UNIONVILLE-CHADDS FORD SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, v. CHESTER COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS and Longwood Gardens, Inc., Appellees.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
July 20, 1998.
714 A.2d 397
Argued Feb. 2, 1998.
Having concluded that the admission of Officer Loughery‘s deposition testimony regarding causation was erroneous, we must now determine whether this admission requires the grant of a new trial. This court has acknowledged that police statements carry with them a naturally high level of “prestige and authoritativeness” which, when brought to the attention of a jury are “highly prejudicial.” Johnson v. Peoples Cab Co., 386 Pa. 513, 126 A.2d 720 (1956). In this case, it is highly likely that Officer Loughery‘s testimony was the “basic factor influencing the jury‘s determination [and was] sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a retrial.” Brodie, supra at 658.
Judgment reversed; the case is remanded for retrial.
Thomas A. Riley, Jr., Paoli, Harry J. Rubin, York, for Longwood Gardens.
Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT
FLAHERTY, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal by allowance from an order of the Commonwealth Court which affirmed an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County upholding a decision of the Chester County Board of Assessment Appeals exempting property owned by Longwood Gardens, Inc. (Longwood) from real estate tax. The appellant, Unionville-Chadds Ford School District, challenges Longwood‘s exemption from tax. At issue is whether Longwood can claim exemption as a purely public charity.
Longwood is a very large and world-renowned public garden located in Chester County, just outside of the Philadelphia area. It comprises 1,050 acres, approximately 422 of which are within the appellant school district. Pierre du Pont acquired Longwood in the early 1900s and developed its then-existing arboretum into extensive park-like gardens. The gardens have been open to the public since the 1920s and have been under the control of a non-profit operating foundation since 1970. More than 800,000 visitors per year make use of the gardens. The property was originally part of lands owned by William Penn and is listed in the U.S. Department of the Interior‘s National Register of Historic Places.
Longwood features an expansive arboretum where trees and shrubs are cultivated, immaculate flower gardens, collections of rare plants, a huge conservatory and greenhouse complex, architectural displays, a water garden, fountains, an open air theater for the performing arts, managed meadow and forest lands, wetlands, wildlife habitats, walking trails, picnic areas, and a variety of educational and research facili
Longwood serves as a site for hundreds of cultural events every year. For example, in 1994 alone, more than 450 performing arts events were held there. Longwood also maintains and funds highly regarded educational and research programs related to horticulture. These include a university-affiliated graduate program and various internships, as well as workshops, lectures, and advisory services. In addition, Longwood makes contributions of money, property, and services to the surrounding community. These have included a picnic area for the public, more than $2 million for local road improvements, substantial cash donations to schools and the local fire department and rescue squad, and making Longwood‘s facilities available to other charitable organizations at cost. Longwood is operated in heavy reliance on endowment funds, inasmuch as its operating expenses far exceed its revenues.
The courts below and the board of assessment appeals upheld Longwood‘s tax-exempt status under the General County Assessment Law,
We granted allowance of appeal to review Longwood‘s compliance with elements three and four of the HUP test. Nevertheless, a brief background as to Longwood‘s compliance with the other elements of the test is in order.
As to the first element, the school district stipulated at trial that Longwood advances a charitable purpose,2 and this was construed by the trial court as including public use of the park-like grounds as well as educational and research activities. The second element, requiring that a substantial portion of services be rendered gratuitously, is satisfied in that Longwood absorbs a major portion of the cost of providing the public with the use of its grounds, facilities, and programs. Admission fees and other user charges cover only about 56% of operating costs. Hence, payment of the remaining 44% of costs is provided gratuitously by Longwood. Were it not for Longwood‘s willingness to absorb these costs, the price of
We turn now to the factors in the HUP test that were the basis for granting allowance of appeal. The third prong of the test requires that Longwood benefit a substantial and indefinite class of persons who are legitimate subjects of charity. Appellant contends that legitimate subjects of charity consist only of the poor, the infirm, and the needy. It is asserted that the general public cannot be a subject of charity because such a class of beneficiaries would not be limited to those who are incapacitated or financially distressed. We do not agree.
Certainly, it is common for purely public charities to benefit the infirm or needy. See generally HUP, 507 Pa. at 22-23,
There is no requirement, however, that all of the benefits bestowed by a purely public charity go only to the financially needy. See Price v. Maxwell, 28 Pa. 23, 34 (1857) (“Nor has it ever been supposed in this country, that an institution established for the purposes of education is not a charity within the meaning of the law, because it sheds its blessings, like the dews of Heaven, upon the rich as well as the poor.“) See also Presbyterian Homes Tax Exemption Case, 428 Pa. 145, 152, 236 A.2d 776, 779-80 (1968) (charity can benefit both rich and poor); Donohugh‘s Appeal, 86 Pa. 306 (1878) (library constituted a charity that benefited all persons without regard to economic status).
