| The Roanoke Times Change Virginia's eminent domain law Give property owners a fair chance to get a fair price Friday, August 25, 2000 |
By NANCY McCORD
ALMOST WEEKLY, some issue involving eminent domain, or the government's right to
take private property for public use, appears in The Roanoke Times .
First, there was the smart road, then American Electric Power's 765-kilovolt power line,
next the proposed routes of Interstates 73 and 81, followed by the Roanoke/Carilion
redevelopment project, and most recently Virginia Gas Pipeline Co.'s already approved
pipeline.
Property owners who find themselves in the path of these projects face the unfortunate
position of depending upon Virginia's eminent-domain law to assure that they are paid
fairly.
Under the current system, when a condemner offers a low price, the property owner has
two options, neither of which is fair. The owner can accept the low offer, or challenge the
condemner in court.
The court challenge seems a fair and reasonable way to resolve a valuation dispute, but
in practice, the property owner who wins in court still loses. This is because even when
the condemner's offer is proved wrong, and "fair market value" is awarded, the property
owner's litigation expenses, which include attorney fees, appraisal fees, expert witness
fees, etc., will eat up 30 percent to 50 percent of the award.
When a property owner who is considering litigation, but is already intimidated by the
experience and resources of the condemner, discovers that even in winning there is no
"just compensation," most just accept the condemner's offer.
Twenty-two states have corrected the unfairness that continues in Virginia. In these more
progressive states, provisions in the law require the condemner to reimburse
property-owner litigation expenses when the court finds the condemner did not offer a fair
purchase price.
In 1999, resolutions sponsored by state Sen. Madison Marye and Del. Jim Shuler
established a legislative committee to examine
Virginia's eminent-domain law. During the 2000 legislative session, its mandate was
extended another year.
Soon, it will again consider the issue of litigation reimbursement, which was defeated
last year because of relentless lobbying by the special
interests who benefit significantly from the current law.
Reimbursement of property-owner litigation expenses would accomplish two things.
First, it would encourage condemners who routinely make low offers to more carefully
consider the offer they are making. Second, it would assure the citizens of Virginia that
when land is needed for a public purpose, the government is doing everything it can to
assure that they are treated fairly.
As the committee reconvenes on Tuesday in Richmond, its members should think about
the words of Gideon Kanner, considered by many to be the nation's foremost legal
scholar in eminent domain.
He writes, "It must be remembered that those facing condemnation are good, tax-paying
citizens, who have been minding their business and putting their property to useful and
lawful purposes. When they are called upon to surrender their hard-earned property for
the good of society, government should assure, by enacting just laws, that the process is
fair to them and that the costs are shared by the entire society that is to benefit." For
additional information, go to: www.geocities.com/emdomain.geo/ .
NANCY MCCORD of Blacksburg serves on a legislative committee studying the use of
eminent domain by redevelopment housing authorities.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |