1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

and I want to suggeat that the problem here is not
whether people will be adequately protected when their
property is taken which gives them a right not only to
the taking, the value of the taking, but the incidental
damages involved, but this introduces a concept which
had an unfortunate result, I think in many states, of
extending this nebulous concept of damage quite apart from
the property taken.
Now, when property is taken, you can have
valuations put on by your own appraisers in the states
and these matters can be submitted to a jury and incidenta]
damages following from it, but when the property is not
taken, it doesn't require much imagination to see that
you are in the cloud, that property miles away could be
affected by a particular change of a road for example, and
that is the difficulty that I see, is that it introduces
a perfectly nebulous concept which has been rejected by
our legislature and now it would be written in the vaguest
terms into our Constitution itself.
I hink it would indeed open a Pandora's
box of litigation.