This story comes out of Michigan, but is just another example of the difference in eminent domain just compensation that can be achieved by negotiating with the condemning authority through the use of an eminent domain professional. You can read the story here, but I'll recap it for you in case you don't have time to read the whole thing.
The Michigan Department of Transportation needed some property to complete the construction of a connector highway in Oakland County, Michigan. MDOT threatened condemnation if a settlement couldn't be reached (which is usually the case), and extended negotiations ensued (the truth is, those with eminent domain powers, even in Washington, very rarely want to take a taking to trial because there are too many risks and costs involved - that is why you should try to negotiate!). Eventually this case did go to trial, where the developer was awarded $2.7 million dollars.
In this case, however, the verdict was returned based on a highest and best use of the property that was less than it was in reality (highest and best use is what the property could be used for that would most highly utilize its qualities - the use must be legally permissible, physically possible, and economically viable). A second trial was allowed, and based on a new highest and best use (commercial) the jury returned a verdict of over $14 million dollars! MDOT then appealed and a new trial was allowed. Before this new trial, however, MDOT settled for over $18 million dollars!
What is the lesson here? First, it is important to have your offer of just compensation reviewed. Highest and best use is a critical factor in evaluating your property, and government appraisers often "miss" this in an effort to get the appraisals done as quickly as possible and please the condemning authority. Second, it is important to negotiate with the condemning authority. The only way your offer of just compensation can go is up. Don't be afraid to challenge their viewpoint and get the money you deserve.
Friday
Alaskan Way Viaduct Tunnel Means more Eminent Domain
If you live in the state of Washington, and particularly in the the greater Seattle area, you are well aware of the problems that have plagued the Alaskan Way viaduct, also known as highway 99 (also known as the Pacific Coast Highway). Not only do many see it as an eyesore on a beautiful city, but it is also widely believed to be a significant safety concern in light of the seismic activity that frequents the area (think San Francisco earthquake when the highway collapsed). To remedy this problem, Washington Department Transportation (WSDOT) officials, state legislators, and Seattle city officials have discussed, for several years, different alternatives to the current configuration. And it seems that they have finally agreed on one.
Early this week, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire announced that the new alignment for the Alaskan Way Viaduct will be an underground tunnel. It will slightly deviate from the current alignment (it is much easier to go in a straight line when you don't have to worry about buildings) running just about under First Avenue and will have no exits. Once the tunnel is complete, the current viaduct will be torn down and replaced with a street network and green space (I've attached an artists rendering).What does this mean for eminent domain and just compensation in Seattle? For starters, it means there is going to be more of it. As a property owner, you own not only the surface of the land, but everything above and below. If the government is going to restrict your use of part of your land, or take part of your land, even if it is for a tunnel, they must pay you just compensation, or the fair market value of the property. In this case, because we are talking about subterranean land, it may be difficult to determine what the property is actually worth that is being taken.
The measure of just compensation is what the entire property would be worth before the taking, and what the property is worth after the taking. Subtracting these two numbers gives you, theoretically, what the property that has been taken will be worth. But consider this, with a tunnel under your property, you may be significantly hindered on what you can build on your property. This tunnel will be running under downtown Seattle, home of high rise buildings. This tunnel may render your property suitable for only a five story building when before the tunnel it would have been suitable for a ten story building. That is a significant change in value, and only one of many issues that should be researched before settling with WSDOT (and it may be something WSDOT doesn't even consider in their just compensation appraisal).
It will probably be several months until right of way plans are finalized for this project. But they will be finalized and WSDOT will be coming after your property with authority to use eminent domain. Make sure you get what you deserve for it.
Tuesday
Washington Eminent Domain Appraisals Aren't Always Right
It's always interesting to see how much a property is worth when the property and information surrounding are presented to a jury. It isn't that the property owner is always right, or that the government is always wrong, but it is just hard for twelve disinterested people to give all the weight to the state. Not only does there seem to be an inherent belief that the government is trying to get the lowest price possible for property it acquires, but the natural human tendency is come somewhere in the middle of two opposing viewpoints.
