FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 11, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 13 58 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNos . 96 -0 12 49 -CV-WJZ, 00 -0 29 14 -CV-WJZ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us 48 0.0 0 ACR ES OF LAND, Mo re o r Les s, i n t he Co un ty of Dad e, St at e o f Fl or id a, etal., Defen da nt s, GILBERT R. FORNATORA, FRANK PLATTNER, et al ., Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 11 , 20 09 ) Befo re BI RCH an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andFORRESTER, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * FORRESTER, Di st ric t Jud ge : App el la nt s ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er co nf irming an d app ro vi ng a Sep te m be r 15 , 20 05 LandCo m

m is si on Rep ort s etti ng th e co m pe ns at io n t ha t the Uni te d S ta te s m

us t p ay App el la nt s t o t ak e th ei r pr op erty by em in en t d om ai n. App el la nt s co nt en d t ha t (1 ) th e d is tri ctco urt ad op te d t he wron g l eg al st an dardto de te rm in e whe th er the Gov ern m en t i m pr op erl y us eda lo cal zo ni ng ord in an ce t o pr ev en t d ev el op m en t o n a ndreduc e th e v al ue of t he ir l an d; (2) th e d is tri ctco urt im pr op erl y ex cl ud edev id en ce o f th e Gov ern m en t’s ef fo rts to de pr es s t he ir l an d
va lu es fro m

be in g p res en te d t o t he LandCo m m is si on ; an d (3 ) th e p ro cedur es em pl oyed b y th e Lan d C omm is si on an d t he Uni te d S ta te s i n d et erm in in g t he ir

“ jus t co m pe ns at io n” de ni edth em

du e p ro ces s o f la w. Fo r th e rea so ns setforthbe lo w, we AFFIRM th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er award in g c om

pe ns at io n a ndho ldth at(1) inord er fo r a fac t fi nd in g b od y to ig no re
Honora ble J . Owen For

rester , Senior United States District J udg e for the Norther n District * of Ge org ia, sitting by

designation. 2a reg ul at io n i n c al cu la ti ng “ jus t co m pe ns at io n” fora gi ve n p ie ce o f pr op erty , th e la nd own er m

us t s ho w th atth e p rimary purp os e o f th e reg ul at io n was to de pr es s th e p ro pe rty val ue of l an d o r th atth e o rd in an ce was en act edwith t he sp eci fic in te ntof d ep res si ng pro pe rty val ue forth e p ur po se of l at er co nd em

na ti on ; (2 ) on ce th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in es th ata reg ul at io n o r or di na nc e was no t i m pr op erl y us edto pre ve ntde ve lo pm en t an d re du ce v al ue , th ere i s n o re as on to pre se nt ev id en ce o f su chall eg at io ns of i m pr op er u se to a Co m

m is si onch arg edwith de te rm in in g “

jus t co m pe ns at io n” ; an d (3 ) no actua l b ia s was pre se ntinth e Co m m is si on rep ort fi le d o n S ep te m be r 15 , 20 05 , andth e in di vi du al lan do wne rs ’ rig ht s wer e p res erv ed
. I. Ba ck gr ou nd The in st an t ap pe al in vo lv es sev enreg ul at ed , vac an t, an d uni m pr ov edtra ct s of wetl an ds inDade Co un ty, Fl or id a su it ab le forpa ss iv e rec reat io na l u se . The App el la nt s ac qu ire d t he tra ct s i n t he 19 50 s an d 1 96 0s
. A. Th e His to ryof

Regu la ti on on Th es e Pro pe rt ies In19 71 So ut h F lo rid a ex pe rie nc eda wate r cri si s, an d t he cit iz en s o f Dad e Co un ty (“ th e Co un ty”) bec am e in crea si ng ly con cern edab ou t d ev el op m en t i n t he Eve rg la de s an d i ts im

