192 A.3d 1113
Pa.2018Background
- Owners (TR Gretz, L.P. and Rufo) owned a vacant, formerly commercial building in Philadelphia and were cited under § PM-306.2 of the City’s Property Maintenance Code for failing to secure window and entry spaces with operable glazed windows and doors because the building was declared a "blighting influence."
- § PM-306.2 required owners of vacant buildings deemed a blighting influence to install framed glazed windows and operable doors; boarding or masonry alone would not satisfy the provision.
- Owners appealed to the City Board of License and Inspection Review; the Board credited City testimony (policy director Swanson) and affirmed the violation. Owners then appealed to trial court which reversed, finding the ordinance an unconstitutional exercise of police power because it targeted aesthetics rather than safety.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court, concluding the City’s record evidence was insufficient to show a rational relation to reducing blight and characterized the ordinance as aesthetic regulation.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review, held that the Commonwealth Court misapplied the burden of proof (Owners bore the heavy burden to show unconstitutionality), found the ordinance a valid exercise of police power under a rational-basis/substantive-due-process framework, vacated lower courts’ orders, and remanded for consideration of Owners’ other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Owners) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether § PM-306.2 is an unconstitutional exercise of municipal police power/substantive due process | Ordinance focuses on aesthetics not safety; thus it lacks a real and substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare | Ordinance aims to reduce blight (a legitimate police-power objective) and requiring operable windows/doors is rationally related to that aim | Court held ordinance is a valid exercise of police power; Owners failed to overcome presumption of constitutionality |
| 2) Which party bears burden to prove constitutionality | N/A (Owners challenge ordinance) | City: challengers bear heavy burden to prove statute unconstitutional; municipality not required to prove constitutionality | Court held challengers (Owners) bear heavy burden; Commonwealth Court erred by effectively requiring City to prove rational basis |
| 3) Whether evidence supporting nexus between ordinance and blight reduction was sufficient | City’s studies/testimony were insufficient or conclusory; some testimony suggested boarding could be as secure | City relied on legislative findings, studies, and Board credibility determinations showing boarded openings contribute to blight | Court accepted Board’s credibility determination and City’s legislative rationale as adequate; record supports relation to combating blight |
| 4) Whether other challenges (vagueness, excessive fines) should be decided now | Owners urged affirmance on alternative grounds (vagueness, unconstitutional fines) | City argued only substantive-due-process issues were before Court | Court declined to decide those ungranted issues and remanded to permit trial court to address Owners’ outstanding claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Balent v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 669 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1995) (police power regulates property to promote health, safety, and general welfare)
- Lutz v. Armour, 151 A.2d 108 (Pa. 1959) (legislative means must have a real and substantial relation to objects sought)
- Zauflik v. Pennsbury Sch. Dist., 104 A.3d 1096 (Pa. 2014) (presumption of constitutionality; challenger bears a high burden)
- In re Condemnation by Urban Redevelopment Auth. of Pittsburgh, 913 A.2d 178 (Pa. 2006) (government has compelling interest in combating urban blight)
- Bilbar Constr. Co. v. Bd. of Adjustment of Easttown Twp., 141 A.2d 851 (Pa. 1958) (heavy burden on party asserting unconstitutionality)
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1955) (rational-basis deference for economic/regulatory legislation cited in concurrence)