This is what was just decided:
The majority of the Court in Bobov stated that the “General Assembly cannot displace our interpretation of the Constitution” and rejected the argument that the Court should defer to the General Assembly’s definition of “purely public charity.” (Saul Ewing, LLP)
The Senate, in a 30-20 vote, approved a proposed state constitutional amendment declaring the General Assembly has the exclusive role to set standards to determine which institutions are purely a public charity. The measure now goes to the House. (RH/TS, Robert Swift)
Sounds a bit like the backlash against property reassessments.
It’s just a matter of preference, citizens of Pennsylvania. Who would you rather be in charge of determining what is a “Charity”: the legislature or the judiciary? Who do you trust to be more finally in charge “Free speech”? “Bear arms?” “Equal protection?”
The politicians, or the justices in black robes? Which is more likely to give a clear answer, that makes sense?
And it’s not as though taxing bodies and local governments can’t offer tax credits, for all sorts of commerce and activities for which it feels an air of mutual charity. Call it development if that’s what it is.