Through a Glass Darkly: Measuring Loss Under ... - Land Use Law
Through a Glass Darkly: Measuring Loss Under ... - Land Use Law
Through a Glass Darkly: Measuring Loss Under ... - Land Use Law
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
598 THE URBAN LAWYER VOL. 39, NO. 3 SUMMER 2007<br />
Diagram 6<br />
Counterfactual value.<br />
OPP augmented by<br />
CPI<br />
Price<br />
Value of land prior to<br />
regulation<br />
Facial<br />
effect of<br />
regulation<br />
The differential<br />
between<br />
counterfactual<br />
and actual land<br />
value =<br />
compensation<br />
Actual<br />
Value<br />
Time of<br />
enactment<br />
A<br />
Time<br />
The difficulties arise with the near impossibility of establishing a<br />
multiplier which will produce an accurate hypothetical value for the<br />
land. There is, for example, a flip side to the argument that the CPI is<br />
too far removed to accurately plot the fluctuation in property values in a<br />
particular area and/or of a particular variety. If a far closer comparator<br />
is used as the multiplier—let’s say the increase in price of comparable<br />
land in the locality, expressed as a percentage and assessed from the<br />
time of regulation to the time of the claim—it will be difficult, if not<br />
impossible, to exclude from that comparator any effects which have<br />
been brought about, directly or indirectly, by the very land use regulation<br />
the hypothetical value is designed to eliminate.<br />
G. Sercombe’s Proposed Valuation Methodology<br />
Following a request by Robert E. Stacey, Jr., the Executive Director of<br />
1,000 Friends of Oregon, a prominent attorney, Timothy Sercombe, provided<br />
a detailed legal opinion on the meaning of “just compensation”<br />
under subsection 197.352(2) of the Oregon Revised Statutes. His valuation<br />
method differs from those considered above due to the fact his opinion is<br />
The increase in the differential after A, and hence the increase in compensation for the<br />
Measure 37 claimant, is wholly unjustifiable: the land would have suffered from a radical<br />
drop in price after point A, whether or not the land use regulation was enacted. The<br />
reverse of this situation could also occur: if the CPI is positively affected by something<br />
wholly extraneous to the land use regulation in question (say the discovery a virtually<br />
finite source of oil in the United States, or the “dot-com boom”), the differential and<br />
hence the compensation payable to Measure 37 claimants would be unjustifiably<br />
increased.<br />
ABA-TUL-07-0701-Sullivan.indd 598<br />
9/18/07 10:43:43 AM