevelopment authorities for purpose of eliminating and rehabilitating blighted sections of municipalities, and specifically providing that bonds or any other obligations of any authority created under the law shall not be debts nor liabilities of any municipality, is not violative of provisions of Const. Arts. 9, § 8 (repealed; see, now, Const. Art. 9, §§ 10, 12) and 15, § 2 (repealed), relating to debt limits for counties, cities and other municipalities and incorporated districts.  Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 54 A.2d 277, 357 Pa. 329, Sup. 1947.

            Provision in Urban Redevelopment Law exempting bonds issued by redevelopment authority form taxation for state or local purposes is not unconstitutional as violative of constitutional prohibition against exemption of any property from taxation other than that specified in the Constitution, since bonds issued by such a governmental instrumentality are not the kind of property contemplated by the constitutional prohibition.  Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 54 A.2d 277, 357 Pa. 329, Sup. 1947.

§ 1713.1.         Repealed by 1988, March 30, P.L. 304, No. 39, § 6, imd. effective

Historical and Statutory Notes

The repealed § 1713.1 which related to term bonds was derived from act 1945, May 24 P.L. 991, § 13.1, added 1970, July 17, P.L. 496, No. 173, § 1.

 

§  1714.           Form and Sale of Bonds

The bonds of an Authority shall be authorized by its resolution; shall be issued in one or more series; and shall bear such date, mature at such time, and bear interest at such rate as shall be determined by the Authority as necessary to issue and sell such bonds, payable semi-annually, be in such denominations, be in such form, either coupon or registered, be executed in such manner, be payable in such medium of payment, at such place, and be Subject to such terms of redemption and carry such registration privileges as may be provided in such resolution, or in any trust, indenture or mortgage properly made in pursuance thereof.

The bonds of an Authority may be sold at public or private sale at not less than par and accrued interest. In case any of the officers of an Authority whose signatures appear on any bonds or coupons shall cease to be officers before the delivery of such bonds their signatures shall, nevertheless, be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officers had remained in office until such delivery.

The Authority shall have the power out of any funds available therefor to purchase any bonds issued by it at a price not more than the par value thereof plus accrued interest. All bonds so purchased shall be cancelled. This paragraph shall not apply to the redemption of bonds.

Any bond reciting in substance that it has been issued by an Authority to accomplish the public purposes of this act shall be conclusively deemed in any suit, action or proceeding involving the validity or enforceability of such bond or security therefor to have been issued for such purpose.

1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 14. Amended 1955, May 31, P.L. 107, § 3; 1970, July 17, P.L. 496, No.173, § 2; 1988, March 30, P.L. 304, No.39, § 7, imd. effective.

Interest Rates

Act 1970, July 14, P.L. 485, No.165, § 1, as amended (72 P.S. § 4051), provides that the limits heretofore imposed by this section upon the rates of interest and interest costs permitted to be paid upon bonds, obligations and indebtedness issued by the Commonwealth or its agencies or instrumentalities or authorities, and by local political subdivisions or their agencies or authorities, are hereby removed for such bonds, obligations or indebtedness so issued.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Act 1988-39 Legislation                                                                                                                     The 1988 amendment, in the first paragraph following “interest at such rate”, deleted “, not exceeding six per centum (6%) per annum, except that for a period ending on October 10, 1970 the rate or rates of interest may exceed six percentum (6%) per annum but shall not exceed seven per centum (7%) per annum,” and deleted the final paragraph, which prior thereto read:                     “The interest on bonds issued with an interest rate exceeding six per centum (6%) per annum shall be paid during the term for which the bonds were issued and shall not be limited to the specified period during which the rates in excess of six per centum (6%) per annum could be determined.”

Library References

Municipal Corporations  917(1), 919, 922, 926.                                                             Westlaw Topic No.268.                                                                                                                C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 1658 to 1661, 1689.

§ 1715.            Provisions of Bonds, Trust, Indentures and Mortgages

In connection with the issuance of bonds or the incurring of obligations under leases, and in order to secure the payment of such bonds or obligations, an Authority in addition to its other powers shall have power:

(a) To pledge all or any part of its gross or net revenues to which its right then exists or may thereafter come into existence;

(b) To mortgage all or any part of its real or personal property then owned or thereafter acquired;

(c) To covenant against pledging all or any part of its revenues, or, against mortgaging all or any part of its real or personal property to which its right or title exists or may thereafter come into existence, or against permitting or suffering any lien on such revenues or property to covenant with respect to limitations on its right to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any of its real property, and to covenant as to what other or additional debts or obligations may be incurred by it;

(d) To covenant as to the bonds to be issued and as to the issuance of such bonds, in escrow, or otherwise, and as to the use and disposition of the proceeds thereof, to provide for the replacement of lost, destroyed or mutilated bonds, to covenant against extending the time for the payment of its bonds or interest thereon, and to redeem the bonds, and to covenant for their redemption, and to provide the terms and conditions thereof;

(e) To covenant, subject to the limitations contained in this act, as to the amount of revenues to be raised each year, or other period of time, as well as to the use and disposition to be made thereof, to create or to authorize the creation of special funds for debt, service or other purposes, and to covenant as to the use and disposition of the moneys held in such funds;

(f) To prescribe the procedure, if any, by which the terms of any contract with bondholders may be amended or abrogated, the amount of bonds, the holders of which must consent thereto, and the manner in which such consent may be given;

(g) To covenant as to the use of any or all of its real or personal property, to warrant its title, and to covenant as to the maintenance of its real and personal property, the replacement thereof, the insurance to be carried thereon, and the use and disposition of insurance moneys;

(h) To covenant as to the rights, liabilities, powers and duties arising upon the breach by it of any covenant, condition or obligation, and to covenant and prescribe, in the event ¹ of default, as to ² terms and conditions upon which any or all of its bonds or obligations shall become or may be declared due before maturity, and as to the terms and conditions upon which such declaration and its consequences may be waived;

(i) To vest in a trustee, or the holders of bonds, or any proportion of them, the right to enforce the payment of the bonds or any covenants securing or relating to the bonds, to vest in a trustee the right, in the event of a default by the Authority, to take possession and use, operate and manage any real property and to collect the rents and revenues arising therefrom and to dispose of such moneys in accordance with the agreement of the Authority with said trustee, to provide for the powers and duties of a trustee and to limit liabilities thereof, and, to provide the terms and conditions upon which the trustee or the holders of bonds or any proportion of them may enforce any covenant or rights securing or relating to the bonds;

(j) To exercise all or any part or combination of the powers herein granted, to make covenants other than and in addition to the covenants herein expressly authorized, to make such covenants and to do any and all such acts and things as may be necessary or convenient or desirable in order to secure its bonds, or in the absolute discretion of the Authority, as will tend to accomplish the purposes of this act, by making the bonds more marketable notwithstanding that such covenants, acts or things may not be enumerated herein.

1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 15.

¹ Enrolled bill reads “as to events”.

² Enrolled bill reads "and".

Library References

Municipal Corporations  906, 923.                                                                         Westlaw Topic No.268.                                                                                                               C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 1645 to 1646, 1684 to 1685, 1697 to 1698, 1702.

§  1716.           Remedies of an Obligee of Authority

An obligee of an Authority shall have the right, in addition to all other rights which may be conferred on such obligee, subject only to any contractual ¹ restrictions binding upon such obligee:

(a) By mandamus, suit, action or proceeding at law or in equity to compel the Authority and the members, officers, agents or employees thereof to perform each and every term, provision and covenant contained in any contract of the Authority with or for the benefit of such obligee, and to require the carrying out of any or all such covenants and agreements of the Authority, and the fulfillment of all duties imposed upon the Authority by this act;

(b) By proceeding in equity to obtain an injunction against any acts or things which may be unlawful, or the violation of any of the rights of such obligee of the Authority.                  1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 16.

¹ Enrolled bill reads “contractural”.

