PHILADELPHIA - A federal court of appeals has affirmed a lower court's decision to deny an injunction that would stop eminent domain proceedings against most of the residents of Centralia who do not want to leave their homes despite the mine fire burning underneath.
In short, the feds agree Centralia residents must move.
In an opinion handed down Tuesday, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition of Bonnie Hynoski, Stephen Hynoski, Christine Hynoski, Tom Hynoski, Harold Mervine, John Koschoff, Helen Hynoski and Walter Hynoski for a preliminary injunction and reconsideration and affirmed the U.S. District Court decision handed down March 11, 2011.
In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition by the same group, who had their properties condemned due to eminent domain proceedings. In their complaints, the residents say the Columbia County Redevelopment Authority (CCRA), the state, Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) and the Blaschak Coal Corporation have conspired to remove them from the properties so coal, and associated
revenues, underneath the town can be exploited. They also say the underground fire was never a threat.
The group says all the eminent domain proceedings should be stopped because CCRA and the state withdrew their petitions to take one property, the Netchel property.
On March 11, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge Christopher C. Conner denied their injunction, ruling the residents had not demonstrated a likelihood of success of their case on its merits or any risk of irreparable harm. The state has immunity against such suits and the statutes of limitations had expired.
The filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals by the residents contested those rulings and claimed the U.S. District Court abused its discretion by not having a hearing before ruling on the injunction.
In the opinion written by Judge Michael A. Chagares, the three-judge board agreed with the district court's decision that the residents' claims are time-barred because their complaint was not filed until almost four years after the Netchel settlement and the residents did not explain why there was a delay.
"There are no allegations in the (residents') brief, motion or amended complaint that attempts to explain the delay or describe any obstacles that prevented the appellants from discovering the Netchel settlement," the opinion reads. "Moreover, the (residents') do not explain how they eventually learned about the Netchel settlement."
Judges also affirmed the district court's decision the residents did not allege any imminent irreparable harm by losing their properties, denying the injunction.
Because the Centralia residents did not support their claims of harm in their filings, the U.S. District Court ruled they are not obliged to hold a hearing prior to denying the motion for the injunction to the eminent domain proceedings. The U.S. District Court affirmed that decision as well.