|
|
|
|
 |
|
Saha saga continues in court
|
|
| By Bajeerah Lowe, Staff Writer |
November 07, 2002 |
|
|
PHILADELPHIA -- The three-year case between the City of Coatesville and the Sahas over the legality of eminent domain continued Wednesday in Commonwealth Court. While the point of the morning's hearing was to allow the attorneys for both sides to argue their case before the panel of three judges, one judge also took the opportunity to express his displeasure with the direction the case had taken. |
The matter began in 1999 when the city council approved the condemnation of 43 of Dick and Nancy Saha's 49 acres, along with other properties, in order to construct a regional recreation center. The center is to include a golf course, hotel and conference center, indoor/outdoor entertainment center and ice rink.
While some of the condemned property lies within city limits, a large majority, including the Sahas' parcel, falls in Valley and West Caln.
In January 2002 the case was ruled on by Common Pleas Court Judge William Mahon. He ordered the city to seek subdivision approval from Valley before taking the land. If sought, the approval would likely hinge on the city condemning less property as the current plans leave the Sahas with a non-conforming parcel of land.
The city opted not to seek approval and instead appealed the case to the Commonwealth Court.
While the appeal at first appeared to be a cut-and-dry issue, the matter was further clouded when Mahon requested to the Commonwealth Court that the case be returned to him.
"There is simply no sense in which the Jan. 11, 2002, Order here subject to review is 'final,'" wrote Mahon. "It neither ends the litigation nor places either party 'out of court.'"
While Wednesday's hearing could result in a ruling from the Commonwealth panel, the judges may also order the case be returned to the lower court.
While both sides agreed Wednesday they would like the Commonwealth Court to render a decision on the case rather than sending it back, the similarities ended there.
Herbert Bass, attorney for the city, argued that the case should be ruled in the city's favor as the land is needed for the project. He said that was a fact backed up in Mahon's ruling.
But, he continued, the city couldn't follow Mahon's order to seek subdivision approval, since approval would likely hinge upon condemnation of a smaller parcel of land.
If the city was forced to follow the subdivision requirements, Bass said the "city would be forced to return over six acres that the lower court found it needed."
He also cautioned the judges that their decision in this case could send a ripple through the state. Non-conforming lots, such as the one the Sahas would be left with happens in eminent domain cases "thousands and thousands of times," said Bass.
Requiring subdivision approval in eminent domain cases, he said, could affect many other public purposes such as airports, roads and parks.
Judge Dante R. Pellegrini later agreed. He said if they prohibited non-conforming lots, "PennDOT, for all intents and purposes, couldn't build a highway."
Scott Yaw, attorney for the Sahas, argued that subdivision approval needs to be sought but he also presented several other arguments before asking the court to throw out the eminent domain action against the Sahas.
He said the city was not, in its ordinance, specific as to the use for the property. Yaw said the ordinance "painted in a large brush stroke in a very vague fashion" the purpose of the land.
He also, in his brief, stated the city didn't do the necessary studies before condemning the land, public purpose hasn't been proven and the meeting during which the land was condemned was improperly advertised.
While the judges are not expected to issue a ruling in the matter for at least three months, they did take the time to express their displeasure with the case.
"I was quite surprised at the level of rancor in this case," said Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr.
The three years of this case has been dotted with conflict and personal attacks. City Council meetings have often been filled with shouting from both sides. Several times Saha family members have been escorted from meetings by the police.
In April 2002 the Saha's son, Richard, was accused of threatening a city council member. His case is still pending in the court of common pleas.
Several weeks later the City of Coatesville took out a two-page newspaper ad explaining the condemnation. In the ad, it stated Mahon ruled the city had the right to condemn the property and stated the Sahas rejected "the accommodating offers that have been set before them." A day later, a fire was set in the Sahas' barn and horse trailer. Police still have no suspects in the arson.
More dirt was stirred up when Mahon took issue with the ad and filed a further supplemental opinion. "Both City Council and its spokespersons have in recent months engaged in a public campaign apparently intended to persuade the interested public that this Court has ordered the controversial course of conduct City Council has recently announced; a course of conduct which, as we have noted is, in fact, antithetical to that previously directed by this Court and involved, at the outset, the City's appeal from this Court's order," Mahon wrote.
Before letting the lawyers leave the court room Wednesday, Simpson told the attorneys on both sides that the emotional aspects needed to be removed from the case.
"You need to do more to make this a professional resolution," he said. |
|
|
|
©Daily Local News 2002
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Reader Opinions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| and share your thoughts with other readers! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: Nov, 07 2002 |
|
|
| IF THEY REALLY WANT TO STOP THE EMOTIONAL ASPECTS OF THIS CASE IT,S SIMPLE. JUST STOP THE CONDEMNATION PROCEDINGS AND LET THE SAHA FAMILY KEEP WHATS RIGHTFULLY THEIR'S. IF THE CITY WANT'S TO CONDEMN SOMETHING LET THEM CONDEMN THEIR LOUSE SCHOOL BOARD AND AND SCHOOL SYSTEM. THOMAS SETH,
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Date: Nov, 07 2002 |
|
|
So basically what I understand so far is that, the city has a right to take other people's land for the purpose of building, what THEY say will be an asset to the community, but other people, who are not the "city", still have to purchase theirs the old fashioned way; with money. If the city truly beleives what they are doing will benefit the community, why not make a guarentee on it? Why not say, if when everything is opened we do not produce a postive response, we will pay the Saha's for their trouble and the land that we took becasue we said it would be more profitable in our hands. The city needs to give Coatesville a good image before doing something like this, because even though they think this will draw in money, people still know the name of Coatesville as a bad word, so to speak. Let me ask you this....when people come to this hotel/conference center, where will they go when they are not working...to the wonderful city of Coatesville...it's beautifeul streets and stores....again....it comes down to this...let's not fix up what we have..let's take this land from these people and build something entirely new....to what...take the focus off the real problems that STILL exist? Bottom line...you are taking this land becasue basically you are saying " we can do better with it ".....
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News
Sports
