Friday, December 08, 2006
Planning Board Not Paying Attention
Is it too much to ask that elected or appointed officials follow the law—or keep up with changes to existing laws? It appears that the Mt. Lebanon Planning Board cannot be bothered with such trivial matters as it recently demonstrated by voting 2 to 1 to approve a basic conditions report to declare eight parcels blighted. The report was prepared by the developer’s consultant. A blight designation is important in that it allows the municipality to offer the developer a subsidy in the form of Tax Increment Financing (TIF).
The problem is that the conditions for blight, originally set forth in the 1945 Urban Redevelopment Law, have been replaced by a 2006 law which limits the use of eminent domain for developments. The consultant’s report approved by the Planning Board used the definitions from the old law—specifically “defective site design, economically undesirable use of land, and faulty lot layout”. Under the 2006 law, these shortcomings are no longer legally acceptable conditions to make a blight determination.
Is this an oversight or an attempt to ramrod this proposal down the taxpayers’ throats? Since the Supreme Court upheld the Kelo vs New London ruling, a highly publicized action which expanded the eminent domain powers of local governments to take property and turn it over to private business, states, including Pennsylvania, have been trying to tighten up laws to protect property owners from overzealous municipalities. Pennsylvania passed Senate Bill 881 in April 2006, which limits the use of eminent domain for commercial development and tightens the definitions for blight. Surely officials in Mt. Lebanon, as well as the project’s developer, knew about the changes to state law. Did they think no one would notice?
If the Commissioners approve the TIF and confirm the blight designation, lawsuits will almost surely follow.
The problem is that the conditions for blight, originally set forth in the 1945 Urban Redevelopment Law, have been replaced by a 2006 law which limits the use of eminent domain for developments. The consultant’s report approved by the Planning Board used the definitions from the old law—specifically “defective site design, economically undesirable use of land, and faulty lot layout”. Under the 2006 law, these shortcomings are no longer legally acceptable conditions to make a blight determination.
Is this an oversight or an attempt to ramrod this proposal down the taxpayers’ throats? Since the Supreme Court upheld the Kelo vs New London ruling, a highly publicized action which expanded the eminent domain powers of local governments to take property and turn it over to private business, states, including Pennsylvania, have been trying to tighten up laws to protect property owners from overzealous municipalities. Pennsylvania passed Senate Bill 881 in April 2006, which limits the use of eminent domain for commercial development and tightens the definitions for blight. Surely officials in Mt. Lebanon, as well as the project’s developer, knew about the changes to state law. Did they think no one would notice?
If the Commissioners approve the TIF and confirm the blight designation, lawsuits will almost surely follow.
