general welfare clause in Pennsylvania

1971Although we are not bound by the facts of that case, we are bound by the basic and underlying principles of law set forth therein as established by our appellate courts. “ ‘Specifically, under the general welfare clause, or by virtue of a general grant of power . . . municipal corporations are authorized to enact appropriate and reasonable ordinances, ... to abate nuisances and regulate various kinds of occupations that may become nuisances or detrimental to the public health;’ [McQuillin’s Municipal Corporations 2nd ed. sec. 950, p. 116, as quoted in Adams v. New Kensington, 357 Pa. 557, 563

1959It is quite obvious that these provisions constitute a grant of extremely broad powers and in the case of Adams v. New Kensington, 357 Pa. 557 , involving an ordinance passed under The Third Class City Law of June 23, 1931, P. L. 932, 53 PS §35101, et seq., Mr. Justice Stern, at page 563, stated: “‘Specifically, under the general welfare clause, or by virtue of general grant of power . . . municipal corporations are authorized to enact appropriate and reasonable ordi nances, ... to abate nuisances and regulate various kinds of occupations that may become nuisances or detrimental to the public

1980Any fair, reasonable doubt as to the existence of power is resolved by the courts against its existence in the corporation, and therefore denied.’” It follows that unlimited police powers are not conferred on subdivisions of State government by a general welfare clause or a general grant of powers clause.” See also Simco Sales Service of Pennsylvania v. Township of Lower Merion Board of Commissioners, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 434 , 394 A. 2d 642 (1978).

1980Any fair, reasonable doubt as to the existence of power is resolved by the courts against its existence in the corporation, and therefore denied.’” It follows that unlimited police powers are not conferred on subdivisions of State government by a general welfare clause or a general grant of powers clause.” See also Simco Sales Service of Pennsylvania v. Township of Lower Merion Board of Commissioners, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 434 , 394 A. 2d 642 (1978).

1947In O’Maley v. Borough of Freeport, 96 Pa. 24, 30 , it was said of a somewhat similar grant of authority: “That the power here conferred is sufficiently comprehensive to cover every regulation necessary for the government of the borough and protection of its citizens, cannot, we think, be doubted.

1927There is no reason why a municipality, unless restricted by statute, should not be permitted to make reasonable appropriations in order to fitly commemorate public events in which all of the citizens thereof are, or should be, interested......Whether this be considered an inherent common-law power of every municipality, or whether it comes within the purview of the general welfare clause of the act [regulating cities of the third class]......the result is the same.” These principles were recently discussed and approved by the New York Court of Appeals in Schieffelin v. Hylan, 236 N. Y. 254 , 1

1922In Pittsburgh Railways Co. v. Pittsburgh, 211 Pa. 479 , the ordinance was held to be invalid, although the tax was called a license tax.

1915But any ordinance must stand the test of reasonableness.” In State v. Holcomb, 68 Iowa, 107 , the rule is stated, viz.: “The only question, therefore, is whether the regulation is reasonable.