BLTS-9e Case Problem with Sample Answer
Chapter 36: Real Property and Landlord-Tenant
Law
36.4 Case Problem with Sample Answer
The Hope Partnership for Education, a religious organization, proposed to build a
private independent middle school in a blighted neighborhood in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. In 2002, the Hope Partnership asked the Redevelopment Authority
of the City of Philadelphia to acquire specific land for the project and sell it to the
Hope Partnership for a nominal price. The land
included a house at 1839 North Eighth Street owned by Mary Smith, whose
daughter Veronica lived there with her family. The Authority offered Smith
$12,000 for the house and initiated a taking of the property. Smith filed a suit in a
Pennsylvania state court against the Authority, admitting that the house was a
“substandard structure in a blighted area,” but arguing that the taking was
unconstitutional because its beneficiary was private. The Authority asserted that
only the public purpose of the taking should be considered, not the status of the
property’s developer. On what basis can a government entity use the power of
eminent domain to take property? What are the limits to this power? How should
the court rule? Why? [In re Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 588
Pa. 789, 906 A.2d 1197 (2006)]
Sample Answer:
Under the U.S. Constitution, the government has the right to acquire possession
of real property for public use. Eminent domain power is limited to the taking of
property for public use, though the Supreme Court (in the Kelo decision, see
Appendix F, Case No. 7) has allowed the taking of private property to further
economic development in blighted, or distressed, areas. The idea is that
allowing the government to take private property and give it to private developers
benefits the public by revitalizing the community. Since the Kelo case, however,
there has been a lot of controversy and backlash over the government’s use of
eminent domain power in this fashion. Many people and courts feel that it is
basically unfair for the government to take one person’s property and then give it
to another. In this case, although Smith admitted that the property was
substandard and in a distressed area, the government intended to take the
property to be used to develop to a private religious school, which is hardly in the
public interest. Moreover, the government taking of private property to support or
develop a religious school may be an unconstitutional violation of the
establishment clause. Smith therefore has a strong argument that the taking was
not for a public purpose at all, and the court should rule in Smith’s favor on this
issue. In the actual case, the trial court found that “the elimination of blighted
areas constitutes a proper public purpose for which the Authority may use its
power of eminent domain.” According to that court, “a taking does not lose its
public character simply because some future private gain may result and . . . if
the public good is enhanced it is irrelevant that a private interest may benefit from
the taking.” Smith appealed to a state intermediate appellate court, which
overturned the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that the Authority
could not exercise its eminent domain power to condemn a private homeowner’s
property, even in an area that was blighted, and turn over the acquired property
to a “purely private religious organization” to construct and operate a private
school. “[A] redevelopment authority does not have power to acquire one man’s
land by condemnation to satisfy another man’s need. . . . [A] taking will have a
public purpose only when the public is to be the primary and paramount
beneficiary of the exercise of eminent domain power and that to consider a taking
as effectuating a public purpose the citizenry at large rather than a private entity
or individual will be the principal recipient of any benefit. . . . [T]he law does not
support a conclusion that the taking here was for a public use.” Also, this taking
violated the establishment clause of the Constitution. The Authority’s primary
purpose was to acquire land to make it available for the construction and
operation of a private religious school. This acquisition had a primary religious
effect because it directly aided a religious organization’s mission to provide faithbased educational services, among other things, to residents in the blighted area.