704 A.2d at 125 (emphasis in original).
In City of Washington, the charitable status of a private college was upheld notwithstanding the fact that beneficiaries of its aid programs included many students who were not incapacitated or destitute. Id. at 124-25. A significant factor was that, in the absence of the institution‘s benevolence, the fees that would prevail for users of the institution‘s services might exceed levels that would be affordable. Id. at 124. Such is the case with Longwood. As earlier described, admission fees would have to be raised drastically if support from the charitable endowment were eliminated. Further, a facility as large and multi-faceted as Longwood is a unique resource that virtually no individual could afford to maintain on his or her own. It is in this regard comparable to a public library, museum, or art gallery. Such institutions have qualified as purely public charities notwithstanding the fact that many, indeed probably most, of their visitors are not incapacitated or poor. Donohugh‘s Appeal, 86 Pa. 306 (1878) (public library);
Thus, a purely public charity can provide members of the general public with resources that would not otherwise be within their financial reach. See City of Washington, 704 A.2d at 124 (persons who are financially secure may nevertheless be “poor” in relation to the outlays needed to obtain certain services in the absence of charity). See also HUP, 507 Pa. at 19 n. 9, 487 A.2d at 1315 n. 9 (purely public charities must serve those who would not otherwise be able to afford the full fees). Were it not for the high quality public park grounds and educational and research facilities that are subsidized by Longwood, many would not be able to afford the fees that would prevail for access to comparable resources, if, in fact, such resources could be found at all.
Further, it is fully consistent with the fundamental character of a purely public charity to benefit the general public. As stated in Donohugh‘s Appeal, 86 Pa. at 313 (emphasis added), an essential feature of public charity “is that it is not confined to privileged individuals, but is open to the indefinite public. It is this indefinite or unrestricted quality that gives it its public character.” See also Episcopal Academy v. Philadelphia, 150 Pa. 565, 573, 25 A. 55, 56 (1892) (beneficiary of a purely public charity is the public).
To satisfy the fourth prong of the HUP test, it is necessary that Longwood relieve the government of some of its burden. Appellant contends that the government has no duty to provide the public with a facility like Longwood, and, thus, that Longwood does not provide relief from any governmental burden. We do not agree. The fact that there is no constitutional or statutory duty to provide public gardens and educational and research facilities exactly like the ones at Longwood is not determinative.
Whenever the government provides services and facilities to its citizens, it bears certain burdens. Such burdens exist regardless of whether the governmental endeavor is obligatory or discretionary in origin. If services and facilities provid
The government has routinely assumed a responsibility for providing open space for public recreation and for conservation of natural landscapes and resources, as well as for providing cultural assets. The Commonwealth has, in fact, established a wide-ranging assortment of parks, recreation areas, and cultural facilities throughout the state.4
In this regard, the Pennsylvania Constitution declares that the people have a right to “the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment” and imposes on the Commonwealth a duty to conserve and maintain the public natural resources.
In short, the government has long provided support for public parks and recreation areas as well as for cultural institutions, including museums, libraries, etc. Longwood‘s public park and cultural facilities fall clearly within the scope
The trial court did not err, therefore, in concluding that Longwood qualifies as a purely public charity. The Commonwealth Court properly affirmed.
Order affirmed.
NIGRO, J., files a dissenting opinion.
NIGRO, Justice, dissenting.
Today the majority continues down a slippery slope ending in enabling most, if not all, of the non-profit corporations of this Commonwealth to obtain an exemption from real estate taxes. This decision opens the door for all private corporations that offer something of aesthetic or cultural value to the public—including museums of art, history and science, as well as musical and theatrical endeavors—to claim a real estate tax exemption. As expressed in my dissent in City of Washington v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 550 Pa. 175, 704 A.2d 120 (Pa.1997), the HUP test should instead be applied to reinforce the traditional characteristics of charities rather than expand their scope to the point that the term charity is meaningless.
As established by the Court in Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth, 507 Pa. 1, 487 A.2d 1306 (1985), an element of a purely public charity is that it relieves the government of some of its burden. The test for whether an entity relieves the government of some of its burden “is whether the institution bears a substantial burden that would otherwise fall to the government.” St. Margaret Seneca Place v. Bd. of Property Assessment, 536 Pa. 478, 487, 640 A.2d 380, 385 (1994). In St. Margaret Seneca Place, the Court found that a nursing home met this requirement where the trial court found that but for the nursing home, patients whose costs were not fully covered by Medicaid would have to be cared for in county-provided facilities.
In contrast, the majority cites no evidence of record supporting that Longwood Gardens bears a burden that would
Like many other attractions throughout this Commonwealth, I have visited Longwood Gardens and appreciate the aesthetic and cultural value of the gardens, open air theater, and other facilities. However, the private foundation‘s decision to provide these services to the public for a fee should not entail an exemption from real estate taxes for the 422 acres at issue. For these reasons, I dissent.