Court rules proximity to sports center not an inverse taking.Construction of a convention center near a property owner's residential property and construction of a boulevard on land adjacent to the owner's property did not constitute a de facto [Latin, In fact.] In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs that must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. or actual taking of the owner's property according to according to prep. 1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians. 2. In keeping with: according to instructions. 3. the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, is one of two state intermediate-level appellate courts, located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania is the other appellate court in the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System. . Pepper Genter owns a single-family residence in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania, where she has resided for over 22 years. Twenty-two years ago the area was a low-density residential area surrounded by woods and wetlands. The Blair County Convention & Sports Facilities Authority (Authority) constructed a convention center close to the Genter property. To accommodate the facility, its parking lots, and the access roads, the Authority acquired land next to an existing commercial development, but the Genter property was not acquired by condemnation. Genter filed a petition for inverse condemnation inverse condemnation n. the taking of property by a government agency which so greatly damages the use of a parcel of real property that it is the equivalent of condemnation of the entire property. alleging that there was a de facto taking of her property as a result of construction of the center and a boulevard. The Authority filed an objection to the petition but was overruled by the trial court. The Authority appealed. On appeal, the Authority argued that there had been no inverse condemnation of Genter's property. The appellate court said that merely having a house that is somewhat less desirable to live in does not constitute the type of exceptional circumstance needed to prove a de facto taking of an entire residential property. Here, the court said, it was indisputable that the highest and best use of Genter's property was as a residence. "There was no evidence that Genter has lost the use of the property as a residence," the court said. Thus, the court concluded that the Authority could not be held liable for a condemnation of Genter's property. Genter v. Authority Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania August 14, 2002 (AJ/03/Jy.-$10) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion