|
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Concerning the
interpretation of the word "damaged," I
must ask whether you had the opportunity
to read the memorandum prepared by Mr.
Burgess?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes, I am fa-
miliar with it, but I am going to yield to
Delegate Burgess because he prepared it.
He and I have talked about it and the
Committee has gone into it considerably,
but let me defer to Delegate Burgess.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Burgess.
DELEGATE BURGESS: The answer is
yes, we did. We intend it to cover areas
not presently covered under the concept of
eminent domain in the area of compensa-
tion.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Does the Com-
mittee intend to incorporate the memo-
randum as the supporting document for
future interpretations of the word "dam-
aged"?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Burgess.
DELEGATE BURGESS: I would feel
it would not be a proper statement of the
fact inasmuch as this is a memorandum
prepared by certain members of the Com-
mittee, if you will, and the staff, in con-
nection with our position here on the floor.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: I would have to
refer to specific questions.
Would, for example, the word "damage"
include damage to the market value of a
property which may be occasioned, for ex-
ample, by the following circumstances: If
a condemned property, Lot A, was taken,
and they did not take property across the
street on Lot B, but the taking of Lot A
occasioned a loss or diminishment in the
property value of Lot B, would the word
"damaged" permit the owner of Lot B to
demand compensation for the damage oc-
casioned by the taking of Lot A even
though there was no physical taking but
simply a diminishment in market value?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Burgess.
|
DELEGATE BURGESS: The broad an-
swer would be yes, the depreciation in
value would have to be by reason of dam-
age to the land or the property rights in
that land.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Would it in-
clude, for example, the lot. Let me put it
this way.
If the State, as it has done on many
occasions in the City, condemned a great
number of residential blocks and there
was a store on the fringe of that con-
demned area which profited by the resi-
dents of that area that was condemned,
could he demand compensation by the State
for the loss of that market?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Burgess.
DELEGATE BURGESS: The damage
under our concept here would relate only
to the difference in the market value of
his property and would not relate to a
percentage or figure of business which he
might have lost.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: If he lost his
market, would not his property value be
diminished to that extent?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Burgess.
DELEGATE BURGESS: You ask me
to appraise the property in a hypothetical
situation here. I would think that logically,
yes, it would affect the market value of
the property and that he would rightfully
be entitled to some compensation.
DELEGATE J. CLARK: (presiding):
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: May I just com-
ment on this, Delegate Byrnes?
The concept here is an additional, new
concept that has not existed in the Mary-
land law at this point.
The present status of the Maryland law
is this, that if there is a physical in-
trusion on the property, physical taking
of the property, there is a taking which
is compensible.
If there is only a damage, diminution in
value which does not involve a physical
taking or a denial of access to the property
|
