planning commission’s certification of blight did not constitute an adjudication under the Local Agency Law because it was “a preliminary or advisory matter” that “does not, in and of itself, have a legal effect on property rights” where further action of other government agencies was necessary before property rights were affected
How later courts described this case
- planning commission’s certification of blight did not constitute an adjudication under the Local Agency Law because it was “a preliminary or advisory matter” that “does not, in and of itself, have a legal effect on property rights” where further action of other government agencies was necessary before property rights were affected
- providing that decision of planning “commission to designate an area for redevelopment .... is an internal decision made by a government body presumed to perform its duties in good faith and according to law”
- noting that a city planning commission, like a government agency, is “presumed to perform its duties in good faith and according to law.”
- “Before deciding to approve or reject the proposal, the governing body is required to hold public hearings on the redevelopment proposal and give notice of such hearings by newspaper publication, 35 P.S. §1710(g).”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLAHERTY, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority sanctions the wielding of unchecked governmental power over the rights of property owners for a purpose not traditionally governmental, i.e. taking from one to give to another. At the least minimal due process would require the opportunity for one whose property is to be placed in jeopardy to be heard on the issue of blight which will conclusively determine whether a prospective taking is for a governmental purpose sufficient to invoke the power of eminent domain. I sense the majority is adopting an “end justifies the means” approach and I view it as a dangerous precedent. I dissent.
PAPADAKOS, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.