Court rules proximity to sports center not an inverse taking.
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 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
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||cases in brief|
|Article Type:||Brief Article|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2003|
|Previous Article:||Court denies damages for proximity to runway.|
|Next Article:||Exclusion of fees in compensation affirmed by court.|