Library References

Municipal Corporations  937, 939.                                                                         Westlaw Topic No. 268.                                                                                                               C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 1707, 1711.

 

 

§ 1717.            Additional Remedies Conferrable by Authority

An Authority shall have power by its resolution, trust, indenture, mortgage, lease or other contract to confer upon any obligees holding or representing a specified percentage in bonds, or holding a lease, the right, in addition to all rights that may otherwise be conferred, upon the happening of an event of default as defined in such resolution or instrument, by suit, action or proceeding in any court, of competent jurisdiction.—

(a) To obtain the appointment of a receiver of any real property of the Authority and of the rents and profits therefrom. If such receiver be appointed, he may enter and take possession of such real property, operate the same and collect and receive all revenues or other income thereafter arising therefrom, and shall keep such moneys in a separate account and apply the same in accordance with the obligations of the Authority as the court shall direct;

(b) To require the Authority, and the members thereof, to account as if it and they were the trustees of an express trust.                                                                                             1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 17.

Library References

Municipal Corporations  937, 939.                                                                                  Westlaw Topic No.268.                                                                                                                  CJ.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 1707, 1711.

 

§  1718.           Aid from Government

            In addition to the powers conferred upon an Authority by other provisions of this act, an Authority is empowered to borrow money or accept grants or other financial assistance from the Government, for or in aid of any of its operations.  It is the purpose and intent of this act to authorize every Authority to do any and all things necessary or desirable to secure the financial aid or cooperation of the Government in any of its operations.                                            1945, May 24, P.L. 991 § 18.  Amended 1968, June 26, P.L. 263, No. 125, § 12.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Act 1968-125 Legislation

The 1968 amendment deleted “Federal” before “Government” in two places.

Library References

Municipal Corporations  858.                                                                                             United States  82 (3.2).                                                                                                   Westlaw Topic Nos. 268, 393.                                                                                         C.J.S. United States § 155.

 

Notes of Decisions

In General  1

 

 

1.  In General

            Redevelopment authorities are eligible for 100% federal funding of relocation assistance under provisions of federal uniform relocation assistance and real property acquisition policies act of 1970, 42 U.S.C.A. § 4601 et seq. 1971 Op.Atty. Gen. No. 72.

 

 

§  1719.           Records and Reports

(a) The books and records of an Authority shall at all times be open and subject to inspection by the Department of Community Affairs;

(b) An Authority may file with the Department of Community Affairs such information and reports as it may from time to time deem desirable, and shall file with them;

(1)   A copy of all by-laws and rules and regulations and amendments thereto, adopted by it, from time to time.

(2)   Copies of all redevelopment proposals and redevelopment contracts, as well as of any changes, which may be made therein.

(3)   At least once each year a report of its activities for the preceding year, and such other reports as said department may require.  Copies of such reports shall be filed with the mayor and governing body of the city or with the county board of commissioners, as the case may be.

1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 19.  Amended 1949, May 20, P.L. 1621, § 1; 1968, June 26, P.L. 263, No. 125, § 13.

 

Historical and Statutory Notes

Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966

            Under Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966, certain functions of the state Planning Board, transferred to the Department of Commerce by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1955, including those created by this section, are transferred from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Community Affairs and shall be administered by the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs.  See 71 P.S. § 751-10(1)(b).

 

Act 1968-125 Legislation

            The 1968 amendment in two places substituted “Department of Community Affairs” for “State Planning Board” and substituted “department” for “board” in clause (3).

            Section 14 of the act of 1968 provided: “Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1955, adopted by the House of Representatives June 7, 1955 and by the Senate on May 23, 1955 [71 P.S. § 751-1], is suspended in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of this act.”

 

 

 

 

Library References

Municipal Corporations  100.

Westlaw Topic No. 268.

C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 244 to 245, 281. 

 

 

§  1719.1.        Notice to Displaced Persons

(a) A redevelopment authority in a city, of the first class intending to alter or demolish property in furtherance of authority projects or programs shall give timely notice to all occupants required by such alteration or demolition to vacate the property.

