House Bill 1954
Go back to the main page about taxpayer standing here.
What is House Bill 1954?
By means of a sneak amendment, the Pennsylvania
State Legislature voted to strip individual citizens and community associations
in Philadelphia of their legal right to challenge land use
decisions through court appeals. The Street Administration supported the
passage of House Bill 1954 because it allowed the City to raise fines and
penalties for violations from $300 to $2,000. However, on November 19th,
during a late night session, the Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Robert
Thompson (R- West Chester) and Senate majority Leader Chip Brightbill (R-
Lebanon) quietly added a stealth amendment to this bill. The amended bill was
voted out of committee, sent to the full Senate where it was passed and then
sent to the House for concurrence.
Once passed in to law, House Bill 1954 became
Act 193. The stealth amendment to the Act 193 set new legal hurdles for individual taxpayers and community
groups to appeal adverse decisions of the Philadelphia
Zoning Board of Adjustment and other Commissions that regulate development. It
imposes a greater burden of proof for individuals to show that they have
standing to appeal these decisions. If the burden of proof cannot be met, the
appeal will be “quashed” or thrown out of court and the merits of the case will
not be heard.
The standing to appeal zoning decisions employed
as a matter of right by Philadelphia taxpayers for decades can now be challenged
by those seeking variances to the zoning code. Citizens and community groups
interested in zoning enforcement in their communities may have to litigate
twice: first to prove standing and ONLY if they win standing in the courts will
they be permitted to appeal the zoning decision.
What did the Philadelphia Zoning Code Allow
Before the Passage of Act 193?
Under Philadelphia’s Zoning Code, “any person
aggrieved or any taxpayer” can appeal a decision of the Zoning Board of
Adjustment. The taxpayer standard was unsuccessfully challenged by the billboard
industry in a precedent setting case in 1999. SCRUB won the Commonwealth Court
decision which clearly affirmed the rights of city taxpayers and groups of
taxpayers to appeal decisions of the ZBA. [729 A.2d 117 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999)]
What has Act 193 Changed?
Act 193 has changed the right of Philadelphia
Taxpayers to appeal zoning decisions because it stipulated that only “aggrieved
persons” who can show they are “detrimentally harmed” can appeal a decision of
the Zoning Board or other agencies that regulate development, such as the
Historical Commission. “Aggrieved persons” is a legal term that normally
requires a person appealing a decision to show ownership or property interests
adjacent or close to the property under dispute. However, “aggrieved” has been
interpreted elsewhere in Pennsylvania to include community and civic
organizations that have participated in the board hearing. The new term
“detrimentally harmed,” has no recognized legal meaning, so it is likely to lead
to extensive litigation, and it may be interpreted to deny standing to community
groups that would have standing in other parts of the state.
Act 193 has changed the appellate right of
community groups who had automatic standing because they were considered
minimally as a group of taxpayers under the Philadelphia
Code. It may be much more difficult for a community group to appeal zoning and
other decisions under the state’s new standard.
Relationship to the Home Rule Charter
Act 193 violated Philadelphia’s right to Home
Rule Charter, which gives Philadelphia the right to decide how decisions
about development in our city are made. Through the Home Rule Charter,
Philadelphia has developed zoning regulations, set administrative procedures,
created various boards, and commissions in an effort to shape development and
preserve the historic character of our city. Proponents of the Home Rule Charter
believe that the State Legislature did not have the authority to dictate how
Philadelphia’s zoning decisions are made and who can participate in appeals.
House Bill 1698
In June of 2005,
Representative Mark Cohen (D - Philadelphia) introduced House Bill 1698, legislation
that would repeal Act 193. Read more about House Bill 1698 here.
