The good thing is that landowners have a strong weapon in their corner in this fight.  The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that, “[N]either an increase nor a decrease in the market value of the property sought to be taken, which is brought about by the same project for which the property is being taken, may be considered in determining the value of the property.” State v. Sovich, 253 Ind. 224 (1969)

An important distinction to make is that the rule only applies to the affects on property value caused by the project for which the property is being taken.  For example, consider a parcel of land.  The parcel is being taken in relation to a road project called project A.  At the same time, a separate project, project B, is building a park nearby.  The effects on the parcel’s value caused by project A cannot be considered.  However, the effects on the parcel’s value caused by project B may be considered because it is a separate project.

The major implication here is that the value of a property being taken should be determined as if the project responsible for the taking did not exist at all.  The difficulty lies in determining if there has been any project influence at play in a given situation.  The affects are not always obvious.  So landowners beware.  Do not accept less than your property is worth.

For more information or if you are involved in your own eminent domain dispute contact our office at any time at 1-888-318-3761 or visit us on the web at www.severstorey.com.

In January Sever Storey blogged about Senate Bill 54, which would have been a good first step towards fully compensating Indiana residents for the taking of their land by way of eminent domain.  Click here to see that blog.

For more information or if you are involved in your own eminent domain dispute contact our office at any time at 1-888-318-3761 or visit us on the web at www.severstorey.com.

Monroe County Public Works Director Bill Williams ‘yes’ vote became the deciding vote on a close 7-6 decision to include the controversial interstate after he failed to disclose that his son was employed by a subcontractor working on I-69 for INDOT.

State law requires Boards and Commissions to have possible conflict of interest issues reviewed by a third party with a written decision then issued on the matter.  The above protocol was not followed in this case.

The invalidation of one “yes” vote resulted in a 6-6 stalemate and as a result the motion to include I-69 in the MPO’s plan failed.  The use of federal funds and the completion of the project remain in question.

For more information or if you are involved in your own eminent domain dispute contact our office at any time at 1-888-318-3761 or visit us on the web at www.severstorey.com.

Under this plan, INDOT is exploring closing U.S. 31 to traffic for accelerated construction of an overpass at 126th Street and roundabout changes at Main and 136th Streets. More information about schedule and traffic plan changes will be presented at a U.S. 31 Hamilton County open house on Thursday, March 29, at Carmel High School. It will be held from 5 to 8 p.m. in the high school’s main cafeteria with a formal presentation at 6 p.m. A forum for contractors and other industry representatives is being planned for May.

For more information or if you are involved in your own eminent domain dispute contact our office at any time at 1-888-318-3761 or visit us on the web at www.severstorey.com.

The work on the bridges will be followed next year by the start of actual I-75 reconstruction.  I-75 is to be rebuilt in two stages between State Rt. 81, on Lima’s northeast side, and the Allen-Auglaize county line.   The first stage is scheduled to being in 2013 and the second in 2014.  The total project, scheduled for completion in 2015, is expected to cost about $156 million.

For more information or if you are involved in your own eminent domain dispute contact our office at any time at 1-888-318-3761 or visit us on the web at www.severstorey.com.

Sever Storey will be hosting a public, educational seminar from 6:00-7:30pm on March 8, 2012 at the Lima Public Library main branch to discuss the project.  Information will be provided regarding the eminent domain process and landowners’ rights and role in the process.  Anyone who is interested is welcome to join.  For more information or if you are involved in your own eminent domain dispute contact our office at any time at 1-888-318-3761 or visit us on the web at www.severstorey.com.

The bill now moves to the House for further consideration.

The dispute continues to get coverage in the news.  Click the following link for an article about the most recent developments.

http://www.jconline.com/article/20120125/NEWS/201250318/Delphi-church-rejects-higher-offer?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Those interested in more information or involved in their own eminent domain disputes are welcome to contact our office at any time at 1-888-318-3761 or visit us on the web at www.severstorey.com.