(b) Notice shall be given at the earliest practicable time prior to the dislocation of person affected, but no later than 30 days prior to the commencement of the alteration or demolition of the property.

(c) The form of notice shall include, but not be limited to, posters or other graphic materials of sufficient size and design as will reasonably draw attention and which will reasonably inform, the occupants of the property of the impending alteration or demolition and the date by which the occupants must vacate the property. Posters or other graphic materials shall be posted on and about the property in sufficient numbers as to reasonably draw the attention of all occupants of the property.

(b)   This section shall not be construed to relieve any authority of any duty to occupants of property as provided by law or regulation, including, but not limited to, the relocation assistance provisions of the act of June 22, 1964 (Sp.Sess., P.L. 84, No.6), known as the “Eminent Domain Code,” ¹ and regulations promulgated thereunder.                                     1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 19.1, added 1978, Apri118, P.L. 39, No. 21, § 1, imd. effective.

¹ 26 P.S. § 1 – 101 et seq.

Library References

Municipal Corporations  267.                                                                                             Westlaw Topic No.268.                                                                                                                C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 957.

§  1719.2.        Statute of Limitations

Notwithstanding the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5526(4) (relating to five year limitation) or any other provision of law to the contrary, a proceeding to challenge just compensation or other damages if a redevelopment authority has exercised powers of condemnation pursuant to this act and made payment in accordance with section 407(a) or (b) of the act of June 22, 1964 (Sp.Sess., P.L. 84, No. 6), ¹ known as the “Eminent Domain Code,” is subject to a one-year statute of limitations.                                                                                                                        1945, May 24, P.L. 991, § 19.2, added 2002, Oct. 2, P.L. 796, No.113, § 3, effective in 60 days.

¹26 P.S. § 1-407.

 

REDEVELOPMENT COOPERATION LAW

§  1741.           Short Title

            This act shall be known and may be referred to as the “Redevelopment Cooperation Law.”

1945, May 24, P.L. 982, § 1.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Title of Act:

An Act to authorize the Commonwealth or State public bodies, as defined, to aid redevelopment authorities in the elimination of blighted areas and their redevelopment by dedicating, selling, conveying or leasing any of its property, by entering into contracts to furnish and by furnishing to said authorities and to any Federal governmental agency, parks, playgrounds, streets and other improvements and facilities; and by donating or lending money and making appropriations therefore; by accepting payments and exercising certain other powers and duties.

1945, May 24, P.L. 982, § 1. As amended 1951, May 24, P.L. 359.

 

§ 1742.            Finding and Declaration of Necessity

It has been found and declared in the Urban Redevelopment Law ¹ that there exist in urban communities in this Commonwealth, areas which have become blighted; that such conditions are beyond remedy or control by regulatory processes and that the public interest requires the remedying of these conditions. It is hereby found and declared that the assistance herein provided for the remedying of the conditions set forth in the Urban Redevelopment Law constitutes a public use and purpose, and an essential governmental function for which public moneys may be spent, and that the provisions hereinafter enacted are necessary in the public interest.

1945, May 24, P.L. 982, § 2.

 

¹35 P.S. § 1701et seq.

 

Library References

Counties  22

Municipal Corporations  265, 267, 860.

States  83, 114.

Westlaw Topic Nos. 104, 268, 360.

C.J.S. Counties §§ 41 to 42.

C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 957 to 958, 1573 to 1574, 1576, 1578 to 1579, 1581.

C.J.S. States §§ 148, 203, 205.

 

§  1743.           Definitions

The following terms, whenever used or referred to in this act, shall have the following respective meanings unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context:

(a) “Federal Government” shall mean the United States of America or any agency or instrumentality, corporate or otherwise, thereof.

(b) “Redevelopment Authority” or “Authority” shall mean any redevelopment authority created pursuant to the Urban Redevelopment Law ¹ of this Commonwealth.

(c) “Redevelopment” shall mean any work or undertaking of a redevelopment authority pursuant to the Urban Redevelopment Law.

