The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-3049 JOHN MCCREA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : PENN TOWNSHIP, BIG SPRING : SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND : PAN CAL 954 CENTERVILLE : (UNIT B) LLC, : DEFENDANTS : 12-3049 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS PENN TOWNSHIP AND BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF BEFORE HESS, P.J., MASLAND, J. AND PLACEY, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., November 9, 2012:-- Before the court are the Preliminary Objections filed by Defendants Penn Township and Big Spring School District to the Amended Complaint filed by 1 Plaintiff, John McCrea. After briefing by the parties and argument en banc, we will sustain the Defendants’ objections and dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of standing. I. Background At issue in this Declaratory Judgment action is a tax incentive ordinance passed by Penn Township under Pennsylvania’s Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance Act (LERTA). 72 P.S. §4722-26. In short, LERTA allows local taxing authorities to grant tax exemptions to new construction projects in 1 In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff named an additional Defendant PanCal 954 Centerville (Unit B) LLC. Plaintiff contends this Defendant will be the primary beneficiary of the tax incentives to which he objects. PanCal has not filed Preliminary Objections at this time. 12-3049 CIVIL TERM deteriorated areas of economically depressed communities. 72 P.S. § 4723. Penn Township, a largely rural township, decided to try to encourage warehouse development in the portion of its territory in the vicinity of Interstate 81. To do so, the Township devised a LERTA Ordinance that attached the “deteriorated” label to certain property that was eligible for warehouse projects. After advertisement and a public meeting, the Ordinance was passed. Following the passage of the Ordinance, Big Spring School District adopted a resolution exempting from real property taxation the value of improvements made within Penn Township’s deteriorated zone. According to Plaintiff, these measures would afford developers a real estate tax exemption in excess of $800,000. Plaintiff brought this Declaratory Judgment action seeking to have the Ordinance declared illegal and invalid, null and void. The Township and the School District each filed Preliminary objections to the Amended Complaint. The Township raises the following arguments: Should the Plaintiff be barred from challenging the validity of a township ordinance based on a case in which he did not make an appearance at the Public Hearing, and where he is not a resident of Penn Township? Is the Court without subject [matter] jurisdiction in order to render a decision in a case in which no action has been taken which causes harm to the Plaintiff? The School District raises the following objection: Whether Plaintiff has failed to state an actual case or controversy which is ripe for review such that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action? -2- 12-3049 CIVIL TERM Ultimately, we need not address all three objections, as we will dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint on the grounds that he lacks standing to bring this Declaratory Action. II. Discussion To have standing to challenge a municipal ordinance, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he is “aggrieved by the ordinance.” William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269, 280 (Pa. 1975). Our Supreme Court has described that status as follows: The core concept, of course, is that a person who is not adversely affected in any way by the matter he seeks to challenge is not ‘aggrieved’ thereby and has no standing to obtain a judicial resolution of his challenge. In particular, it is not sufficient for the person claiming to be ‘aggrieved’ to assert the common interest of all citizens in procuring obedience to the law. Id. at 280-81 (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff avers the following in his Amended Complaint: Plaintiff will be adversely impacted by having the Big Spring School District lose more than $800,000 in real estate tax revenue over the five years exemption period, in that Plaintiff will be required to make up a percentage of the $800,000 in lost tax revenues by increased real property taxes on real estate owned by him… Am. Compl. ¶19. Plaintiff identifies no other way he is aggrieved other than potentially increased tax liability that he will share pro rata with all the other taxpayers in the School District. In his brief in opposition to the Preliminary Objections, Plaintiff further demonstrates that the harm he complains of is not unique to him. Ironically, in -3- 12-3049 CIVIL TERM combating the argument that he does not reside in Penn Township, Plaintiff confirms that (if there is any harm at all) all taxpayers are similarly situated. Both Penn Township and Big Spring School District appear to have lost sight of the fact that the action of Penn Township in enacting its LERTA Ordinance will have a deleterious financial impact on taxpayers of the entire Big Spring School District, not just on those taxpayers who reside in Penn Township. Br. at 4 (emphasis added). Plaintiff has failed to aver any facts sufficient to demonstrated any harm unique to him that would confer on him aggrieved status and standing to seek a declaratory judgment. Ultimately, Plaintiff has a tax policy disagreement with Penn Township and the Big Spring School District. His remedy is in the political process, not the courts. To paraphrase Chief Justice Roberts of the Supreme Court of the United States, where a tax exemption is lawful, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass 2 upon its wisdom or fairness. III. Conclusion In conclusion, Plaintiff was not aggrieved by the passage of the LERTA Ordinance and therefore lacks standing to challenge it via the instant Declaratory Judgment Action. Accordingly, his Amended Complaint is dismissed. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of November, 2012, upon consideration of the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections, Plaintiff’s response thereto, briefing by 2 “ Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.” National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 2600 (2012). -4- 12-3049 CIVIL TERM SUSTAINED the parties, and argument en banc, the Objections are and the DISMISSED Amended Complaint is . By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. John McCrea, Pro se P.O. Box 341 Newville, PA 17241 Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire For Penn Township Philip H. Spare, Esquire For Big Spring School District PAN CAL 954 Centerville (Unit B), LLC 125 Locust Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 :sal -5- JOHN MCCREA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : PENN TOWNSHIP, BIG SPRING : SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND : PAN CAL 954 CENTERVILLE : (UNIT B) LLC, : DEFENDANTS : 12-3049 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS PENN TOWNSHIP AND BIG SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF BEFORE HESS, P.J., MASLAND, J. AND PLACEY, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of November, 2012, upon consideration of the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections, Plaintiff’s response thereto, briefing by SUSTAINED the parties, and argument en banc, the Objections are and the DISMISSED Amended Complaint is . By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. John McCrea, Pro se P.O. Box 341 Newville, PA 17241 Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire For Penn Township Philip H. Spare, Esquire For Big Spring School District PAN CAL 954 Centerville (Unit B), LLC 125 Locust Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 :sal