Another way to understand the impact of this bill is to say that it would require state universities to compensate business owners for the value of their property and their business losses resulting from the taking. Business losses are established by determining the present value of future earnings. The present value of future earnings is computed using a formula that relies on previous earnings and then accounts for the business’s projected growth and the risk that earnings will stop or end up lower that the estimate. This somewhat complicated formula is used to value the business. The important takeaway is that this valuation method considers the current benefit of realizing future cash flows now, rather than in the future.

Indiana, among many other states, currently has a land-centric compensation system, which ignores potential economic injuries to businesses located on properties subject to eminent domain. Indiana law compensates the land or business owner for the value of the property, but it does not take into account the losses the business incurs as a result of the taking. Rarely is a business subject to eminent domain and able to avoid any negative financial impacts. Considerations like location, customer loyalty, etc. are almost always affected by eminent domain, and these factors play an important role in a business’s viability. Many businesses are so greatly affected by the process that they are unable to survive, and thus businesses owners are often left uncompensated for major injuries resulting from the taking. This is an insufficiency that must be addressed. The power of eminent domain is an important tool for the State, but landowners must be compensated fully for any and all losses suffered.

This bill is a step in the right direction in terms of truly compensating property and specifically business owners affected by eminent domain, but it ultimately does not go far enough. The bill’s impact should be expanded to cover eminent domain actions taken by any actor when an operating business is involved. Certain business owners should not be left without true compensation simply because they were not lucky enough to be located next to a state college or university. All actors exercising the power of eminent domain and all individuals affected should be treated equally under the law.

This is not to say however that no limitations should be placed on the recovery of business losses. It should not be the business owner’s goal to become unjustly enriched through the eminent domain process. Therefore it would likely be prudent, in an effort to prevent windfall returns to those businesses that are able to relocate and resume effective operations, to limit the compensation to the business losses that cannot reasonably be recouped through relocation of the business or other reasonable means.

Other states, although few in number, have already taken steps to compensate property and business owners for what are generally considered “business losses.” And they have applied the compensation for business losses theory to eminent domain proceedings initiated by all actors. California and Minnesota are prime examples. These states have applied the general idea in the Indiana bill, but have refined it with the addition of some limitations. Each state has its own term to describe business losses, but they are generally defined as “the benefits that accrue to a business as a result of its location, reputation for dependability, skill or quality, and any other circumstances resulting in probable retention of old or acquisition of new patronage.” Additionally, each state places three important limitations on the award of compensation for business losses: (1) The loss must be caused by the taking of the property of the injury to the remainder. (2) The loss must not be reasonably preventable by a relocation of the business or by taking steps and adopting procedures that a reasonably prudent person would take and adopt to prevent these losses. (3) Compensation for the loss must not be duplicated in the compensation otherwise awarded.

The California and Minnesota statutes achieve just what the eminent domain laws should be designed to accomplish. They allow for the true compensation of land and business owners for the full extent of damages caused by eminent domain proceedings. As stated above, proposed Senate Bill 54 is a step in the right direction in terms of properly compensating property owners affected by the eminent domain process. However it falls short of being the perfect solution. The idea stands to be refined in a number of ways including by expanding its scope to reach all eminent domain takings and by establishing limitations to prevent over-compensation.

The ultimate goal is to implement a system that properly compensates property owners for the taking of their land. And although there is more work to be done, Indiana has taken a significant step towards this goal with the proposal of Senate Bill 54. Many other states without similar laws stand to do the same by proposing legislation similar to Senate Bill 54, and laws like those in California and Minnesota should be considered a viable blueprint for taking that step.

http://m.pharostribune.com/PT/db_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=PC47WxI4&full=true#display

Those interested in more information or involved in their own eminent domain disputes are welcome to contact our office at any time at 1-888-318-3761 or visit us on the web at www.severstorey.com.