Court Opinion

ID: 9699512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:29:09.146329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:35:55.958913
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell :
I concur in the remand, but deem it desirable to express the reasons for my views.
It is important to recognize at the very outset that the Urban Redevelopment Law* and the enormous powers ostensibly granted therein must be carefully ex*303amined in the light of the Constitution of the United States and of Pennsylvania which ordain and guarantee the right of private property. Article I, §1, of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides: “All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property* and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.” Nevertheless the Authority contends that the Act gives the sovereign power of eminent domain to these few appointed persons to condemn not only every property which they believe is dilapidated, but also every area or region which they believe contains some dilapidated properties. For these reasons as well as several others which will be discussed, the Act and its claimed wide powers must be strictly construed.
One of the most highly prized Constitutional rights of every American citizen is the right to own and possess his own home! It may be large, medium or small, it may be one or two or three stories; it may be a ranch house or a row house, or a hut; or, in the eyes of some, it may be attractive or ugly, but it is yours and if you like it or love it, why should anyone or any political body have a right to take it from you in order to make it or the area in which it is situate more economically prosperous?
Stripped of its attractive tinsel and pretty trappings, this blighted area Act, supra, as frequently interpreted by some non-elected non-sovereign Redevelopment Authorities, is one of the most unjust and unwise Acts ever passed. This Act does not cover or even pertain to the elimination of slums as in the Slum Clearance Act, i.e., Housing Authorities Law of 1937.** The *304Act is so broad that it does not limit' 'the'. Authority’s power to condemn and take, suck-properties : as- are dilapidated, but, we repeat, permits the.taking of a..large area in which only a few properties .’áre dilapidated, Moreover, realistically-speaking,., it has: nothing., to:-.do with-the public safety, or health,-or morals:; Its areal and- practical purpose’ and.intent,, although.-cloaked in the-spurious guise-of public welfare,' is to-make a,nyandevery community it chooses to..denominate “dilapidated” more economically' prosperous'' no matter .what heartbreaks it brings to home-o.wners.or losses to bush nessmen. For example, a husband and wife,-or a widow, may love their home and like their neighborhood,-but now because of the theories of well-meaning: or stargazing planners, they have to move to a. distant.place and start life all over again among- strangers: And what happens to a little neighborhood business’.man Who loses his home and his business and Ms customers? What will recompense a liquor -licensee- (whose business is subject to a quota system)-, when he cannot get.. a license’ in the new location to which,-because-of- the Redevelopment Authority, he is compelled to move?-' And what about churches? Even churches and-other houses of worship are not exempt from. the ceaseless craving of many for material prosperity and for /constantly -expanding political power. ’ Too often,' the planners consider themselves “Solomons,” with unbounded,’ unfet-, tered and limitless discretionary powér ‘.to appropriate and condemn as dilapidated (1) any and every property they believe is dilapidated,- and (2) as-large an area as they believe can be made economically more prosperous, In their desire for. greater economic prosperity, ’ these planners do not hesitate to tear. down and destroy churches in.any area which they -may deem “blighted/’See, for example, St. Peter’s Roman Catholic Parish v. Urban Redevelopment Authority, 394 Pa. 194, 146 A. 2d 724. In that case, the Urban Redevelopment Au*305thority condemned and destroyed, in the name of “economic convenience and progress,” St. Peter’s Church in Pittsburgh, which was considered by many to be the most beautiful Catholic Church in America.
As this Court aptly said in Schwartz v. Urban Redevelopment Authority, 411 Pa. 530, 192 A. 2d 371 (page 536) : “This Court has held that the mushrooming of authorities at all levels of government and the frequent complaints that the agencies arbitrarily or capriciously and unintentionally ignore or violate rights which are ordained or guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions and established law make it imperative that a check rein be kept upon them. Keystone Raceway Corp. v. State Harness Racing Commission, 405 Pa. 1, 173 A. 2d 97 (1961).”
These are some of the reasons why this “blighted area” Act and the powers granted therein must, in the light of the Constitutional guarantee of private property and the American heritage of individual Freedom, be searchingly scrutinized and strictly construed. This, the lower Court failed to do.
I concur in the remand.

 Act of May 24, 1945, P. L. 991, 35 P.S. §1701 et seq.

 Italics throughout, ours.

 Act of May 28, 1937, P. L. 955, 35 P.S. §1541.