Land Use & Zoning Archives

When law students and real estate agents learn about property rights, they hear the expression “bundle of sticks” over and over. A landowner does not have one property right; he has a bunch of them. Some of them can be transferred, but that transfer does not affect the other rights. We have been talking about easements, a kind of transfer that leaves all the other sticks in the bundle. Bob’s right-of-way through Judy’s farm does not reduce her interest in the rest of her land.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down a decision recently that addresses important and interesting property law issues. We have taken the long way around to get to this discussion — a friend would say the posts about Brandt v. U.S. were the Proust Route — but it does have to do with fundamental property rights. And, just to sweeten the pot, the case is about land resting on the Marcellus Shale.

We are back to discussing easements and one particular U.S. Supreme Court case (Brandt v. U.S.) that challenged the government’s right to giveth and then taketh away the right to a parcel of land. The plaintiffs were landowners who believed they were due compensation (under eminent domain) for abandoned railway corridors that the federal government turned into recreational trails.

Developer Greg Ventresca purchased a few acres of land in Roxborough in 2005. The parcel was perfect for a housing development. He presented his plan to the Philadelphia City Planning Commission and met with the neighborhood association to discuss the project. The city approved the plan. The neighborhood association did not.

We are discussing Greg Ventresca’s plan to build 48 homes on land he owns in Philadelphia’s Roxborough neighborhood. The property is adjacent to a park, though, and the neighborhood association wanted to maintain it as green space; some nearby residents believed the land was, in fact, a park. All the developer asked was that the city improve the road running through the property so it could to support the new development.

A friend of ours who has a whole array of food allergies has a saying: Just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s good for you. A similar sentiment applies in land use: Just because it’s green space doesn’t mean it’s a park.

When baby boomers think back on high school or college, there may have been nothing as devastating and perplexing as getting an essay back with a grade, a few stray comments and, next to one paragraph, a simple “No.” Nothing else. No explanation, no “see chapter 7,” nothing. Just that one word with all its finality and all its mystery.

Philadelphia may not have ocean views, but it does have the Delaware River. That means that the city may be just as vulnerable to storm surges during tropical storms as coastal properties are. Superstorm Sandy generated the third-highest storm surge on record here. We are vulnerable.

We are talking about a legal dispute involving property owners along the New Jersey shore and the state government. The state — and Gov. Chris Christie — has asked the Army Corps of Engineers to build barrier dunes along the coastline. The idea is to protect the businesses and residents in beachfront communities from storm damage. The property owners have resisted the idea for a number of reasons.

Philadelphia took a hit from Superstorm Sandy, but the beaches of New Jersey took a body blow. The storm washed away residential and commercial sites along the coast, leaving everyone scrambling to clean up and scrambling to make sure every home, every business, every town would fare better during the next natural disaster.