Posted on 02/06/2006 9:14:09 AM PST by presidio9
A city agency violated the separation of church and state when it seized a woman's home to help a religious group build a private school in a blighted Philadelphia neighborhood, a state appeals court ruled Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Yes No Yes No
Yes No
In a 4-3 ruling, the Commonwealth Court said the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority should not have taken the property in 2003 to allow the Hope Partnership to build a middle school.
The court said the seizure by eminent domain ran afoul of a clause in the U.S. Constitution that keeps Congress from establishing religion or preventing its free exercise. The Hope Partnership is a venture of the Society of the Holy Child Jesus and the Sisters of Mercy.
"The evidence shows that the Hope Partnership designated the land that it wanted and requested the authority to acquire it, and the authority proceeded to do so," wrote Judge Doris A. Smith-Ribner, writing for the majority. "This joint effort demonstrates the entanglement between church and state."
The authority may not take private property, then give it to a religious group for its private development purposes, the court ruled.
In a dissent, Judge Dan Pellegrini said there was no evidence that the project was designed to establish a religion, but rather was meant to serve residents of a poor neighborhood.
Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that New London, Conn., had the authority to take homes for a private development project. That ruling has been greeted with widespread criticism, and several states have been reviewing their laws related to eminent domain.
___
Good
Think this was a win for property rights? Think again! The beneficiary was a church, so of course Philly was against it. If the plan was to seize the church property to set up a nudie bar, then it would have gone through like it was greased.
But they're still free to take it in order to give it to some donor of mass quantities of campaign cash? Betcha.
Hooray!!!
Yep, this was a very narrow ruling on grounds having nothing to do with Kelo, but instead on a typically wrong reading of the First.
In Philly if you "contribute' to the right alderman it is greased, so to speak.
I wouldn't cheer. From what I gather of this ruling, if the eminent domain would have been for one of Fast Eddie Rendell's slots parlors, then it would have been hunky-dory with the court.
Betcha the court would have ruled differently it it were to build a golf course.
Yeah you are probably right. Wasn't thinking it through.
As usual, the "conservatives" are cheering this one, I see.
Exactly!
They won't get any tax revenue from a church property, but if it had been desired for some highly-taxable commercial property, the city would have fallen all over itself booting that lady out.
Not just Philly, similar rules apply on the other side of the state as well.
I don't imagine much revenue would be generated from a church.
IOW non-taxable use BAD
Taxable use is GOOD
IOOW the court has established the religion of increased tax revenue.
No, this is a bad ruling. All it says is that they can't give the land to a religious group. Private enterprise would be ok, though.
ping
Thanks...
Agreed. Faster than a greased stripper slides down a metalmpole.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.