pa ctup on th e Co un ty’ s d em an d fo r wat er. The refo re, i n 19 75 th e Co un ty des ig na te d alar ge areaof l an d, i nc lu di ng App el la nt s’ acrea ge , as 3an“ Area o f Cri ti cal Env iro nm en ta l Co nc ern ” an d d ev el op eda Co m pr eh en si ve Dev el op m en t M as te r Pl anwhi chres tri ct edde ve lo pm en t t o o ne dwel li ng pe r fi ve acre s. Durin g t hi s t im e, th e Nat io na l Pa rkServ ic e al so be cam e co nc ern edab ou t de ve lo pm en t i n t he areaeas t o f th e Eve rg la de s Nat io na l Pa rk . This pro pe rty co nt ai ne d wat ers he d a rea tha t the ParkServ ic e b el ie ve d, fr om aneco lo gi cal pe rs pe ct iv e, sh ou ldha ve be enin cl ud edinth e o rig in al pa rkbo un darie s. The ParkServ ic e su gg es te d t ha t the Co un ty revi si t i ts Co m pr eh en si ve Dev el op m en t M as te r Pl anforth e are a. A fed eral ly ini ti at edan d fu nd edstud y pr oc es s kno wn as th e Eas t Ev erg la de s R es ou rce P la nn in g P ro ject ( EERP) b eg an . EERP so ug htto reco m

m en d am an ag em en t p la n t o Dad e Co un ty. Dade Co un ty so ug htto us e th e EERP to ad dr es s i ts lo cal wate r supp ly andco nt ro l co nc ern s. Altho ug h t he EERP stud ie s co nc lu de d t ha t the ex is ti ng on e-dwell in g- pe r-fi ve -acr e de ns ity un de r th e 1 97 5 P la n a de qu at el y ad dr es se d t he Co un ty’ s wat er co nc ern s, th e EERP rec omm en de d o ne dwel li ng pe r fo rty acres with n o a gr ic ul tu re al lo wed
. The Co un ty ado pt edth e m or e st rin ge nton e-p er-f orty stan da rdwhen itpa ss edth e 19 81 EastEver gl ad es Zon in g Ov erl ay , lat er ad de d t o C hapt er 3 3B of t he Co un ty Co de
.

4B. Co ndemn at io n

In19 89 , Con gr es s au th or iz edth e expa ns io n o f th e b ou nd ari es of Ev erg la de s Nati on al Parkto in cl ud e m os t o f th e are a kno wn as th e Eas t Ev erg la de s an d t he App el la nt s’ acrea ge . 16 U.S.C. §§ 41 0r -5 , et seq . Con gr es s d idno t p ro vi de an y fu nd in g fo r th e p riv at e la ndacqui si ti on ne ces sa ry forexpans io n u nt il 19 92 , and th e ex pa ns io n was no t fu ll y fun de d u nt il 19 99 . Arm edwith s uf fic ie ntfun di ng , th e U.S. Depa rtment o f th e In te rio r fi le d 2 ,70 0 c on de m na ti on cas es inth e U.S. Dis tri ct Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a b eg in ni ng in20 00 . Giv enth e la rg e am ou ntof l an d a ndth e la rg e num be r of lan d o wne rs in vo lv ed , th e d is tri ctco urt ap po in te d alan d c omm is si on (“ th e Co m m is si on ”) p ur su an t t o F ed . R. Civ . P. 71 .1(h ) to de te rm in e th e jus t co m pe ns at io n due to each lan do wne r as part o f th e EastEver gl ad es Acqu is it io n P ro ject. The di stric t co urt i ss ue d i ns tru ct io ns to th e co m m is si on ers , andth e p art ie s were g iv enth e o pp ortu ni ty to o bjec t. (R- 5) . Thes e in st ru ct io ns ou tl in edth e rel ev an t ru le s o f la w andpro cedur e n eces sa ry forth e Co m

m is si on to m ak e a de te rm in at io n o f fai r co m pe ns at io n a s a f

actfin di ng bo dy sim il ar t o ajury. In st ru ct io ns 5, 1 6, 1 9, an d 2 1 a re p art ic ul arl y rel ev an t t o t hi s ca se . The l as t po rti onof I ns tru ct io n 5 st at es , “ It i s p ro pe r to lo okto st at e la w to de te rm in e th e ex is te nc e o f la ndus e o r ot he r res tri ct io ns on th e u se s t o wh ic h t he pro pe rty m ay be 5de vo te d, b ecau se an y su ch res tri ct io ns on th e la wfu l u se s o f th e p ro pe rty lim itth e us es av ai labl e fo r co ns id erat io n a s h ig he stan d b es t u se .” ( Id
. ¶ 5) . Ins tru ct io n 1 6 ad dr es si ng “ Hig he stan d B es t Us e,” s ta te s i n p art : Any pro po se d h ig he stan d b es t u se m us t b e a l eg al ly perm is si bl e u se . Whe re the us e o f th e p ro pe rty is re st ric te d b y th e requi rem en t o f a pe rm itor l ic en se or b y

