The Bill that Was Brought by the Plaintiffs to Prevent Pennsylvania Coal Company - Assignment Example

 Legal Environment of Public Administration The bill was brought by the (Mahon) plaintiffs to prevent Pennsylvania Coal Company from beginning the mining assignment under their property. The plaintiff was concerned by the possibility of having the structure destroyed leading to subsidence of the surface area covering their compound. The plaintiff argues that the rights of the coal company were taken by the Kohler Act. This is a law forbidding the mining of coal resulting in the subsistence of the surface that is being used for human habitation. The Act has certain exceptions. The opinion holds that some values can only be enjoyed under implied limitations. This justifies the yielding to police power (Rose, 1984). At the same time, the implied limitation has some limits. The law has the intention of protecting the surface in case of mining anthracite coal. The opinion of the court suggested that compensation must be done to sustain the act when the damage reaches a certain magnitude. This legal move is aimed at sustaining the act. In most cases, the biggest weight is given to legislature. This means that the law is contended only when the legislature goes beyond its constitutional power. The court held that the act cannot be sustained as a subject of the police power. This is because it should never be allowed to make mining of coal commercially impossible or impractical. The act is tantamount to destroying the mineral. The legal environment in the United States depicts a mixed image (Hay et al, 2005). The government is keenly interested in accomplishing its goals. This sometimes happens at the expense of the private interests. According to the court, the law presupposes that the private property can only be protected, in this context, for public interest. In such cases, compensation must be done. The government seems to have less interest in addressing the investment concerns that might be raised. The powerful businesses that yield considerable power are not entirely secure. These businesses are subject to the strategic interests of the federal government’s policies (Kulick, 2012). When the protection of private property rights are redefined in case of matters of national interest. The court was bent to believing that too much regulation amounts to a taking. The strong desire to improve public conditions must be subjected to constitutionalism. This means that private the private companies must pay for the change they want. This opinion indicates that the government administration on matters of national interest involving powerful businesses is even (Hay et al, 2005). The important businesses rare have the privileges they expect. The legal environment fails to take into account their expected output. According the court, protection of public interests entails consideration of private economic interests from the coal companies. This consideration must take into account the needs and interests of the surface owners. The Kohler Act aimed at ensuring the state protects public welfare. In this case, the court was convinced that the petitioner failed to satisfy the burden of proof. The economic viability of the property was seen not to be violated as claimed by the petitioners (Rose, 1984). The government is required to arrest any effort that affects the public interest or wellbeing. Whereas each case has its context, the government administrative agencies fail to be emphatic enough while dealing with powerful businesses in the US. The court dealing with the Pennsylvania case acknowledged that the government must always act in the best interests of the public. However, the plaintiff seemed irrelevant as power play between the state and the economic interests in the private investors took the center stage. The court observed that the state has power to prevent mining in the event the activity poses the danger of releasing poisonous gases (Hay et al, 2005). The state did not have to buy the coal to enforce such a restriction. In like manner, the state has power to prevent excavation, without paying compensation, if the move endangers the community. The government administrative agencies in the United States are committed to ensure reciprocity between community benefits and private interests (Kulick, 2012). This is indicated by the statement that there is no room for reciprocity in case the government acts within it power to deny private property owner rights in order to protect the public. The government is not bound to compensate when acting for public welfare. The act of regulation and protection from harm is a significant pillar in the consideration of the economic viability of a project. However, leaving the burden of prove to petitioners in the matters involving national resources creates an imbalance. The petitioner may not have enough resources to hire the experts capable to proving the viability of underground mining projects. This amounts to unfair treatment of the citizens by the state agencies (Kulick, 2012). The court in the Pennsylvania case pointed out that the petitioners failed to point out a single mine that could no longer be profitable. This means that the lower class citizens or some middle class may lack the funds to sustain such high profile cases. This is especially profound when the respondents are the state administrative agencies or officers. The court held the regulatory act requiring compensation heavily depends on the extent of diminution in the property value. The decision gave rise to the doctrine of regulatory taking. The fact that the plaintiff, H. Mahon was given the rights to the land but denied him the mining rights. The government agencies are not necessarily committed to protecting individual rights especially with regard to pursuing the Kohler Act. The Supreme Court indicated that Mahon’s position was unconstitutional (Rose, 1984). The United States government agencies were perceived to be hostile to the citizens in the view of this verdict. The court held that the police power was legitimate. The move has been seen as extreme. The Supreme Court ruled that a government regulation was invalid. The court went too far in taking the private property for public use. The general implication is that the democratic government allowed the state agencies to operate and act outside the required boundaries. The diminution in value might destroy he Pennsylvania Company’s rights to contract and property. The expectations of the court was that the private owner to have adequate safety. The premise of citizen rights and safety is the hope that there must be an interchange between governments and individuals. The citizens in the United States have a fear that the government administrative agencies can take property without necessarily satisfying the constitutional process of just compensation and other legal requirements (Rose, 1984). The national and state regulation on mining affects the use of the property by the owners. The government state agencies have a casual commitment to ensuring they operate within their boundaries (Kulick, 2012). The United States Supreme Court reversed the state’s Supreme Court ruling. The court held that the Act was contravening the police power of the state. The diminution tests have been accused of being ambiguous. The move demoralized the property owners who felt unfairly treated by the fact that the government action has no compensation even after encroaching upon their property (Kulick, 2012). After bargaining for these rights, the government administrative agencies had the power to take without compensation. The move has the potential of discouraging property owners from making meaningful investments after the cavalier treatment by the government administrative agencies. The perception of unfair treatment by the state agencies could result in demoralization leading to a significant social loss. The Supreme Court never took to account the demoralization cost (Rose, 1984). A simple analysis indicates that the cost of the regulation could easily outweigh the benefits of the same. This supports the premise that the administrative law does not necessarily improve the quality of life of the United States citizens. This is profound when crucial decisions are taken while ignoring the plight of the major stakeholders. The perception of unfair treatment discourages potential local investors thereby affecting the quality of life of the United States citizens. The administrative agencies of the US government seemed to embrace takings whose intervention in private affairs constitutes a net cost and no net benefit. This intrusion is unwarranted and can amount to a taking. There is a perception that the arguments in support of the legitimacy of the Act had major considerations of in safety matters. In this case, the Act demanded that the company repurchases the surface (Rose, 1984). This could ensure that the company mines in its own property or land as opposed to some else’s. The other option was to ensure the company mined in a way that ensured the surface was supported. The state must act with restraint when dealing with individual citizen rights and matters that affect the quality of life of the US citizens. The Supreme Court decisions must protect the public from harm while upholding the rights of the stakeholders. The role and influence of the governmental agencies and their boundaries must be clearly defined in cases that generate significant public interest. References Hay, B. L., Stavins, R. N., & Vietor, R. H. (2005). Environmental protection and the social responsibility of firms: Perspectives from law, economics, and business. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Kulick, A. (2012). Global Public Interest in International Investment Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rose, C. M. (1984). Mahon reconstructed : why the takings issue is still a muddle (1st ed.). Yale law School. Read More