53. Landlord Claims Amount to a Wailing

When a municipality seeks to have rental property owners carry comprehensive property insurance it is a reasonable action to address properties blighted by fire or other means of destruction. Invariably some landlord will argue that doing so is discriminatory and in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments.

The Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment declares that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Fifth applies to states by way of the Fourteenth's Due Process Clause.

The courts look at the burden an ordinance has on the property owner. Does it leave the property owner with economically viable use of the property? Does the ordinance mitigate the effects of fire or other destruction upon a property and the community? Do the benefits of an ordinance outweigh the detriment to the property owner? Does the ordinance effect a substantial public purpose?Is the cost of the ordinance a pretext to generate revenue for a municipality or the actual cost of public administration?

At the second reading for an ordinance in June by the City Council of Sharon, PA to require comprehensive property insurance a large property owner asserted that he would would address the ordinance in the County Court of Common Pleas as an unreasonable "taking."

After the meeting the property owner was asked if he based his belief upon Pennsylvania case law? Could he provide references or citations.He provided his card with its email address. To date there has been no reply to the email request to him to provide the requested information.

So, do the assertions amount to nothing more than a plaintive wailing?