Steve --
Thanks for your reply & this information. It is good to know that PBA
staffers monitor our listservs for our concerns, and then take the
initiative to investigate further and report back to us.
I heard on the radio news today that the House version mirrors the
Senate version, and that the Governor is predisposed to sign both bills
adopted.
-- Neil H.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven B. Loux [mailto:Steven.Loux_at_pabar.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:18 PM
To: Kogan, Arnold B.; James E Davis; Hendershot, Neil E.;
realproperty_at_list.pabar.org
Cc: mroneill_at_pfb.com
Subject: RE: [realproperty] Re: Eminent Domain Legislation Sent
to Gov.
I just spoke with Sen. Piccola's Office regarding SB 881 and HB
2054. Fred Cabell explained that both bills will make up the Eminent
Domain Code upon their passage. Section 207 was deleted from SB 881 but
is included in HB 2054. SB 881 is substantive in nature, HB 2054
procedural except for the inclusion of section 207. Hope this helps.
Steven B. Loux, Esq.
PBA Legislative Counsel
717-238-6715 x2246
________________________________
From: realproperty-bounce_at_list.pabar.org
[mailto:realproperty-bounce_at_list.pabar.org] On Behalf Of Kogan, Arnold
B.
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:55 PM
To: Kogan, Arnold B.; James E Davis; Hendershot, Neil E.;
realproperty_at_list.pabar.org
Cc: mroneill_at_pfb.com
Subject: [realproperty] Re: Eminent Domain Legislation Sent to
Gov.
I noted the companion House Bill 2054, Printer's No. 3848,
passed by the House and Senate, and also before the Governor for
signature does contain the language of section 207 without being
stricken out. Assuming both bills are signed by the Governor, section
207 would become law. This is consistent with the news release of the
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau at
http://www.pfb.com/media-center/news-releases/april-26-em-domain.htm
which states:
The bills will impose additional requirements for review and
approval of proposed condemnations of farms to ensure governments do not
go beyond the bill's limitation of eminent domain powers.
Arnie
Arnold B. Kogan
Goldberg Katzman, PC
320E Market Street, 3rd Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101-2225
Phone: (717) 234-4161, Ext. 3159
FAX: (717) 234-6808
Email: abk_at_goldbergkatzman.com
This message is confidential, intended only for the named
recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney
work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that the dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please
notify the sender by telephone at (717) 234-4161, Ext. 3159 or by email
at abk_at_goldbergkatzman.com <mailto:abk_at_goldbergkatzman.com> , and
immediately delete this email from your computer. Receipt by anyone
other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any
attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege. Thank
you.
-----Original Message-----
From: realproperty-bounce_at_list.pabar.org
[mailto:realproperty-bounce_at_list.pabar.org] On Behalf Of Kogan, Arnold
B.
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:24 PM
To: James E Davis; Hendershot, Neil E.;
realproperty_at_list.pabar.org
Subject: [realproperty] Re: Eminent Domain Legislation
Sent to Gov.
I noted section 207of Senate Bill 881, Session of 2005,
was added by Printer's No. 1402, remained in Printer's No. 1414, but
then was struck in the final version, Printer's No. 1738, but all the
definitions relating to "agricultural" or its derivatives were retained
in section 202 of the bill. I wonder if this deletion was intentional.
Maybe someone on the Senate Judiciary Committee on otherwise connected
with the drafting of this bill can enlighten us.
Arnie
Arnold B. Kogan
Goldberg Katzman, PC
320E Market Street, 3rd Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101-2225
Phone: (717) 234-4161, Ext. 3159
FAX: (717) 234-6808
Email: abk_at_goldbergkatzman.com
This message is confidential, intended only for the
named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged,
attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that the
dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named
recipient(s), please notify the sender by telephone at (717) 234-4161,
Ext. 3159 or by email at abk_at_goldbergkatzman.com
<mailto:abk_at_goldbergkatzman.com> , and immediately delete this email
from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s)
is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other
applicable privilege. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: realproperty-bounce_at_list.pabar.org
[mailto:realproperty-bounce_at_list.pabar.org] On Behalf Of James E Davis
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:48 PM
To: Hendershot, Neil E.;
realproperty_at_list.pabar.org
Subject: [realproperty] Re: Eminent Domain
Legislation Sent to Gov.
Neil: I just looked briefly at the legislation
that you posted which is pending the Governor's approval on the changes
to the eminent domain law. I noticed that section 207, dealing with
Agricultural lands has been lined out. Does this mean that a condemnor
would no longer need the approval of the agricultural lands condemnation
board, even though the property has been designated as part of an
Agricultural area by the local township? This is an important matter in
rural areas, because I have been told by other authority and municipal
solictors that the Board almost never approves these condemnations. The
Agricultural area securtiy law also has the same provision. Will this
also be amended or deleted? Thanks for the heads up. Jim Davis,
Tunkhannock
----- Original Message -----
From: Hendershot, Neil E.
<mailto:neh_at_goldbergkatzman.com>
To: realproperty_at_list.pabar.org
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 11:45 AM
Subject: [realproperty] Eminent Domain
Legislation Sent to Gov.
