scholarly journals Eminent Domain a Decade After Kelo

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 1101-1129
Author(s):  
Lauren Trimble
Keyword(s):  
Market Value ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Property A ◽  
Equity Value ◽  
Sports Stadiums ◽  
Fair Market ◽  
Tax Benefits ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Fair Market Value ◽  
New London

This Comment addresses the controversial Kelo v. City of New London decision and focuses on the state of Texas’ response to Kelo through its enactment of section 2206.001 of the Texas Government Code. This Comment discusses the implications of this statute in the realm of professional and college sports stadiums in Texas. Additionally, this Comment provides a background in the evolution of the eminent domain doctrine and prominent Supreme Court decisions expanding an authorized entity’s eminent domain power under a broadened definition of the entity providing a “public use.” The arguments are analyzed for whether Texas college and professional stadiums provide a public use, concluding that land takings from private landowners for the purpose of building sports stadiums constitutes a permissible public use under the Kelo standard. Land takings to build a sports stadium likely constitute a public use because it provides access to public participation, national prominence, revenue, tax benefits, and hurricane shelter for its citizens. Finally, this Comment proposes legislative amendment to section 2206.001(c) of the Texas Government Code that would raise the threshold for landowner’s compensation from 100% of the fair market value to 150%—250% of the fair market value of the property. A higher compensation would reimburse the landowner for the equity value of the property and would help prevent potential holdouts.

Introducing Evidence of Contamination and Offsetting Cost of Remediation in Determining Fair Market Value for Eminent Domain Awards: A Review of Interrelationship between Environmental and Acquisition Law

1996 ◽  
Vol 1527 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-30
Author(s):  
Leona D. Jochnowitz
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Remediation ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Market Value ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Environmental Laws ◽  
Environmental Liability ◽  
Fair Market ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
Fair Market Value

The issue is whether evidence of contamination is admissible and remediation costs may be offset in determining fair market value in eminent domain proceedings. The answer will depend on an analysis of methods of valuation and local acquisition statutes; economic impact of environmental regulation; effectiveness of attempts to resolve issues of environmental liability in the context of eminent domain proceedings; preclusive or nonpreclusive effect of the determination of value on future liability for environmental remediation; and use of the property. To understand these issues, an acquiring agency should view an eminent domain proceeding from the clear vantage point of a potential defendant or plaintiff in an environmental case. How these questions can be decided consistently with both local acquisition law and the other bodies of state and federal environmental law is the subject of a variety of recent court decisions. The theme that arises from the cases is that it appears fair to discount the valuation of property if the owner's procedural rights are satisfied, including determinations as to liability and third-party actions. Nevertheless, once payment is discounted, it is critical that the transferee does not have to pay twice for the same remediation but should be liable under the environmental laws for new or newly discovered contamination. A partial indemnification may be appropriate. In addition, issues regarding just compensation may be raised when an acquiring agency not only values a compensation award at zero but also seeks compensation for remediation costs that exceed the value of the property. Alternatives should be explored for escrowing the remediation costs, inviting the owner to clean up the property now or indemnifying the owner to the extent of the discount against future liability. One solution will not fit all cases, but these and other alternatives will make owners and states more thoughtful when property is acquired and better able to plan for the uncertainties that can arise in environmental liability.

The Impact of S Corporation Status on Fair Market Value

CFA Digest ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-90
Author(s):  
Frank T. Magiera
Keyword(s):  
Market Value ◽  
Fair Market ◽  
Fair Market Value ◽  
The Impact

Initial Observations on Valuation and Valuation Terminology

2019 ◽  
pp. 99-113
Author(s):  
Nicolaes Tollenaar
Keyword(s):  
Cash Flow ◽  
Market Value ◽  
Option Value ◽  
Enterprise Value ◽  
Going Concern ◽  
Asset Value ◽  
Fair Market ◽  
High Level ◽  
Key Steps ◽  
Fair Market Value

This chapter looks at valuation. It explains that in a restructuring a paper valuation exercise is needed to establish who still is entitled to value and who is not. In a liquidation, where the business is sold to the highest bidder in the market through a proper sale process, a valuation exercise is not required. In liquidation, the value available for distribution is determined by the market. The chapter then offers a high-level outline of the key steps of the valuation exercise in the context of a restructuring. Terminology is defined, such as asset value, cash flow value, going concern value, goodwill, enterprise value, reorganization value, liquidation value, fair market value, and option value.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document