Court Opinion

ID: 9735443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:15:34.361289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:58.687024
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge SMITH-RIBNER.
I dissent from the majority’s decision to sustain Respondents’ preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to Count 1 of Petitioners’ petition for review in the nature of a complaint for declaratory judgment. While I recognize that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has spoken on the issue of the legality of requiring taxpayers to defray the cost of building sports stadiums, that court’s decisions do not of necessity preclude declaratory judgment relief on the issue raised in Count 1. That issue involves the claim of unlawful delegation to the Mayor and/or the City Solicitor to unilaterally increase the - financial obligations of the City of Philadelphia in connection with the construction and maintenance of the new sports facilities without appropriation and authorization by City Council.
In ruling on preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, this Court must accept as true all well pled facts and reasonable inferences from those facts, and it must determine whether the facts as pled are legally sufficient to permit the action to proceed. Allegheny Sportsmen’s League v. Ridge, 790 A.2d 350 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002). It must appear with certainty that the law will permit no recovery, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of refusing to sustain the preliminary objections. The facts presented in this case if accepted as true raise a question of whether the Ordinances and/or lease provisions unlawfully delegate appropriation power reserved by the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter solely to City Council. Nothing precludes this Court from following well-settled law and considering Respondents’ demurrer to Count 1 in accordance with the standards clearly articulated by the courts. Furthermore, the notion that Councilman Cohen is barred from challenging the illegal delega*923tion of appropriation power because he lost the vote before City Council is a notion that is supported neither by case law nor by logic.
Judge FRIEDMAN joins in this dissenting opinion.