Check out In re Condemnation of Property in Rem (Appeal of Clemens), No. 1101CD23 (Feb. 4, 2025), one from the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.
The Town exercised eminent domain to take property, stating it was taking the land for public recreational purposes. That can't be the Town's true purpose, argued the landowner, because the Town doesn't have a carefully developed recreation plan." And you need a plan. Moreover, argued the owner, the Town has no authority to take property for open space.
First, the court held that "[n]othing in the Township Code or the Eminent Domain Code requires a 'carefully developed plan' for recreational purpose before a declaration of taking can be filed." Slip op. at 18. What about that Pennsylvania case that seems to say you need a plan? Distinguishable. Having a plan helps to show the taking's real purpose -- but the absence of a plan doesn't mean the real purpose isn't what was stated in the resolution. And here, the Town "had long contemplated using the Property as part of its park and trail system before the taking[.]" Slip op. at 19.
The court also rejected the owner's second objection, that Pennsylvania statutes do not authorize the Town to take property for open space. The statute authorizes eminent domain for "land or buildings" to create "parks, playgrounds, playfields, gymnasiums, swimming pools, indoor recreation centers, public parks and other recreational areas and facilities[.]" And the term "recreation" includes "refreshment that can take many forms" such as open space. It's a park. An open space park. And that is "recreation." Slip op. at 21-22.
The use of the term “open space” or preservation of natural resources does not defeat the fundamental recreational purpose for which the Property was condemned. Land conservation is inevitable in any passive recreational use, which is a public purpose expressly authorized by the Township Code.
Slip op. at 22.
In re Condemnation of Property in Rem (Appeal of Clemens), No. 1101CD23 (Pa. Commn'w. Feb. 4, 2025)