an y ot he r la ndus e res tri ct io n i t m us t b e sh own th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t s uc h p erm itor l ic en se wil l be is su edor t ha t a r e-zo ni ng wil l o ccu r to m ak e th e u se leg al
. ( Id
. ¶ 16 ). Parag rap h 1 9 i s en ti tl ed , “ Rea so nabl e Pro babi li ty,” anditrei te rat es th at le ga l re st ric ti on s o n t he us e o f th e p ro pe rty m us t b e co ns id eredinde te rm in in g i ts

hi gh es t an d b es t u se . “ If, atth e ti m e o f th e ta ki ng , th e p ro pe rty was s ub ject t o zo ni ng res tri ct io ns , li cen se reg ul at io ns , or o th er l an d u se res tri ct io ns th os e fac to rs m us t b e co ns id eredinev al ua ti ng th e p ro pe rty . . . .” ( Id
. ¶ 19 ). Parag rap h 2 1
en ti tl ed , “ Valu e to th e Gov ern m en t” st at es : Youare n otto co ns id er the va lu e o f th e p ro pe rty to t he Gov ern m en t, no r m ay y ouco ns id er wh enva lu in g t he pro pe rty befo re the tak in g, an y in crea se or i nc rem en t o f va lu e b y vi rtu e o f th e act iv it ie s o f th e Gov ern m en t wi th refe ren ce t o t he pro ject f orwhi chth e p ro pe rty is be in g a cqui red
. ( Id
. ¶ 21 ). Inth e fal l o f 20 00 , sev eral lan do wne rs fil edob jecti on s t o the di st ric t co urt’s in st ru ct io ns . (R-6 ). App el la nt s o bjec te d g en eral ly to the Co m mis si on be in g 6al lo wedto co ns id er cu rren t zo ni ng res tri ct io ns on th e u se of the ir p ro pe rti es

res ul ti ng fro m

th e Co un ti es ’ 19 81 EastEver gl ad es Zon in g Ov erl ay . App el la nt s co nt en de d t ha t the Uni te d S ta te s Dep art m en t o f In te rio r im pr op erl y in flu en cedth e Co un ty to p as s the Over la y inord er t o m ak e it s s ub se qu en t co nd em na ti on of t he EastEver gl ad es eas ie r an d l es s co st ly. Sp eci fic al ly, App el la nt s o bjec te d t o In st ru ct io ns 19 an d 2 1. 1 In i ts Orde r ad dr es si ng th e o bjec ti on s, the di st ric t co urt ag reedwith App el la nt s t ha t “ th e g ov ern m en t ‘m ay no t m is us e it s zo ni ng po wers to reduc e th e ex pe ns e o f a s ub se qu en t co nd em na ti on .’ ” (R-6 , at 9 ). The d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredtwo is su es : “ (1 ) Wha t i s t he ne ces sa ry pro of th atth e p ur

po se of t he
res tri ct io n was a ‘too l’ to de pr es s t he va lu e o f th e la nd ? an d (2 ) Whe th er the rul e ap pl ie s wh enth e g ov ern m en ta l b od y th atim po se d t he res tri ct io n d iff

ers fro m th e on e th atco nd em

ns th e p ro pe rty? ” As t o que st io n o ne , sh e fo un d t ha t s om e co urts requi re tha t the “ so le pu rp os e” o f th e reg ul at io n b e to de pr es s p ro pe rty val ue s; se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Mea do w Bro ok Clu b , 25 9 F .2d41 , 45 (2dCir . 19 58 ); o th er co urts requi re tha t the “pr im ary pu rp os e” o r “ real pu rp os e” b e to de pr es s p ro pe rty val ue s to m in im iz e th e co stof a cqui si ti on ; se e Dep ’t Pu bl ic W orks an d Bu ildi ng

s v.
Appellants also objected to Instructions 5, 15, 16, 22, and 26, but these objections need not 1 be addr essed in this appea l. 7Exch an ge Na ti on al Ban k, 33 4 N.E. 2d . 81 0, 8 19 (Il l. Ap p. 1 97 5) ; wh il e a thi rdset of co urts requi res on ly tha t the go ve rn m en ta l b od y “ in te nt io na ll y ” o r

“ de li be rat el y ” m an ip ul at e zo ni ng to de pr es s the va lu e o f th e p ro pe rty bei ng co nd em ne d; se e Ci tyof