And it is stories like this that tend to prove this theory. Although not in Washington, Seattle, Spokane, Renton, Olympia, or otherwise, it is a good example of what tends to happen. In the Marysville, California area, property was needed, specifically 99 acres, for the improvement of levees. The person who owned the property thought his ground, containing peach and walnut orchards, were worth at least 2 million dollars more than the government had appraised it for. And instead of laying down and taking the government's offer of just compensation, he fought the government to get what was rightfully his - the fair market value of his lost property.
Traditionally, even when the parties are as far apart on their determination of valuation as these groups, the two sides will meet to talk. But in this case the governmental agency, tasked with rebuilding some levees, balked at meeting with the landowner. So what did the landowner do? He did what all Washington landowners facing condemnation should do: he hired an eminent domain expert.
After some time, the case went to a jury, who awarded the landowner 2.8 million dollars as just compensation for his eminent domain taking. What can account for this difference? As usual, the government looked for the lowest possible use of the property, agriculture, while the landowner saw the highest and best use for the property - residential (the town was moving toward the landowner's property, making it reasonable to believe residential growth could occur).
So, what two lessons can be learned from this? First, it is okay to challenge the government's determination of just compensation for your property. They are not right all the time. They are not right most of the time. And no person knows your property better than you. If you think the price is too low, consult an eminent domain professional to not only review your offer of just compensation to see if your thoughts about your property's value are correct, but to help you present your point of view to the government so they will view your eminent domain counter-offer with the respect it deserves.
And second, the government knows all about these large jury verdicts, and it scares them. They know going to a jury is a crap shoot (it is for the landowner too) and that the human tendency is to split the differing views down the middle, leaning more toward the side they think is actually right. This ensures that not only will the government listen to your eminent domain counter-offer, but they will traditionally be happy to work out a deal with you. Press like the story above also doesn't help the public perception of gov't officials, making them even more eager to please.
And it is stories like this that tend to prove this theory. Although not in Washington, Seattle, Spokane, Renton, Olympia, or otherwise, it is a good example of what tends to happen. In the Marysville, California area, property was needed, specifically 99 acres, for the improvement of levees. The person who owned the property thought his ground, containing peach and walnut orchards, were worth at least 2 million dollars more than the government had appraised it for. And instead of laying down and taking the government's offer of just compensation, he fought the government to get what was rightfully his - the fair market value of his lost property.
Traditionally, even when the parties are as far apart on their determination of valuation as these groups, the two sides will meet to talk. But in this case the governmental agency, tasked with rebuilding some levees, balked at meeting with the landowner. So what did the landowner do? He did what all Washington landowners facing condemnation should do: he hired an eminent domain expert.
After some time, the case went to a jury, who awarded the landowner 2.8 million dollars as just compensation for his eminent domain taking. What can account for this difference? As usual, the government looked for the lowest possible use of the property, agriculture, while the landowner saw the highest and best use for the property - residential (the town was moving toward the landowner's property, making it reasonable to believe residential growth could occur).
So, what two lessons can be learned from this? First, it is okay to challenge the government's determination of just compensation for your property. They are not right all the time. They are not right most of the time. And no person knows your property better than you. If you think the price is too low, consult an eminent domain professional to not only review your offer of just compensation to see if your thoughts about your property's value are correct, but to help you present your point of view to the government so they will view your eminent domain counter-offer with the respect it deserves.
And second, the government knows all about these large jury verdicts, and it scares them. They know going to a jury is a crap shoot (it is for the landowner too) and that the human tendency is to split the differing views down the middle, leaning more toward the side they think is actually right. This ensures that not only will the government listen to your eminent domain counter-offer, but they will traditionally be happy to work out a deal with you. Press like the story above also doesn't help the public perception of gov't officials, making them even more eager to please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
