This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
GREGORY D. MALASKA, ESQ. | YOUNG & HAROS, LLC


“I really love this house and community, but that dilapidated home next door is a real turn o”


“I’d love to let my kids play around the neighborhood, but I’m afraid they’ll run over to that abandoned home next door, the one with the broken windows and that terrible smell. Who knows what might be inside?”


“I wish the associaon would nally do something about that shoddy home down the street. It’s hurng our property values.”


Sound familiar? Blighted properes are found in many planned communies throughout the Commonwealth. They pose a problem without geographic boundaries, yet with limited soluons. Fortunately, the Pennsylvania General Assembly and recently, the courts, have granted planned community associaons a new weapon to deal with these troublesome properes.


The Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act (ABPCA) was enacted by the Pennsylvania General


24 |


Assembly in 2009. Recently, two planned community associaons in the Poconos successfully peoned the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas to extend the Act to include common interest communies and allow for the demolion of a blighted and dangerous structure.


THE IMPACT OF BLIGHTED PROPERTIES ON PLANNED COMMUNITIES Blight is dened as “...something that frustrates hope or impedes progress and prosperity”; “to have a deleterious eect on; to ruin”. Prey depressing stu, huh? The unfortunate reality is that these depressing properes are found everywhere from urban streets to rural subdivisions.


Regardless of locaon, blight is caused by the same factors: a down economy, defaulted mortgages, crime, vandalism, or family problems. All of these causes manifest themselves in a property that is poorly maintained, unaracve and, in some case, dangerous. If allowed to go unchecked, blighted properes can serve as aracve nuisances for children, harm the community’s appearance, and adversely impact property values. Blighted properes, or more


specically, the failure to address the problems caused by them, can also impact the unit owners’ condence in their associaon.


A planned community associaon’s tradional “Plan A” in dealing with blighted properes was to le suit against the unit owner to force the repair/ demolion of the structure. This opon was expensive, me consuming, and somemes akin to pushing an elephant up a hill. In many cases, the associaon could not even obtain service against the violang unit owner. Moreover, if service was completed, the owner was oenmes insolvent or judgment proof. While the Associaon could obtain court approval to tear down the building (at its cost), the me and costs involved turned this noble exercise into a Pyrrhic eort.


“Plan B” was to seek assistance from the local municipality, as many Townships and Boroughs have “dangerous structure” or “nuisance” ordinances in their municipal codes. However, associaons seeking


(Connued on page 32)


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40