Bell evu e v. Kr av ik, 85 0 P .2d55 9, 5 62 (W as h. Ap p. 1 99 3)
. Fro m th es e cas es , sh e art ic ul at edth e fo ll owi ng st an da rd : “ th e la nd own er m us t sh ow tha t the pri m ary pu rp os e o f th e reg ul at io n was to de pr es s t he pro pe rty val ue orth atth e o rd in an ce was en act edwith t he sp eci fic in te ntof d ep res si ng th e pr op erty va lu es for

th e p ur po se of c on de m

na ti on .” (R-6 , at 1 1) . W it h re sp ectto th e se co ndin qu iry, she ex am in edth e h ol di ng s i n Ca li fo rn ia v. So uthe rn Paci

fi c Tr an sp or ta ti on Co
. , 10 9 C al . Rpt r. 52 5 (C al . App . 19 73 ), an d Ass at eagu e Is la nd Co ndemn at io n Op in io n N o. 3 , 32 4 F . Sup p. 1 17 0 (D. M d. 1 97 1) , andst at ed : The LandCo m

m is si on ers m ay

di sr eg ardzo ni ng res tri ct io ns im pr op erl y im po se d b y th e St at e o f Fl or id a o r Dad e Co un ty onl y if th ere i s ev id en ce tha t the Uni te d S ta te s ei th er d ire ct ly or in di rect ly de pr es se d p ro pe rty val ue s. If t he Sta te of F lo rid a o r Dad e Co un ty pr ev io us ly im

po se d azo ni ng res tri ct io n o n t he lan d a t i ss ue in de pe nd en tl y

of - - i.e ., “ ne it he r take n i n c on certno r by agre em en t with” -- th e Uni te d S ta te s, ev enif s uc h re st ric ti on was i m po se d ex pl ic it ly andun co ntro ve rte dl y to aidth e St at e o r Co un ty to co nd em n th e p ro pe rty at d ep res se d v al ue , th e zo ni ng res tri ct io n m us t b e co ns id eredinacco rd an ce wi th th e o th er i ns tru ct io ns . ( Id
. , at 1 5) . She st at edth atth e co urt was aware o f no ev id en ce i n t he reco rdth at wou ldm eeteit he r th e in te ntor p rimary pu rp os e st an da rdan d h el d “ un le ss an d
8un ti l ev id en ce i s p res en te d t ha t thi s wi ll be anis su e attri al , th ere i s n o n eedto

m od ify [Ins tru ct io n 1 9]. If th is be co m es anis su e attri al , th e co urt wi ll am en d t he in st ru ct io ns .” (

Id
. ). She ag reedto m od ify Ins tru ct io n 2 1. 2 C. Two Y

ea rs of Pretri al Pro ceed in gs in Mag is tr at e Co ur t App el la nt s’ sev enpro pe rti es were co ns ol id at edfor tri al an d atri al was s et fo r Decem

be r 20 01 . (R-7 , R-8 ). Num ero us pre tri al pro ceed in gs pu sh edth e tr ia l 3 da te ba ckfro m

Decem be r 20 01 . In Se pt em

be r 20 01 , App el la nt s ag ai n m ov edto am en d t he in st ru ct io ns rel at edto Ins tru ct io n 1 9 a ndforanev id en ti ary he ari ng on hi s m ot io n. (R -9 ). The Go ve rn m en t o pp os edth e m ot io n a ndarg ue d fo r a m ot io n in li m in e ru li ng th atth e 1 98 1 Zo ni ng Over la y sh ou ldbe co ns id eredinth e pr oc eed in g a ndba rri ng re-l it ig at io n o f th e m at te r. The d is tri ctco urt t em po rari ly de ni edFo rn at or a’s m ot io n a ndin st ru ct edth e p art ie s t o s ub m itall ev id en ce an d t o br ie f (1 ) whe th er the zo ni ng reg ul at io n was en act edwith the pri m ary pu rp os e o r

Instruction 21 then rea d: “Scope of Project: You are not to consider th e v al u e o f the 2 proper ty to the Gover

nment nor may you consider when valuing the proper ty befor e the taking , any incre ase or decr ease in value by virtue of activities of the Gover nment with ref

ere nce to the projec t for whic h the prope rty

is acquire d. It is important to note the numerous judicial chang es throughout the course of this case . It 3 appea rs that J udg e L enore Nesbitt had the case through most of its early stag es, although J udg e K.M. Moore signe d numerous order s as well. The case was transfe rre d to J udg e Wil liam Z loch in October 2001. Judg e Z loch ref

err ed the case to Mag istrate J udg e Andre a Simont on in November 2001. The case appea

rs to have been taken out of J udg e Simont on’s hands in J anuar y 2003 and assi gned to Mag istrate Judge Rober

t Dube; he a

nd J udg e Z loch had the c ase until the appe al.

