Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

APPEAL ANNA M. GERMAN HARRISBURG (10/26/76)

decided: October 26, 1976.

IN RE: APPEAL OF ANNA M. GERMAN OF HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA. ANNA M. GERMAN, APPELLANT. IN RE: NO. 2 APPEAL OF ANNA M. GERMAN, OF HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA. ANNA M. GERMAN, APPELLANT


Original jurisdiction and Appeal No. 387 C.D. 1976, in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in cases of In Re: Appeal of Anna M. German of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

COUNSEL

William H. Naugle, for appellant.

Joseph B. Sturgis and Francis B. Haas, Jr., with them Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul; McNees, Wallace & Nurick; James W. Reynolds; Reynolds, Bihl & Schaffner; Louis J. Adler, City Solicitor; and Nathan H. Waters, Jr., Assistant City Solicitor, for appellees.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Judge Kramer did not participate. Opinion by Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 110]

Anna M. German has filed two appeals in this Court. The first, to No. 357 Commonwealth Docket 1976, attacks an ordinance enacted by the City of Harrisburg on February 18, 1976, approving an agreement earlier proposed to be entered into by the City with other parties in connection with a multimillion dollar development of portions of downtown Harrisburg. The second, to No. 387 Commonwealth Docket 1976, is from the action of the Department of Community Affairs of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania made March 4, 1976, approving a lease rental agreement entered into among the parties to the agreement which was the subject of the ordinance attacked in German's first appeal.*fn1

The pleadings in both of the cases still before us consist of German's appeal petitions, answers by the City of Harrisburg, the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Harrisburg and Harristown Development Corporation. The respondents have now filed motions for summary judgments pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 1035, and those motions with respect to both of German's appeals were consolidated for argument and disposition. The pleadings are closed; and we agree with the respondents that there is no genuine issue of any material fact and that summary judgment should be granted in their favor.

German's appeal petitions, the respondents' answers and the records certified to us by the Department of Community Affairs on German's appeal from its order approving the lease rental agreement establish the following facts:

[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 111]

On October 14, 1975, the City entered into an agreement with the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Harrisburg (Authority) and Harristown Development Corporation (HDC) providing for the implementation of an urban renewal plan in the City. The agreement provided for the conveyance by the Authority to the City of certain real estate; for the lease of this real estate to the HDC; for the appointment of HDC as redeveloper; for the construction by HDC of a building complex, including office, parking and commercial structures for lease, some portions to the State of Pennsylvania and others to the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania; for the construction by HDC on another site of a second office building for lease to the Commonwealth; for the construction by HDC of parking facilities related to just described portions of the project; for the provision by HDC of parks, walkways and other public facilities; for the payment by the City to the Authority and HDC of service charges for public services provided by HDC and the Authority and for the assignment of such service charges by the Authority to HDC; and for other matters not necessary here to detail.

It was understood and agreed that the provision in the agreement with respect to the service charges to be paid by the City and other provisions of the agreement which involved the possible incurrence of debt by the City were and could not be effective until compliance by the City with the Local Government Unit Debt Act, Act of July 12, 1972, P.L. 781, as amended, 53 P.S. ยง 6780-1 et seq.

The City's ordinance of February 18, 1976 authorized the City to enter into a service agreement with the Authority and HDC in connection with the issuance by HDC of $108,500,000 Bonds, of which $34,415,000 constituted "lease rental debt" of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.