Senate Bill 881, Printer's No.1738
<http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BT/2005/0/SB0881P1738.HTM> ,
was presented to the Governor on April 26, 2006, for signature. The
proposed Act would amend Title 26 (Eminent Domain) of the Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes, providing for limitations on the use of eminent
domain; and making a related repeal.
The final bill can be found online at:
http://www2.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BT/2005/0/SB0881P1738.pdf
Its legislative history can be found
online at: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BH/2005/0/SB0881.HTM
For an article about the new Eminent
Domain legislation,entitled "Limits for Pa.'s eminent domain -- The
Senate approved stricter guidelines for taking property", see:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/14428103.htm
<http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/14428103.htm> The article is
copied below. According to the article, it is not clear whether or not
Gov. Rendell will sign the legislation into law. However, the
Pennsylvania Realtors Association appears to support the legislation,
according to its policy statement found online at:
http://www.parealtor.org/content/SenateApprovesPiccolaEminentDomainLegis
lation.asp
________________________________
Sent by: Neil E. Hendershot, Esq.
Goldberg Katzman, P.C., 320 Market
Street, Strawberry Square, P.O. Box 1268, Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
Ofc: 717-234-4161; Fax: 717-234-6808;
Email: neh_at_goldbergkatzman.com <mailto:neh_at_goldbergkatzman.com> ;
Website: www.goldbergkatzman.com
________________________________
Limits for Pa.'s eminent domain -- The
Senate approved stricter guidelines for taking property
By Diane Mastrull and Amy Worden
Inquirer Staff Writers
In an effort to better shield home and
business owners from government land grabs, the Pennsylvania Senate gave
final legislative approval yesterday to new restrictions on the use of
eminent domain for private economic development.
As part of a compromise to get the bill
through, the measure would not apply to some property already under the
threat of condemnation. These exemptions are intended to protect
revitalization work in Philadelphia, Norristown and Chester.
Still, some of the harshest critics of
Pennsylvania's eminent domain laws praised the unanimously passed Senate
bill because it would replace subjective criteria for condemnation with
more quantitative measures.
A spokesman said Gov. Rendell wanted to
see how well the legislation - which includes a separate bill dealing
with reimbursements to owners of seized property - "balances the rights
of property owners with the development needs of communities" before
deciding whether to sign them.
Elizabeth G. Hersh, executive director
of the Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania, in Glenside, said the bill
represented "a lot of effort put into building consensus" as competing
measures bounced back and forth in the General Assembly.
Pennsylvania becomes the 18th state to
have passed legislation to curtail - if not prohibit - the use of
eminent domain since June, according to the National Conference of State
Legislatures.
That was when the U.S. Supreme Court,
with its ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, triggered nationwide
concern that any property was vulnerable to condemnation. The justices
found that the Connecticut city could force the sale of houses and
businesses in a neighborhood to make way for private economic
development even without the "blight" designation that usually is
required.
By the end of the year, legislative
efforts had been launched in Congress and more than 30 states to try to
prevent the kind of property seizures the high court had endorsed. Among
those are pending bills to limit eminent domain in New Jersey.
In Pennsylvania, the focal point of
months of debate has been how to define blight and how much of it needs
to exist before an area can be designated a redevelopment zone and
subject to eminent domain. The blight definitions have been often
criticized as too vague and subjective. One of the region's most
publicized debates over this issue flared in Ardmore over a failed
attempt to use "blight" to justify a controversial revitalization
project there.
Under the new bill, specific conditions
such as a threat to health and safety, abandonment and tax delinquency
would constitute blight.
"Before this bill, Pennsylvania law
allowed condemnation of virtually any area by labeling it blighted,"
said Sen. Jeffrey Piccola (R., Dauphin), who wrote the bill. "Now we've
tightened the definition of blight so that it applies to areas with
real, objective concrete harms to the public. It can no longer be used
to take ordinary neighborhoods for private development or to take
neighborhoods just because the people who live there have less money."
Though she remains concerned that those
who have the most difficulty finding housing - people of low income -
are often "victimized" by eminent domain and the uprooting it forces,
Hersh said the legislature's efforts this week to "tighten up" the
definition of blight are "a step forward."
Meanwhile, Joel Johnson, assistant
executive director of the Redevelopment Authority of Montgomery County,
was relieved yesterday that Pennsylvania lawmakers had responded to the
lobbying efforts of his agency and others to grant exemptions for older
communities, such as Norristown, where revitalization is sputtering to
life and eminent domain has been used to acquire property for a downtown
parking garage.
Under the new legislation, the blight
designation in effect in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Norristown and other
places might not meet the new legislative definition, but it would be
permitted through 2012.
At 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania, a
Philadelphia coalition of anti-sprawl advocates who consider eminent
domain a valuable redevelopment tool, president Janet Milkman was not
ecstatic but was far more content than she's been.
"It was a valiant effort to take a very
powerful tool of government and make it more fair," Milkman said.
In December, she denounced an earlier
version of the Senate bill as "detrimental to the state as a whole and
particularly to our older communities."
________________________________
Contact staff writer Diane Mastrull at
610-313-8095 or dmastrull_at_phillynews.com.
Received on Wed May 03 2006 - 13:32:13 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Dec 06 2006 - 10:51:05 PST