|
THE CHAIRMAN: Any delegate desire
to speak in favor of this amendment?
Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: I would
like to speak in favor of the amendment,
but before that, could I ask the Committee
Chairman a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: His time has ex-
pired. You may speak and if he has the
right to take the floor again, you may ad-
dress a question to him.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Fellow
delegates, I agree with Delegate Gilchirst
in everything he has said in regard to this
amendment.
This changes the law of condemnation
appreciably, substantially. There is no tell-
ing how much in the way of damage to
private property will be involved where
there is no taking and even if there is a
re-zoning of property next door, and that
is effected by a taking.
I think that before we should change
the rules, we should find out from the
State Roads Commission how much this
will cost the State of Maryland. I do not
know, but my guess is that it Avill be
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I am against the Majority Report and
for the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment?
Delegate Burgess.
DELEGATE BURGESS: May I take
issue to the statements made by Delegates
Gilchrist and Macdonald?
I understand Mr. Macdonald does not
practice criminal law. I do not know about
condemnation law. Let me read to you the
most recent case in Illinois. Delmar Drive-
in Theater v. Illinois. This is some of the
dicta they are spelling out in their opinion.
They say:
"It has long been established that there
are certain injuries necessarily incident
to the ownership of property which di-
rectly impair the value of private prop-
erty and for which the law does not and
never has afforded any relief, examples
being," and note this, ladies and gentle-
men, "the depreciation cost by the build-
ing of fire houses, police stations, hos-
pitals, cemeteries and the like in close
proximity to private property."
|
That is a narrow construction.
In zoning, we have reference to private
enterprise building certain things which
might be objectionable. This is where zon-
ing and building restrictions come in. What
we are talking about are the inroads made
into property values where people's greatest
investment in property is, their homes.
But because we have an archaic prin-
ciple in our laws we cannot get compensa-
tion for our people under the present law.
The states that have this provision are
the sister states of Pennsylvania and West
Virginia. West Virginia adopted this par-
ticular clause in 1872, Illinois in 1870, 1814,
I believe it was when Virginia picked it
up.
In any event, these states have func-
tioned well and they function properly. I
respectfully submit this is not Pandora's
box. There is a very narrow construction
due here by necessity. But we must be
aware of what we are doing to our tax-
payers. We are getting to the situation
where these people owning property are
taxpayers. It seems to me we are worrying
about whose ox is getting gored. If it is
yours, it is one thing. If it is someone
else's, then it is different.
We are trying to make a meaningful
document and we have to be aware of this
situation. We are not dealing with the situ-
ation they dealt with 100 years ago when
the original provision not mentioning dam-
ages came up.
Our courts and legislature are conserva-
tive. A body of law will evolve by necessity.
Is it not better to have a body of law
evolve which is careful and which is con-
servative and will give justice to these
people who are hurt in an area where they
know not how to defend themselves, where
their adversary is the State of Maryland?
In regard to interstate highway situa-
tions, 90 percent of the funds involved come
from the federal government. Bear in mind
that the real impact will not be in litiga-
tion, initially, but ultimately in the plan-
ning of these roads. The planners will have
to be aware of what effect this will have
on the population in general.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Carson?
DELEGATE CARSON: Mr. Chairman
and ladies and gentlemen, I entirely agree
|
