The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 26-29

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 26... ... 26 also selling at a depressed price.274 As a Connecticut court stated when refusing to permit a valuation as of any date other than as of the date of taking, if a property owner desires "to purchase other land in place of that taken he could buy a much more desirable property for the same money in a time of general depression than he could when values were at a higher level."275 There are other counterarguments or issues that condemnors may raise; for example: whether public funds may be used to place a property owner in a better economic situation by providing resources to purchase a comparable replacement property less the debt owed on a property that is worth less than the balance of the mortgage; and whether adjusting the principles of just compensation amounts to rewarding property owners, banks, and speculators for engaging in what was essentially irresponsible behavior, such as the issuance of loans exceeding the value of a property or the use of no-document or sub-prime loans. Read the entire page →
From page 27... ... 27 to an award equal to the opportunity cost of his contribution to the condemnor's project…."286 Although the value of the gain to the condemnor and the loss to a property may be equivalent in some or even most cases, particularly at the time of a severely depressed real estate market the difference in value between the two measures may be substantial.287 A property owner's compensation presumably would be higher if a decision on the value of the property and the compensation due to a property owner is based on the value of the government's gain because of the use for which the property was taken, for example, for commercial development.288 It appears that most courts have not allowed evidence of the value of the gain to the government so as to permit a property owner to recoup losses relating to a particular use of the property that are reflected in a strict interpretation of fair market value.289 Indeed, as discussed in Section VI.F, depending on the circumstances, the law also disfavors allowing property that is taken to include value attributable to the project's influence on the property. Read the entire page →
From page 28... ... 28 The court agreed that the values of the property were adjustable because the highest and best use of the property was for a residential subdivision. However, usually it is necessary to discount a property's highest and best use valuation because of costs that would be attendant to the property's development.297 Although development costs may be deducted, in contrast to what a real-world buyer would consider, the courts usually do not deduct the cost of any risks or delays associated with development that would decrease the value of the property being taken.298 Thus, there is the possibility with this approach to valuation that a property owner's recovery could be greater than a private seller's sale proceeds for the same property.299 There is some authority holding that temporary difficulties in the market may warrant valuing a property based not on its current use but on its highest and best use. Read the entire page →
From page 29... ... 29 waive its rights if the owner withdraws the funds as allowed by the statute.308 As for the first question, the argument of Azusa Pacific University (University) was that the date of valuation should be the date the trial on just compensation commenced. Read the entire page →

From page 26...

... 26 also selling at a depressed price.274 As a Connecticut court stated when refusing to permit a valuation as of any date other than as of the date of taking, if a property owner desires "to purchase other land in place of that taken he could buy a much more desirable property for the same money in a time of general depression than he could when values were at a higher level."275 There are other counterarguments or issues that condemnors may raise; for example: whether public funds may be used to place a property owner in a better economic situation by providing resources to purchase a comparable replacement property less the debt owed on a property that is worth less than the balance of the mortgage; and whether adjusting the principles of just compensation amounts to rewarding property owners, banks, and speculators for engaging in what was essentially irresponsible behavior, such as the issuance of loans exceeding the value of a property or the use of no-document or sub-prime loans.

Read the entire page →

From page 27...

... 27 to an award equal to the opportunity cost of his contribution to the condemnor's project…."286 Although the value of the gain to the condemnor and the loss to a property may be equivalent in some or even most cases, particularly at the time of a severely depressed real estate market the difference in value between the two measures may be substantial.287 A property owner's compensation presumably would be higher if a decision on the value of the property and the compensation due to a property owner is based on the value of the government's gain because of the use for which the property was taken, for example, for commercial development.288 It appears that most courts have not allowed evidence of the value of the gain to the government so as to permit a property owner to recoup losses relating to a particular use of the property that are reflected in a strict interpretation of fair market value.289 Indeed, as discussed in Section VI.F, depending on the circumstances, the law also disfavors allowing property that is taken to include value attributable to the project's influence on the property.

Read the entire page →

From page 28...

... 28 The court agreed that the values of the property were adjustable because the highest and best use of the property was for a residential subdivision. However, usually it is necessary to discount a property's highest and best use valuation because of costs that would be attendant to the property's development.297 Although development costs may be deducted, in contrast to what a real-world buyer would consider, the courts usually do not deduct the cost of any risks or delays associated with development that would decrease the value of the property being taken.298 Thus, there is the possibility with this approach to valuation that a property owner's recovery could be greater than a private seller's sale proceeds for the same property.299 There is some authority holding that temporary difficulties in the market may warrant valuing a property based not on its current use but on its highest and best use.

Read the entire page →

From page 29...

... 29 waive its rights if the owner withdraws the funds as allowed by the statute.308 As for the first question, the argument of Azusa Pacific University (University) was that the date of valuation should be the date the trial on just compensation commenced.

Read the entire page →

Key Terms

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.