|
with what Delegates Burgess and Mac-
donald have said, namely, that the defini-
tion of damages is unknown, and that this
will cost the State conservatively hundreds
of thousands of dollars, if not millions.
I may add that the legislature has had
and will continue to have the power to
extend what a person shall receive when
his land is taken for public use. It has in
fact extended, in the last five to ten years,
the damages that a person could receive,
and I think the proper place for considera-
tion of this, especially when we are not in
a position to know how much it will cost,
is in the state legislature and not in the
state constitution and therefore I shall vote
and urge you to vote in favor of this
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: Unlike some of
the delegates who have spoken, I am not
in a position to know exactly how much it
might cost the State of Maryland.
The only way to measure that is to know
how much injury the State of Maryland is
doing which it does not pay for. I, like most
taxpayers, am very disinclined to have the
State go out and spend money for things
I do not need for myself. But I am ready
to pay my fair share where a particular
person has been injured and where he has
been injured by the State.
It may cost a thousand, a hundred thou-
sand, or a million dollars, but if the State
of Maryland is harming people's property
— harming it, or taking it, or building a
dam and flooding it, or doing any one of a
number of things it can do, so that a man
who owns a home no longer has a decent
place to live because they fly airplanes
over his house — if those things happen
and the State of Maryland causes them to
happen in the general betterment of the
overall welfare of you and me, we should
be willing to pay our share.
The particular person who is injured
should not have to pay himself. If it costs
a lot of money it is because the State is
doing a lot of injury. If the State is doing
a lot of injury, the State ought to pay
for it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
|
(Call for the question.)
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Mr. Chairman,
I would like to direct a question to Dele-
gate Burgess.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke,
do you desire to debate?
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: I would
like to speak in favor of the amendment,
if I may.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may speak.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: I hesitate
to go against the wishes of the majority
of the Committee. I would like to point out
to this group, however, that representa-
tives of the City of Baltimore appeared
before the Committee and they were ada-
mantly opposed to the inclusion of the con-
cept of damages into our eminent domain
constitutional provisions. Joe Buscher, who
is in charge of this kind of work for the
State Roads Commission, expressed a cer-
tain amount of horror at the inclusion of
this concept into the eminent domain
concept.
Let me say that I do not know whether
any testimony was taken as to the extent
or the cost to the State of Maryland. I did
not hear any and I can assure you that
you do not know what you are opening
the door to.
We have always been, in this State, a
very strong "taking" state. Our Court of
Appeals has limited, time and time again,
the amount of compensation to just the
taking concept and has never permitted the
courts to get into the damage area.
This would permit monetary payments
where there was no taking, but merely
damages. And those of you who believe this
will help the little man, my experience in
the practice of law is that by and large
it is the large corporation, the large land-
holder who comes in for his biggest share
of the take in these cases. I seriously
doubt this is going to help the small man.
I think it will help the property holder.
I think it gets into an area that we have
no earthly concept of the extent of. I think
the legislature can take care of this with-
out our doing anything. I think they are
better prepared to limit it by statute than
we are prepared to go into it in our con-
stitution.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Rybczynski,
do you desire to debate the amendment?
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Yes, sir.
|
