|
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I doubt
very much if it would, because I cannot
conceive of those areas where the continu-
ing authority is there where we may have
opposition.
In any event, whether it would favor or
not favor, I think it is good for our future.
I have written in here "shall hereafter",
and I limit it to hereafter, because I did
not want to get involved with this amend-
ment and this possibility of impairment
with the existing contract.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Supposing
Comsat, the Communications Satellite Cor-
poration, wanted to get this power from the
State of Maryland to condemn this property
for an antenna station. Would it not be
subject to this limitation of three years?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I think
it would. And if they could not do their
condemning in three years, they could come
back to the legislature and get an extension
of authority.
I do not think the legislature if they
wanted them would object to granting them
an authority if they showed a reasonable
basis for the extension.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
The Chair recognizes Delegate White.
DELEGATE WHITE: Delegate Weide-
meyer, I appreciate the help that you gave
me when I was on the stand the other day
and I appreciate your very keen concern
about the possible anti-social behavior which
a private sector of our society might im-
pose upon our citizens in the acquisition of
land.
I am trying to find a way to vote for
your proposal and I am wondering if you
would accept an amendment.
The amendment which I would propose
to offer if I can get the right words would
require that these private firms should be
restricted from practicing discrimination.
If we could do that, I could possibly vote
on it.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I think
it is not germane to the subject.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
The Chair recognizes Delegate Willoner.
|
DELEGATE WILLONER: Delegate
Weidemeyer, the limitation period of three
years is not to apply to the completion of
court trials but only to the filing of the
condemnation papers?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: That is
it. Once the court suit is instituted, it is
reasonably inferred that they have a right
to complete it.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
The Chair recognizes Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Would you
mind saying what you mean by damaging?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: It goes a
little further than damages for taking. In
the earlier concept if there were damages
but no taking, you could not recover com-
pensation for it. Considering this, this is
how it would work. Assuming that you were
on a highway and authority would be given
to a corporation to run a toll bridge and
this corporation did not take your property
but they went in front of it and the wall
of the overpass bridge went higher than the
roof of your house, so if your house was
only 15 feet from the highway, you cer-
tainly would suffer substantial damages al-
though not one bit of your property would
be taken. In all fairness, I would say that
the condemning authority should pay for
those damages.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Would the
same analogy apply if a power company,
for example, strung a wire say a couple of
hundred yards from your property and
interfered with your view?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Well, if
the power company strung a wire across
from my property they would be taking the
property and there would be the matter of
resulting damages in connection with it.
That is a little different situation from
what we have set forth. Ours is a question
of damages where there is no actual taking.
What you cited to me is resulting damage
from an actual taking.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: The ques-
tion, as I asked it, was whether this would
|
