Opinion
May 4, 1955.
June 27, 1955.
Municipalities — Philadelphia — Powers — Universal water metering program — Validity — Constitutional law — Article I, § 1, Article IX, § 7 — Federal Constitution — 14th Amendment — Acts of June 7, 1911, P. L. 680, May 12, 1925, P. L. 612 and April 21, 1949, P. L. 665 — Philadelphia Home Rule Charter.
In this action in equity challenging the validity of the City of Philadelphia's proposed universal water metering program, as set forth in the Water Commissioner's Water Rent Regulation No. 4, issued pursuant to the authority conferred by §§ 5-800 and 5-801 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter it was Held that Water Rent Regulation No. 4 is valid and, more specifically, that (1) it does not violate (a) the provisions of Article I. § 1, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania (which protects the right to acquire, possess and protect property) or the provisions of the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States (which prohibits the states from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law); or (b) the provisions of Article IX, § 7, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania (which provides that the General Assembly shall not authorize any city to loan its credit to any corporation, association, institution or individual); or (c) the Act of April 21, 1949, P. L. 665, § 18 (which provides that no city shall engage in any proprietary or private business except as authorized by the General Assembly); or (d) the Act of June 7, 1911, P. L. 680, as amended by the Act of July 2, 1915, P. L. 561 (which provides for the examination, licensure and registration of persons engaged in the business of plumbing or house drainage); and (2) said water rent regulation is authorized by and in conformity with (a) the Act of May 12, 1925, P. L. 612 (which empowers cities of the first class to install water meters and require property owners to pay for the cost thereof); and (b) the provisions of §§ 5-800 and 5-801 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter; and (3) said water rent regulation does not discriminate (a) against property owners who previously paid for the installation of water meters, insofar as it authorizes installment payments for installations hereafter to be made; or (b) against persons who, in the past, have paid for repair or replacement of meters, insofar as it provides for maintenance hereafter of all meters regardless of when installed, at the expense of the city; and (4) the cost to the city for such maintenance of meters is reasonably and equitably apportioned as between classes of consumers of water by the establishment of minimum rates for various sizes of meters.
Before STERN, C. J., STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 94 and 98, Jan. T., 1955, from decrees of Court of Common Pleas No. 2, of Philadelphia County, June T., 1953, No. 1515, and Court of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1953, No. 8880, in cases of Anthony Vitacolonna et al. v. City of Philadelphia, Joseph S. Clark, Mayor, et al., and Michael Miele et al. v. City of Philadelphia, Joseph S. Clark, Mayor, et al. Decree in each case affirmed.
Same case in court below: 2 Pa. D. C.2d 761.
Complaints in equity. Before MacNEILLE, P. J.
Adjudications filed finding for defendants; exceptions to adjudications dismissed and final decrees entered dismissing complaints. Plaintiffs, respectively, appealed.
Daniel Sherman, with him Paul Weinblatt, for appellants.
L. Irving Tubis, with him Romain C. Hassrick, for appellants.
James L. Stern, Deputy City Solicitor, with him Karl I. Schofield, Assistant City Solicitor, and Abraham L. Freedman, City Solicitor, for appellees.
The Decree of the Court below in each of the above entitled cases is affirmed on the Adjudication of President Judge RAYMOND MacNEILLE; each of the parties to pay their respective costs.