## Facts

- A county redevelopment authority pursued the “Millennium Park Redevelopment Project,” planned as a high-technology industrial business park in an industrially zoned area.
- Two tracts within the project area were occupied residential properties owned by the Hamilton estate and the Whittakers.
- The homes were conceded to be safe and sanitary and not condemnable based on physical condition.
- In September 2004, the authority filed declarations of taking to acquire the properties in fee simple under the Urban Redevelopment Law.
- Because the homes were not physically deteriorated, the authority justified the taking on an “economic blight” theory: residential use in an industrial zone prevented the properties’ purported highest and best (industrial) use and hindered economic development.
- The landowners filed preliminary objections challenging (1) the legality of the condemnation and (2) the adequacy of the bond posted with the declarations.

## Issues

1. Whether the Urban Redevelopment Law permits condemnation of safe, sanitary, occupied residential properties based solely on “economic blight” tied to zoning inconsistency and a highest-and-best-use claim, absent statutory indicia of physical blight.
2. Whether a redevelopment project aimed primarily at industrial/economic development can supply the needed justification for taking non-blighted private property under Pennsylvania’s statutory limits on eminent domain.
3. Whether the trial court properly required the condemnor to increase the bond posted with the declarations of taking.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court reversed the order that had upheld the condemnations.
- The court held the takings unlawful because the properties lacked statutory blight conditions; “economic blight” alone could not satisfy the Urban Redevelopment Law’s prerequisites.
- The court rejected the approach that would treat nonconforming or less profitable residential use as “blight” sufficient to support eminent domain.
- The bond dispute was effectively rendered secondary in practical effect because the invalidation of the takings removed the basis for condemnation-related security.

## Legal Principles

- A redevelopment authority must satisfy the statutory requirements for a “blighted area” before exercising eminent domain under the Urban Redevelopment Law.
- Safe and sanitary properties do not become “blighted” merely because a different use is asserted to be economically preferable or more consistent with zoning.
- Courts must independently evaluate whether statutory predicates for condemnation (including a valid blight determination) are met; the absence of bad faith does not cure a legally insufficient blight finding.
- Economic-development objectives, even if part of a public program, do not alone authorize condemnation of non-blighted property where the statute requires proof of blight.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the condemnations because the authority attempted to condemn occupied, sound residential properties without demonstrating statutory blight, relying instead on an impermissible theory that economic optimization and industrial redevelopment goals could substitute for the required blight conditions.


In re Condemnation by Redevelopment Auth. of Lawrence Cnty., 962 A.2d 1257 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008)