9sp eci fic al ly int en de d t o d ep res s the va lu e o f pr op erty forlat er co nd em

na ti on ; an d (2 ) whe th er the Gov ern m en t ac te d i n c on certor a gr eem en t wi thth e ag en cy th at actua ll y im po se d t he zo ni ng ord in an ce d ep res si ng pro pe rty val ue s i n a nt ic ip at io n of co nd em na ti on , so th atth e co urt co ul d d et erm in e whe th er an ev id en ti ary he ari ng was ne ed ed . (

Id .). Mag is tra te Ju dg e Mo or e is su edanord er ex pl ai ni ng th e m ech an ic s o f pr es en ti ng th es e is su es an d i n d oi ng so st at ed : Whe th er t o p ro vi de th e in st ru ct io n [o n t he fed eral go ve rn m en t’s in flu en ce o ve r co un ty zon in g o rd in an ce] andth e la ng ua ge of t he in st ru ct io n i s a m at te r fo r th e Co urt t o d eci de ; wh atim pa ctth atth is ev id en ce h as on th e am ou ntof ju stco m pe ns at io n i s a m at te r fo r th e Co m m is si on ers to de ci de . If eit he r pa rty bel ie ve s t ha t the re i s in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce o n t he im pr op er zo ni ng is su e to pre cl ud e pr es en ta ti onto th e Co m

m is si on ers , th enth atpa rty sh ou ldfil e th e ap pr op ria te m ot io n t o e xc lu de cert ai n e vi de nc e . . . [and ] have th e Co urt re nd er a d eci si on as am at te r of law o n t hi s i ss ue . (R-1 5, at5). Pr etria l d is pu te s o n t he se is su es las te d fo r m or e th antwo y ears be fo re the Mag is tra te Ju dg e. On Au gu st4, 2 00 4, the Mag is tra te Ju dg e is su eda Rep ort an d Rec omm en da ti on ad dr es si ng “whe th er the LandCo m m is si on sh ou ldbe in st ru ct ed th atth e zo ni ng res tri ct io ns (th e 1 98 1 Eas t Ev erg la de s Zo ni ng Over la y an d re la te d
or di na nc es ) im

po se d b y Mi am i-Da de Co un ty . . . sho ul d b e d is reg ard edin de te rm in in g t he va lu e o f th e subjec t p arce ls ba se d o n t he ap pl ic at io n o f th e ‘sco pe of th e p ro ject’ do ctrin e.” (R- 14 ). The co urt ex te ns iv el y rev ie wedin fo rm at io n 10su rro un di ng th e p as sa ge of t he 19 81 Zon in g Ord in an ce, g oi ng ba ckto th e ear ly

19 70 s. Th e Gov ern m en t i nt ro du ceda 19 78 res ol ut io n a do pt edby the Dade Co un ty Boardof C omm is si on ers en ti tl ed , “ Res ol ut io n Ap pr ov in g t he Pla n o f Stud y forth e Eas t Ev erg la de s Lan d/ W at er Re so ur ces Man ag em en t Pl an ; an d Aut ho riz in g C ou nt y

Man ag er t o Ap pl y

foran d En te r in to a Fed eral Gran t an d SeekSta te an d WaterMan ag em en t Di st ric t Fu nd in g t o As si stinth e Pre pa rat io n o f
sa idPla n,” th e 1 97 5 C om pr eh en si ve Pla n d es ig na ti ng a m ajorpo rti onof t he East Eve rg la de s as an“ Area o f Cri ti cal Env iro nm en ta l Co nc ernpu rs ua ntto Ch ap te r 33 B, Co de of M etro po li ta n Dad e Co un ty,” the Pro po se d M an ag em en t Pl an , and th e 1 98 1 Ov erl ay

