Court Opinion

ID: 9638476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:44:37.018253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:06.675664
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell,
January 10, 1969:
In the last few years, tax-exempt Public Authorities (as well as commissions and similar bodies of all kinds and characters) have multiplied like the sands of the sea. Most of them had worthy objectives; some of them were beneficial and really needed; many of them were unrealistic and unwise. Many of them were created unnecessarily and unwisely and solely, for. political or financial or patronage reasons, or to demon-' strate to the voters how “liberal” the creators or ad-' vocates were. Often they were merely a tax dodge which exempted the companies directly benefited, but concealed the fact that they would increase the taxes *64on all other taxpayers. Legislators and lawyers, the highest political leaders, as well as well-meaning visionaries, must abandon the popularly held notion that a worthy objective legalises and Constitutionalizes anything and everything,* whenever the Act or action is cloaked in the spurious guise of public welfare.
An increase in employment in Pennsylvania, which is the recited reason for this Industrial Development Act, and the opportunity for certain corporations doing business in Pennsylvania to meet the competition from other States are worthy objectives which every Pennsylvanian favors.
The Courts have the power, in considering a specific subject or project, to prevent an abuse or an excess of an Authority’s power as well as its boundaries, its limitations and its discretion, and a further power to decide whether the means authorized or employed to realize a worthy objective are designed to favor primarily or will result in favoring private interests, or violate any provision of the Constitution. See and compare Price v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, 422 Pa. 317, 221 A. 2d 138.
The present Industrial Development Authority Act is, in my judgment, a borderline case. However, in spite of many serious doubts, I will concur in the result. See Daly v. Hemphill, 411 Pa. 263, 271, 191 A. 2d 835; Dauphin Deposit Trust Co. v. Myers, 388 Pa. *65444, 450, 130 A. 2d 686; Evans v. West Norriton Township Municipal Authority, 370 Pa. 150, 87 A. 2d 474; Tranter v. Allegheny County Authority, 316 Pa. 65, 173 Atl. 289.

 If I were a legislator, I would oppose a large majority of Public Authority Acts, with their alleged noble or worthy or beautiful goals and objectives, but which realistically are often not worth the cost, and often bring hardship and distress to many people, especially in the areas of Redevelopment Authorities. See, for example, Concurring Opinion in St. Peter’s v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 394 Pa. 194, 199, 146 A. 2d 724; Concurring Opinion in Faranda Appeal, 420 Pa. 295, 302, 216 A. 2d 769; and Schwartz v. Urban Redevelopment Authority, 411 Pa. 530, 535, 536, 192 A. 2d 371.