|
The fact that Mr. Macdonald and I
could get together on this indicates that
this is a common meetingplace for us on
this debatable question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr. Pres-
ident and members of the Convention, I
hope that Delegate Macdonald or Delegate
Kiefer have not fallen into a trap on this
thing because there are different types of
damages in condemnation cases. As has
been pointed out, there is a resulting or
consequential damage to property, some
part of which has been taken.
Now, when there has been some taking
of your property, you have the consequen-
tial damages which the courts have already
defined and which are allowed. Then in ad-
dition to that, there is a type of damage
that occurs when no part of your property
has been taken. That is what the amend-
ment or the Committee's recommendation
intends, that it refer and include those
properties really damaged and in fact dam-
aged when there has been nothing taken.
Now, when we use the words in this
present amendment, we may be taking
away all the construction already in exist-
ence, and known to us of consequential
damages. It puts that matter wholly in the
hands of the legislature and says, go to the
legislature, in the field of damages, whether
consequential damages or damages not as
a result of the taking; you have the sole
authority to legislate, and define, and the
legislature if it wanted to could restrict
inconsequential damages under this amend-
ment.
I, therefore, think this amendment is
very bad and should be defeated, even if
it did have some good intent by the sponsor.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Chairman,
let me say, despite the clouds that have
arisen over this amendment, that I think
this amendment offers the best possible so-
lution to a very difficult problem and a
problem really that in my judgment ought
to be handled in a legislative arena rather
than in a Constitutional Convention.
I disagree with the intention of the
sponsor of the amendment, and I have to
disagree in this fashion. I think the Com-
mittee Report is clear, that where property
is physically taken, compensation has to be
given for that physical taking. I think the
Committee Recommendation is also clear,
that when there is not a physical taking,
|
but there is actual damage to property,
because of the taking, that those damages
have to be compensated for. However, the
extent of those damages is, under this
amendment, going to be defined by the
legislature. That is the way I interpret the
amendment. That is the intent that will be
in my vote when I vote for it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, I
do not want there to be any misunder-
standing. If there is then, maybe we will
have to reconsider this position. What I
meant to say, and what I thought I had
made clear, was that the Committee stated
on page 28 of this Memorandum: "The
measure and nature of compensable dam-
ages are matters properly left to the legis-
lature and the Courts."
Now, in my ready acceptance of this
language, as the latter term shall be de-
fined by law, I had stated previously that
this is what we meant. I interpret that the
proposed amendment does exactly what we
had said here, or means, in effect, the same
thing. If it does, we are for it. If not, then
I will have to withdraw my support of the
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate Weidemeyer rise?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I want to
ask Delegate Kiefer a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I thought
our report said the term "damages" would
be left to the legislature and the court and
as I interpret this amendment, and I am
asking you to look at it in the same light,
does not this amendment then take away
our intent to have court interpretation and
leave it exclusively in the hands of the
legislature?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: The answer is
no, because it does not say anything in the
amendment about General Assembly. It
says "by law", which can be by court ac-
tion or action of the General Assembly.
That is the point I want to make clear.
|