(d) “State Public Body” shall mean any city, borough, town, township, county, municipal corporation, school district and any other political subdivision, board, commission, housing authority or public body of this Commonwealth.

(e) “Governing Body” shall mean, in the case of a city, the city councilor other legislative body thereof and in the case of a county, shall mean the board of county commissioners or other legislative body thereof.

1945, May 24, P.L. 982, § 3. Amended 1959, Dec. 1, P.L. 1639, § 1; 1968, Jan. 19, P.L. (1967) 987, No.439, § 1.

¹ 35 P.S.§ 1701et seq.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Act 1967(68)-439 Legislation

The 1968 amendment added the definition of “governing body”.

 

 

§  1744.           Cooperation in Redevelopment

For the purpose of aiding and cooperating in the operation of an authority, and in the planning, acquisition, clearance, replanning, relocation and redevelopment activities of an authority, the Commonwealth or any State public body may, upon such terms, with or without consideration as it may determine —

(a)  Dedicate, sell, conveyor lease any of its property to a redevelopment authority;

(b) Cause parks, playgrounds, recreational or community facilities, or any other works, which it is otherwise empowered to undertake, to be furnished in or adjacent to any area selected for redevelopment;

(c) Furnish, dedicate, close, pave, install, grade, regrade, plan or replan streets, roads, roadways, alleys, sidewalks or other places which it is otherwise empowered to undertake;

(d) Enter into agreements, extending over any period, with a redevelopment authority or with the Federal Government respecting action to be taken by the Commonwealth or such State public body pursuant to any of the powers granted by this act; and

(e) Do any and all things necessary or convenient to aid and cooperate in the redevelopment undertaken by a redevelopment authority;

(f) In connection with any public improvements made by the Commonwealth or a State public body in exercising the powers herein granted, the Commonwealth or such State public body, may incur the entire expense thereof.

(g) The Secretary of Property and Supplies is authorized with the approval of the Governor and the Attorney General, to execute and deliver on behalf of the Commonwealth, conveyances, deeds and leases authorized under the provisions of subsection (a) of this section.

1945, May 24, P.L. 982, § 4. Amended 1949, May 20, P.L. 1628, § 1; 1951, May 24, P.L. 359, No.78, § 2; 1959, Dec. 1, P.L. 1639, No. 604, § 2.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Act 1951-78 Legislation

Section 3 of the act of 1951 provided:

“Every dedication, sale, conveyance and lease of any of its property heretofore made by the Commonwealth or any State to any redevelopment authority for any purpose authorized by this act and the titles transferred thereby, if valid in other respects, is hereby made valid notwithstanding any defect in the title of the act amended hereby.”

 

Act 1959-604 Legislation

The 1959 amendment in the first paragraph inserted “relocation”.

 

Act 1975-45 Legislation

 Section 21 of Act 1975, July 22, P.L. 75, No. 45, creating the Department of General Services, provides as follows:

“(a) Whenever in any law, reference is made to the Department of Property and Supplies, such reference shall be deemed to refer to and include the Department of General Services.

“(b) Whenever in any law, reference is made to the Secretary of Property and Supplies, such reference shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary of General services.”

Library References

Counties  22

Municipal Corporations  265, 267.

States  83.

Westlaw Topic Nos. 104, 268, 360.

C.J.S. Counties §§ 41 to 42.

C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 957 to 958.

C.J.S. States § 148.

 

 

Notes of Decisions

In General  1

 

 

1. In general

Court did not abuse its discretion in approving the tax sale of 210 vacant lots, which had been acquired by three taxing bodies, to the redevelopment authority for $1 on petition of city, acting as trustee for all the taxing bodies, rather than sale of such lots to private individual who had offered  $53,000.  Grimm v. City of Pittsburgh, 279 A.2d 379, 2 Pa.Cmwlth. 600, Cmwlth.1971.

