VALUATION CHANGES RESULTING FROM INFLUENCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

RESEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON THE PROBLEM OF WHETHER TO INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE, IN THE VALUATION OF LANDS CONDEMNED FOR A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, ENHANCEMENT OR DIMINUTION IN VALUE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT. APPOSITE CASES ARE DISCUSSED AND ANALYZED AND A LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION RECOMMENDED TO THE PROBLEM WHICH SHOULD BRING ABOUT UNIFORMITY OF RESULTS. THE CASES RELATING TO ENHANCEMENT DISCLOSE THREE BASIC LINES OF APPROACH: (1) ENHANCEMENT IS ALLOWED WITHOUT QUALIFICATION OR LIMITING LANGUAGE, (2) ENHANCEMENT IS DENIED WITHOUT QUALIFICATION OR LIMITING LANGUAGE, AND (3) ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF ENHANCEMENT IS MADE TO DEPEND UPON WHETHER IT WAS CERTAIN OR PRACTICALLY CERTAIN FROM THE OUTSET OF THE PUBLIC PROJECT OR THE GOVERNMENT'S COMMITMENT THAT THE LANDS WOULD BE CONDEMNED FOR THE PROJECT. THE MERITS OF THE TEST OF FORESEEABILITY ARE DISCUSSED. THE TEST OF FORESEEABILITY TIES IN NICELY WITH THE LOGIC OF DENYING ENHANCEMENT FOR THE REASON THAT BENEFITS DUE TO THE IMPROVEMENT CANNOT INURE TO LANDS EARMARKED FOR CONDEMNATION, AND THE VIEW THAT ANY ADVANCEMENT IN VALUE OF LANDS TO BE CONDEMNED FOR A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DERIVES FROM A BASE IN SPECULATION. THE TEST OF FORESEEABILITY, IN PARTICULAR THE MILLER RULE, WHICH SPECIFICIES THE OUTSET OF THE PROJECT AS BEING THE DATE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S COMMITMENT THERETO, RUNS INTO TROUBLE WHEN APPLIED TO THE USUAL AND ORDINARY HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. IN THE MILLER CASE, THE SPECIFIC LEGISLATION INVOLVED WAS AN ACT OF CONGRESS AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHASTA DAM IN CALIFORNIA. IN THE ORDINARY HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO SUCH AUTHORIZING ACT IS INVOLVED. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT NO CASE DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT OF DEPRECIATION, WHATEVER THE RESULT REACHED, INVOKES THE TEST OF FORESEEABILITY. THE LEGISLATION PROPOSED PROVIDES THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY IN A PROCEEDING IN EMINENT DOMAIN SHALL BE THE PRICE FOR THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WOULD BE ACCEPTED BY A SELLER WILLING BUT UNOBLIGATED TO SELL AND WOULD BE PAID BY A BUYER WILLING BUT UNOBLIGATED TO BUY IN A VOLUNTARY SALE, WHICH SUCH PRICE SHALL BE DETERMINED AND ASCERTAINED AS OF THE DATE OF TAKING. IT IS PROVIDED THAT IN THE CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY FOR A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, THERE SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM SUCH PRICE ANY APPRECIATION IN VALUE PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY SUCH IMPROVEMENT, AND ANY DEPRECIATION IN VALUE PROMIXATELY CAUSED BY SUCH IMPROVEMENT. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE MATTER OF PROOF HAS BEEN OMITTED FROM THIS DISCUSSION AND THAT THE MARYLAND AND PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES AND THE MUSKIE BILL ARE SILENT WITH RESPECT TO PROOF.

  • Record URL:
  • Supplemental Notes:
    • Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
  • Publication Date: 1969-10

Media Info

  • Media Type: Digital/other
  • Pagination: 25 p.
  • Serial:
  • Publication flags:

    Open Access (libre)

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00238751
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Files: TRIS, TRB
  • Created Date: Dec 29 1994 12:00AM