Ordi nanc e it se lf. Ap pe ll an ts were al lo wedto pre se ntth e fo ll owi ng ev id en ce wh ic h t he y co nt en de d s up po rte d t he Gov ern m en t’s in vo lv em en t i n t he pa ss in g o f th e Ove rla y . (1 ) A Marc h 1 97 4 Let te r fro m th e Ass t. Se cret ary of

th e In te rio r to th e Att orne y Gen eral of F lo rid a an d t he Dade Co un ty Mana ge r whi chdi sc us se s co nc ern s ab ou t fu tu re d ev el op m en t an d s ta te d: W e are co nc ern edab ou t the ex te ns iv e fu tu re d ev el op m en t o f th e Tay lo r Sl ou gh areaan d a ll th e drai na ge area s t o t he eas te rnpo rti onof Eve rg la de s Nat io na l Pa rk , whi chth e co ns tru ct io n o f th is roa d po rte nd s. We ass um e y oush are o urco nc erninth is res pe ct . Howev er, rat he r th anall owi ng su chex te ns iv e fu ture d ev el op m en t t o oc cu r an d c reat e a d an ge r to Parkres ou rces , whi chwou ldne ces si ta te nu m ero us an d p ie cem eal leg al co nf ro nt at io ns , a pr efer ab le so lu ti onto 11th es e p ro bl em s i s a c oo pe rat iv e Fed eral -St at e eff ort t o t ak e th e in it ia ti ve by ass ert in g t he leg al au th or it ie s atou r di sp os al an d co nt ro ll in g d ev el op m en t i n t he se area s p rio r to th e n eces si ty for li ti ga ti on . Suc h aso lu ti on wou ldm os t ef fect iv el y pro te ctall th e in te res ts co nc ern ed , i.e., th e Eve rg la de s, the Sta te ’s do wns tre am res ou rces , andth e aff

ect edlan do wne rs . (2 ) A Ju ne 19 74 let te r fro m th e Supe rin te nd en t o f Eve rg la de s Nat io na l Parkto th e Dad e Co un ty May oran d C omm is si on urg in g t he pre se rv at io n o f th e EastEver gl ad es th ro ug h an e xt en si onof t he m or at or iu m an d a n a do pt io n o f pr op er l an d u se reg ul at io ns an d e nc ou rag in g “ stro ng , join t, Co un ty, St at e an d F ed eral act io n.” (3 ) Fed eral ly fun de d s tu di es inth e m id -1 97 0s an d s ta te m en ts m ad e b y a Dep art m en t o f In te rio r of fic ia l i n 1 97 6. Th e o ffi ci al tal ks ab ou t the po ss ib il it y

of t ak in g l an ds inth e Eas t Ev erg la de s, the ex pe ns e o f do in g s o, an d o th er p os si bl e so lu ti on s i nv ol vi ng st at e an d c ou nt y go ve rn m en ts . Thes e fed eral stud ie s re co gn iz e th atDade Co un ty mig htall ow m or e in te ns iv e u se s of th e Eas t Ev erg la de s t ha n wo ul d b e acc ep tabl e fo r Parkm an ag em en t pu rp os es an d s ug ge st , “ th e Dep art m en t o f th e In te rio r m us t b e p rep aredto ta ke ad di ti on al act io ns , up to an d i nc lu di ng purch as e in ord er t o p ro te ct[it s] in te res t.”

12(4 ) Doc um en ts su gg es ti ng th atth e o ne -dwell in g- pe r-fo rty-acres res tri ct io n was

no t b as edon th e Co un ty’ s re se arch bu t was a res tri ct io n re co m m en de d b y th e Gov ern m en t as th e m ax im um res tri ct io n a ll owe d t o a vo ida reg ul at ory ta ki ng . (5 ) Doc um en ts in di cat in g alo ng hi st ory of t he fed eral off

ic ia ls pro vi di ng co m m en ts on pro

jects pro po se d fo r ad

jacen t o r rel at edlan ds an d n ot in g t he Gov ern m en t’s p art ic ip at io n i n t he EastEver gl ad es Res ou rces Pla nn in g Pro ject. ( Id
. , at 1 2- 18 ). The Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo un d: Inth e p res en t ca se , th e ev id en ce p res en te d t o t hi s C ou rt, a s ex te ns iv el y

setou t ab ov e, fai ls to sh ow tha t the pri m ary pu rp os e o f th e Zon in g Ov erl ay