Questions concerning original determination of city planning commission that area was blighted and thus proper for redevelopment, a determination which was not challenged in the other proceedings under redevelopment law, were not relevant in proceeding challenging court approval of sale of tax delinquent vacant lots by city to redevelopment authority.  Grimm v. City of Pittsburgh, 279 A.2d 379, 2 Pa.Cmwlth. 600, Cmwlth. 1971.

City as state public body was entitled to give property it had condemned to redevelopment authority for redevelopment purposes.  Starkey v. City of Philadelphia, 156 A.2d 101, 397 Pa. 512, Sup. 1959.

 

§  1745.           Contracts for Payments to City, Borough, Town, Township or County

In connection with any redevelopment located, wholly or partly, within the area in which it is authorized to act, any city, borough, town, township or county may contract with a redevelopment authority or the Federal Government with respect to any sums which the redevelopment authority or the Federal Government may agree to pay during any year or period of years to such city, borough, town, township or county for the improvements, services and facilities to be provided by it for the benefit of said redevelopment or the persons occupying such area: Provided, however, That the absence of a contract for such payments shall in no way relieve cities, boroughs, towns, townships and counties from the duty to furnish for the benefit of said redevelopment and the persons occupying said area, customary improvements and such services and facilities as cities, boroughs, towns, townships and counties respectively usually furnish without a service fee.

1945, May 24, P.L. 982, § 5.

Library References

Counties  111(1).

Municipal Corporations  286, 328.

Westlaw Topic Nos. 104, 268.

C.J.S. Counties § 150.

C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 969, 1027 to 1029.

 

§ 1746.            Advances to Redevelopment Authority

When any redevelopment authority, which is created to operate within any city or county, becomes authorized to transact business and exercise its powers, the city council or the county commissioners, as the case may be, may make such appropriations to an authority out of any moneys in such city or county treasury not appropriated to some other purposes as is deemed necessary to assist an authority in carrying out its public purposes. Any State public body located in whole or in part within the field of operation of a redevelopment authority sha1l have the power from time to time to lend or donate money to the authority.  Said State public body may issue general obligation bonds for the purpose of obtaining funds for local contributions required by any Federal law pertaining to redevelopment.

1945, May 24, P.L. 982, § 6. Amended 1949, May 20, P.L. 1628, No.490, § 1.

Historical and Statutory Notes

Act 1949-490 Legislation

The 1949 amendment authorized the issuance of general obligation bonds.

Library References

Counties  162.                                                                                                                Municipal Corporations  889.1.                                                                                     Westlaw Topic Nos. 104, 268.                                                                                         C.J.S. Counties §§ 199 to 201.                                                                                                C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 1628, 1630.

§ 1746.1.         Designation of Redevelopment Authorities as Agents; Purpose

The Commonwealth, any State public body or private entity by written agreement approved by the governing body of the city or county, as the case may be, may designate a redevelopment authority as its agent within the authority’s field of operation to perform any specified activity or to administer any specified program which the Commonwealth, such State public body or private entity is authorized by law to do: Provided, however, That any such activities or programs shall be in furtherance of the public purposes specified in the Urban Redevelopment Law of this Commonwealth. Such activities may include, without being limited to, redevelopment, renewal, rehabilitation, housing; conservation, urban beautification or comprehensive programs for the development of entire sections or neighborhoods. It is the purpose and intent of this section of the act to authorize the Commonwealth, any State public body or authority to do any and all things necessary or desirable to secure the financial aid or cooperation of the Federal government in any of their operations.

1945, May 24, P.L. 982, § 6.1, added 1968, Jan. 19, P.L. (1967) 987, § 2.

Library References

Municipal Corporations  265,278(5).                                                                                 Westlaw Topic No.268.                                                                                                                 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 958, 962.

Notes of Decisions

In General  1

 

 

1. In General

Municipalities may authorize redevelopment authorities to act as their agents in implementing programs of rehabilitation of low to middle income housing.  1975 Op.Atty.Gen.No. 75-23.

§  1747.           Supplemental Nature of Act

The powers conferred by this act shall be in addition and supplemental to the powers conferred by any other law.

1945, May 24, P.L. 982, § 7.