In neighborhood blight reclamation and revitalization, further providing for definitions and providing for vacant and blighted property registration; and imposing penalties.
HB1020 amends Pennsylvania’s neighborhood blight reclamation law in Title 53 to create a new framework for municipal registration of vacant and blighted properties. It adds a definition of “vacant and blighted property” and authorizes municipalities, by ordinance, to establish and collect a registration fee for such properties, maintain a public-facing registry listing the address, owner, and date of listing, and contract with third-party entities to administer the program and collect fees and fines.
The bill sets a tiered fee schedule that increases the longer a property remains noncompliant with municipal code, beginning at $500 after one year and rising to $5,000 for properties listed nine years or more. It also requires municipalities to provide a removal process and notice to owners, and it preserves existing local programs already in place before the bill’s effective date. The bill takes effect 60 days after enactment.
HB1020 would expand municipal authority in Pennsylvania to regulate vacant and blighted properties through registration fees, registries, and enforcement penalties. It creates new statutory standards for when properties may be exempted from registration, including active rehabilitation, good-faith efforts to rent or sell, economic hardship, probate or title litigation, pending development approvals, and active-duty military ownership. It also authorizes daily penalties for nonpayment and makes unpaid fees a lien collectible as a municipal claim, affecting property owners, municipalities, redevelopment authorities, housing authorities, and land banks.
The available voting history suggests the bill was received favorably in committee, passing the House Housing and Community Development Committee 25-1 on a report-as-committed vote. No committee transcript is available, but the strong vote margin indicates broad support for the bill’s anti-blight and municipal enforcement approach. The near-unanimous committee result suggests the measure was viewed as a practical tool for local governments rather than a highly divisive proposal.
The main points of potential contention are the new registration fees, the escalating penalty structure, and the use of liens and daily fines to compel compliance, which could be viewed by property owners as burdensome. There may also be concern about municipal discretion in determining whether a property is “vacant and blighted,” the role of third-party administrators, and the scope of exemptions for hardship, probate, and development-related delays. Supporters are likely municipalities and community revitalization advocates seeking stronger tools to address blight, while opponents would likely be property owners and others concerned about cost, enforcement, and due-process protections.