|
kind of a problem. It would be a very
strange perversion of legal principles, in-
deed, if we were to sit here and decide
that if a hospital is erected by a public
corporation on property adjoining yours
and yours becomes less desirable, they
would have to pay but if it were erected by
a private individual for profit, the individ-
ual would not have to pay.
In some of the cases which appear in the
states in which damage is permitted, you
find things like the holdings in Massachu-
setts, that the temporary obstruction of
the street is compensable under such terms.
Now, I would like to inquire whether the
people who are sitting here trying to write
a constitution believe that when the sover-
eign immunity of the State from suit is
abolished, the State should be sued by the
people living on the street every time the
street is obstructed for a public purpose
even though that obstruction be temporary.
I believe that there has not been a single
word in this constitution that is fraught
with so much clanger as this single word.
I think that we shall almost have to pro-
pose another amendment to the constitution
as it is submitted to us if this proposal
were to pass with the word "damages" in
it, and that amendment -would be one that
would permit the State of Maryland to
print its own money to pay for these dam-
ages, because that is how serious this prob-
lem can be.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ques-
tions of the sponsor of the amendment?
(There wa-s no response.)
The Chair hears none.
Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman,
I have a question for clarification, because
of the amendment, but I think the question
would best be directed to Delegate Kiefer.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer,
would you take the floor to reply with
respect to the amendment?
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes, sir. Mr.
Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the
Committee, I rise to request that you reject
this amendment. I am sorry that Delegate
Gilchrist misunderstood what I said on
last Friday evening, in describing what this
does. Either he did not hear me or maybe
he did not believe me.
Frankly, I tried to assure each of you
that this does not open the floodgate, Dele-
gate Gilchrist. It does not do anything
that is out of the ordinary or unusual in
|
the common modern practice of protecting
property owner's rights.
This is not a new concept. It was first
recognized in the State of Illinois back in
1870 Avhen it became apparent that the con-
cept of recompensing a person for damage
to his property did not go far enough if it
involved only a physical taking.
You must remember we are talking about
a bill of rights, a protection of individ-
uals' personal freedoms. Let us not get
away from that idea and let us then start
with the second concept, -that the right of
eminent domain is a sovereign right and
what we are doing is limiting the sover-
eign from encroaching on individual rights.
Maryland being a very slow and conserva-
ative state, is one of the latest states to
recognize this; but as public improvements
continue, as more land and property ara
taken for public developments, there are
situations where property is damaged with-
out being physically taken. What this con-
cept does is recognize that a property can
be damaged without being physically taken.
Now, the implementation lies with the
legislature and with the courts, but I read
to you the other night, and I would like to
read again, the basic concept of what dam-
ages we are talking about. This comes
from the eminent authority, Nichols on
Eminent Domain.
Delegate Gilchrist said all kinds of cases
will develop. All of the states that have
gone into this have found that this offers
an orderly method of compensation for the
property owners who are particularly dam-
aged.
"Damage is a physical disturbance of
a right, either public or private which
the owner of a parcel of land enjoys in
connection with his property or which
gives it additional value and that by
reason of such disturbance he has sus-
tained a special damage with respect to
his property in excess of that sustained
by the public generally."
This was submitted to the Deputy City
Solicitor of the City of Baltimore. There
was a great deal of consternation by that
department. When they found out what it
was all about, they removed any question
about it. The City of Baltimore has no
fear with respect to what this might do
to it.
I respectfully urge that you reject this
amendment and bring this new modern
concept into our declaration of rights to
protect our people by this additional means.
|
