 |
|
Assessing the Benefits of California's New Valuation Rule for Partial Condemnations |
|
Juliet E. Cox |
|
| Using a problem in California condemnation
law, this Comment examines relationships between
private and public property rights and among the
legislative and judicial methods for enforcing
those rights. When a state or local government
agency in California exercises its power of
eminent domain, the state and federal
constitutions entitle the seller to “just
compensation” for her property. If the
seller gives up only part of her holdings, she
receives payment not only for the portion she
sells, but also for the effects of the sale on
the remainder portion she keeps. The California
Supreme Court held in 1997 that compensation to
an owner of remainder property should factor in
all the effects of partial condemnation, whether
those effects are unique to the remainder or
common to the neighborhood. This Comment analyzes the court’s new valuation rule for partial condemnation by comparing it to the common-law rules of inverse condemnation and the voter-approved constitutional limitations on benefit assessment. The new rule makes compensation for the negative effects of public works projects more generous to private owners in partial condemnations than in inverse condemnations; it also makes private owners’ contributions to the cost of beneficial public works projects more generous to the government in partial condemnations than in benefit assessments. This Comment argues that both results are wrong. It concludes that a rule limiting remainder compensation to the same sorts of special and distinct harms and benefits required for inverse condemnation awards or benefit assessments would have been more equitable, less expensive to administer, and more respectful of local legislative and political choices. |
|
| |
|
Copyright
© 2000 by California Law Review, Inc. |
|