An Allegheny County Common Pleas judge heard arguments Tuesday in an effort to derail the annexation of Wilkinsburg into the City of Pittsburgh.
A group pushing the annexation is on its third attempt to bring the question to Wilkinsburg voters. The Wilkinsburg Community Development Corporation argues folding the borough into the city will lower property taxes, open Wilkinsburg residents up to more resources and boost Pittsburgh’s population.
But a lawyer for annexation opponents told Judge Joseph James that the 1903 procedure to annex the borough was repealed last summer. Opponents further argue that the process — which relies on approval from voters in Wilkinsburg but not those in Pittsburgh — is unfair.
“We don’t think that they’re operating under any current law,” said Chuck Pascal, the attorney representing five of the objectors Tuesday.
Lawmakers repealed the 1903 law when they passed Act 41 in July. That legislation governs municipal boundary changes, building and demolition permits and changes in assessed property valuations.
But Clifford Levine, an attorney for the Wilkinsburg Community Development Corporation, argued Tuesday that lawmakers made several procedural errors when repealing the 1903 law. He argued that Act 41 doesn’t satisfy a constitutional requirement to lay out the entirety of the repealed law in the new bill; lawmakers only included the title of the 1903 law. He further alleged that state Senators did not read the law publicly multiple times, as required in the state constitution, and that lawmakers may have been unaware that they repealed the law.
Because of these errors, Levine argued, the 1903 law remains in force. He further noted that a statutory framework for annexations involving second-class cities like Pittsburgh would not exist without the 1903 law. A 1994 law governing municipal mergers specifically leaves out Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, because those voters would outweigh the number of voters in a borough.
Among the objectors is Wilkinsburg Borough itself. Attorney Matthew Kalina argued that the requirement to reprint the repealed law only applies when lawmakers are repealing portions of the law, not the entire thing. Legislators repealed the entire law, so they only needed to include a reference to the law, Kalina argued.
Judge James pointed out that there is no precedent that speaks to whether the entire law needs to be reprinted in new legislation.
Pascal did agree that there is currently that no state law that speaks to annexation involving the state's largest cities. But he argued an annexation could take place under a procedure laid out in the state constitution. That process would put the question to Pittsburgh voters and Wilkinsburg voters separately, Pascal said. Both municipalities would have to approve the annexation for it to go forward.
“I don’t know why we’re in here arguing when they could just do that right now,” Pascal said. “The people of both communities, both Pittsburgh and Wilkinsburg have to be able to vote.”
When asked by WESA after the hearing if annexation supporters would be willing to follow a procedure that includes Pittsburgh voters, Wilkinsburg Community Development Corporation Executive Director Tracey Evans said the group would consider its options. But she said it would not commit to a new approach until James ruled on the current petition.
But Evans contested arguments that Pittsburghers are left out of the conversation under the 1903 procedure, since City Council must also vote on annexation. She argued that city residents have “an opportunity to contact their city councilman, they’re full-time people. In the boroughs, there aren’t full-time elected officials. That’s one of the reasons we’re doing this.”
She said her group sought advice from city and county leaders as well as court officials about which process to follow before the organization made its first attempt at an annexation last year. She said she hopes Judge James will allow the current petition to advance to Pittsburgh City Council.
“Our goal ... has been to give Wilkinsburg residents a chance to vote on this issue,” Evans said.
At the end of the hearing, Judge James pledged to hand down a ruling “as expeditiously as possible," though he didn't specify a timeframe. During their testimony, objectors repeatedly indicated that if James does greenlight the annexation effort, they would likely appeal.
