Court Opinion

ID: 9706925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:55:26.497004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:26.006006
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Eagen :
I join in the cogent and unanswerable dissent of Mr. Justice Musmanno. However, I would further hold that at least in the case involving the Rittenhouse Square Project, the plaintiffs lack standing to prosecute the action.
A taxpayer’s suit lies only to prevent a wrongful expenditure of public funds or a wasting of public assets: *365Gericke v. Philadelphia, 358 Pa. 60, 44 A. 2d 233 (1945). The Majority opinion reasons that public assets are affected, because after fifty years or more ownership of the Rittenhouse Square Project property may revert to the City of Philadelphia. No previous decision of this Court has entertained such a broad view of taxpayers’ suits. In every such case, within my knowledge, where this type of action has been sustained, the property involved was public at the time the action was instituted. Expectancy of public control was not enough.
Moreover, there is no question of Philadelphia tax funds here involved. In White v. Philadelphia, 408 Pa. 397, 184 A. 2d 266 (1962), we recently held that a taxpayer of Philadelphia had no standing to attack a city ordinance that provided for the acquisition of property, which was to be paid for solely by funds of the federal government. We said no direct injury to the taxpayer was involved. Also, that case concerned a public housing project, ownership of which, under the pertinent law, would eventually revert to the municipality. Nonetheless, we ruled the plaintiff lacked standing. The decision of the Majority is clearly inconsistent with White, supra, and in my opinion overrules it.
I, too, strongly dissent.