|
The economy of this thing is such that
certain people bear an undue burden as re-
gards the rest of us. It is an attempt to
recognize this and bring it into conformity
with existing laws in our sister states.
There is no judge or lawyer who would
tell you we do not look to laws in sister
states. There are ninety-seven years of case
law in adjoining states. Yet in ninety-seven
years we have not been able to recognize
this very narrow concept which is not pie
in the sky.
For God's sake, we have recognized it
now, let us keep something forward look-
ing, something which is an acknowledg-
ment of the problems of our citizens of this
State and which will serve that purpose
and will not open the doors to the treasury.
May I cite to you a certain case oc-
curring in California, which is a liberal
state if ever there was one. This case in-
volved the changing of a highway from a
two-lane highway to four lanes either way.
A business attemped to collect damages
for this reason. The court held that the
abutting property owner has no right to
compensation because he has no right to
any particular flow of traffic.
Now this, I think, tends to illustrate
what we are talking about here. You can-
not act like a litigious nut and run in and
sue the state for damages every time you
are close to something like this. It just
cannot be done.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marvin
Smith.
DELEGATE M. SMITH: This vote here
yesterday disturbed me as much as any-
thing that has taken place. There have
been other votes with which I disagreed,
but none in which I felt so strongly that
an absolute error had been made.
I was fearful that due consideration had
not really been given here. I was fearful
that people were to some extent not under-
standing, but getting carried away by
their desire to benefit those whose property
is taken.
My experience at the bar has been on the
side of people whose property has been
taken. Note specifically that there appears
to be disagreement here between the Chair-
man of the Committee and the chief spon-
sor as to the language and what is meant
by the word "damage." Note, also, that the
language here is "taken or damaged" and
not "taken and damaged".
It may well be, Mr. Chairman, that the
condemnation law of this State requires an
|
overhauling, but I submit to you that we
cannot very well do that in the short period
of time that we have here. That the proper
course of action would be for the proper
committee of the General Assembly or the
Legislative Council, if you will, to give
careful consideration to the matter and
consideration of the full impact.
I notice, specifically, that although it
was indicated that the City of Baltimore
had been asked to comment on this, that
apparently there has been no contact other
than a passing one with the State Roads
Commission.
I think this was a hasty action. I hope
that you will vote to reconsider and then
vote for the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman,
I have to rise to say there is no disagree-
ment between the Chairman and any mem-
bers of the Committee on this point. I do
not know how Delegate Smith gets that
idea.
I also call everybody's attention to the
Committee's Report on page 28 of our
memorandum where we point out that the
measure and nature of compensable dam-
age are matters properly left to the legis-
lature and the courts.
All of the amendments or rather all of
the constitutions which use these words, use
the same words and no more. All of them
are implemented by acts of the legislature.
There is no question about that, and they
are interpreted by the courts of each state.
This is not a radical thing and not a dan-
gerous thing. We are not giving away any-
thing. We have not sought anybody's ad-
vice except experts. When representatives
of the City of Baltimore came to the Com-
mittee with some questions we pointed out
to them the situation as we had gone into
it and they withdrew any objections they
had.
I urge you to defeat this. The amend-
ment which is suggested is covered by our
recommendation and inherently a part of
it. I have no objection to the language, but
it is not necessary.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bard.
DELEGATE BARD: Mr. Chairman, I
should like to speak in favor of recon-
sideration, and I would like to call your
attention to the fact that there are two
names on the sheet labeled AR.: Mr. Mac-
donald, who voted yesterday against the
proposal dealing with damages, and I, who
voted for.
|
