Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 223
- 3
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The thing that I think you're hung up on here is that you're assuming that a lease interest operates the same as an ownership interest, and that simply isn't the case as far as the law is concerned. A lessee may be entitled to compensation in a condemnation proceeding, especially if, as in this case, there is a long-term lease in operation at below market rates, but this isn't always the case; someone on an annual lease at market rent probably doesn't have a recognizable interest, no matter how inconvenient moving may be. The onus is thus on the lessee to prove to the government that they are entitled to compensation.
The short answer to why ACME wasn't compensated here is that they didn't intervene in the proceeding, didn't pay an expert to find out what their lease interest was worth, and neither the arbitration panel nor the court was in a position to make a determination of their interest. But that doesn't really answer your question; I suspect that had they intervened they wouldn't have gotten anything. The reason, I suspect, would be because eminent domain statutes generally only contemplate owners. Since a lessee would have to show extraordinary circumstances to be entitled to compensation, the what-if game doesn't apply to them. They broke the lease in 1999, could have only extended it to 2012 at the latest, and the building was demolished in 2015. They can't credibly argue that their interests are somehow prejudiced. The owner, obviously, can't either, but there's a statute that applies specifically to them and has to be followed. If the property had been taken in 1994, the grocery store would have had an argument and probably would have intervened in the condemnation suit.
If you're worried about the government being unjustly enriched, this isn't really the case to raise that concern. Their argument was to use the 2018 market value, and by that point the ACME store was razed and the rest of the plaza was dilapidated and vacant. This is what the township wanted to do, as it would have resulted in a much lower price.
More options
Context Copy link