Ordi na nc e was to de pr es s t he pro pe rty val ue s o f th e subjec t p arce ls or t ha t i t was en act edwith t he sp eci fic in te ntof de pr es si ng pro pe rty val ue s fo r co nd em na ti on pu rp os es . The ev id en ce in st eadsh ows th atth e p ur po se an d i nt en t o f th e reg ul at io ns was fo r th e eco lo gi cal reas on s s etou t i n t he Ordi na nc e it se lf. Th e ev id en ce pr es en te d b y

th e Defen da nt s co m

pl et el y fai ls to sat is fy

th e requi rem en ts im

po se d b y [th e o rig in al Ju dg e d is tri ctco urt o rd er] th at th e m ov an t s ho w th atreduc in g p ro pe rty val ue was t he in te ntan d pu rp os e o f th e Ord in an ce. Thu s, n o re li ef o n thi s b as is is warran te d. Add it io na ll y , eve n i f th e ev id en ce co ul d s om eh ow b e se ento all ow fo r th e d et erm in at io n t ha t the pu rp os e an d i nt en t h adbe ensh own , th ere i s cl earl y

in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s ho w th atth e Uni te d S ta te s act edinco nc ertor a gr eem en t t o d ep res s t he pro pe rty val ue s. All th e ev id en ce p res en te d t o t hi s C ou rt s ho ws i s t ha t the fed eral go ve rn m en t 13sh aredth e co nc ern s ex pr es se d b y th e st at e an d l oc al go ve rn m en ts in en su rin g t he co nt in ue d v it al it y of t he na tu ral res ou rces of S ou th Fl or id a. (R-1 4, at25 ). The R ep ort an d R eco m m en da ti on reco m

m en de d t ha t Ap pe ll an ts ’ In st ru ct io n 1 9 m ot io n b e d en ie d a ndth e Gov ern m en t’s m ot io n i n l im in e b e gr an te d a ndth atall rel at edm ot io ns be de ni edwith p reju di ce. App el la nt s o bjec te d to th e Rep ort an d R eco m m en da ti on , bu t o n No ve m be r 8, 2 00 4, the di st ric t co urt co nduc te d a de no vo rev ie w andad op te d i t. (R- 15 ). D. Th e Tr ia l a nd

Co mmis si on Repo rt The pa rti es pro ceed edto tri al on Aug us t 1 6- 18 , 20 05 , bef or e th e Ru le 71 Lan d C ommis si on to de te rm in e jus t co m pe ns at io n fo r App el la nt s’ sev entra ct s. App el la nt s co nt en de d tha t the va lu e o f th ei r si x s m al l tract s was $1 ,50 0 a ndth e va lu e o f th ei r la rg e tr actwas $ 2,0 00 pe r acr e, whi le th e Gov ern m en t co nt en de d th atth e v al ue s wer e $ 50 0 a nd$8 50 pe r acre , res pe ct iv el y . App el lant s p res en te d two witne ss es alo ng with the ir o wn t es ti m on y . A certi fie d app rai se r te st ifi edas t o th e fai r m ark etva lu e o f th e se ve n p arce ls , whi le a pl anne r an d l an d u se ex pe rt pr ov id edtes ti m on y

on pe rm is si bl e u se s o f th e landof t he subjec t p ro pe rti es an d th e p ro pe rti es th e ap pr ai se r us edas c om pa rab le s. Th e Gov ern m en t p res en te d t he te st im on y of a no th er ce rti fie d app rai se r; t he own er o f All ig at orFarm s, In c., an d th e p ur ch as er o f a num

be r of th e Gov ern m en t ap pr ai se r’s co m pa rab le s; a 14hydro lo gi stwith the Ever gl ad es Nati on al Park ; an d a n e m pl oyee of th e So ut h Fl or id a Water M an ag em en t Di stric t. The ap pr ai se rs ag reedth atth e h ig he stan d be stus e fo r th e se ve n t ract s was pa ss iv e rec reat io na l u se an d t ha t the co m pa rab le
sa le s ap pr oa chwas t he be stm etho d t o d et erm in e v al ue . The two ex pe rts di ffer ed in th ei r co m

pa rab le s. App el la nt s’ app rai se r us edsi xt een co m pa rab le s, rang in g i n v al ue fro m $1 ,19 6 t o $ 3,0 00 anacre . Two of th e si xt een co m

parab le s wer e wit hi n t he rel ev an t l an d a reas , whi le th e o th er fo urte enwere o ut si de th e rel ev an t l an d a reas twen ty or m or e m il es so ut h i n a reas th at , whi le en vi ro nm en ta ll y sen si ti ve , were n ot as li m it edby zon in g re st ric ti on s. Sev enof the co m pa rab le s i nv ol ve d s al es to th e Eve rg la de s Al li ga to r Farm . The o wne r te st ifi edth athe on ly pai d the pri ce h e p ai d fo r th es e p arce ls be cau se th ey were wi th in th e v ic in it y

of h is bu si ne ss an d
ne ces sa ry to sec ur e ai r bo attra il s fo r hi s t ou ris t at tra ct io ns . Three of t he
co m pa rab le s h adth e p ot en ti al forag ric ul tural us e an d o ne of h is co m pa rab le s h ad
va lu e as a m in in g p ro pe rty. A pp el la nt s’ pro pe rty was s ui tabl e fo r ne it he r m in in g no r ag ric ul tu re. The Gov ern m en t’s ap pr ai se r us edsev enco m pa rab le s ra ng in g i n v al ue fro m $2 00 to $2 ,08 3 a n a cre. On ly two o f hi s co m pa rab le s wer e so ldwithi n t he pa st fif te eny ears , andth os e p ro pe rti es were d is tre ss sal es whi choff eredli tt le in si gh t. 15One of h is ot he r co m pa rab le s was a bankfor ecl os ur e. The Go ve rn m en t ap pr ai se r’s $2 ,08 3 p er ac re p ro pe rty was ina le ss res tri ct iv e are a, ha d ro adacce ss , an d h ada st ru ctur e b ui ltup on it . The Go ve rn m en t ap pr ai se r al so in cl ud ed
co m pa rab le #6 , a 19 82 sal e o f ei gh ty acres for$5 00 pe r acr e, an d c om pa rab le #1 , a 19 86 sal e o f 13 7 a cres for $7 00 pe r acre . App el la nt s o ffer eda 19 87 co m pa rab le fo r $1 ,05 0 o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n o f th e Gov ern m en t’s ex pe rt t o c ha ll en ge hi s 1 98 6
co m pa rab le . App el la nt s d idno t o fferth is co m pa rab le inth ei r cas e inch ie f be cau se th ey

be li ev editto be to o o ld
. The Co m m is si on is su edit s re po rt o n S ep te m be r 15 , 20 05 . (R-1 6) . The l an d
co m m is si on de te rm in edApp el la nt s h adno t es tabl is he d t ha t the ir p ro pe rti es sh ou ld be va lu edat $ 1,5 00 an d $ 2,0 00 anacre , res pe ct iv el y , bu t the y ha d e st ab li sh edth at th ei r va lu e was m or e th anth e $ 50 0 a nd$8 00 anacre va lu es th e Gov ern m en t p ut fo rth . The Co m

mis si on ass es se d a ll twen ty-th ree c om pa rab le s p res en te d b y

th e ap pr ai se rs inth ei r di recttes ti m on y . The Co m m is si on fou ndth atwhi le pro pe rti es di sc us se d b y

App el la nt s’ app rai se r pr ov id edin si gh t i nt o t he va lu e o f App el la nt s’ la nd , no ne of p ro pe rti es were ac tu al ly com pa rab le . The Co m

m is si on fou ndth at on ly com pa rab le #1 , th e 1 98 2 s al e fo r $5 00 anacre , andco m pa rab le #6 , th e 1 98 6
sa le for$7 00 anacre , off eredby the Gov ern m en t wer e actua ll y an al og ou s t o App el la nt s’ pro pe rti es . The Co m m is si on di d n otad dr es s t he 19 87 co m pa rab le
. 16The Co m

m is si on setjus t co m

pe ns at io n fo r App el la nt s’ si x s m al le r pr op ert ie s at $7 00 pe r acr e an d t he pro pe r va lu e fo r th e se ve nt h a ndlar ge stpro pe rty at $ 90 0 p er acre . The t ot al va lu e o f App el la nt s’ acrea ge was $ 47 2,0 00 .. In ac co rd an ce wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s p retria l ru li ng , th e Co m mis si on di d n othe ar an y

of t he App el la nt s’ evi de nc e reg ard in g t he Gov ern m en t’s i nv ol ve m en t i n t he 19 81 Ove rlay or t he va lu e o f th e land s wi th ou t the Over la y res tri ct io ns . E. Pro ceed in gs Fol lo wi ng th e Co mmis si on ’s Repo rt Rel ev an t t o t hi s ap pe al , App el la nt s ra is edth ree o bjec ti on s t o t he Co m m is si on ’s rep ort an d c la im edth atth es e o bjec ti on s co ns ti tu te d i nd ep en de nt gr ou nd s fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o c on du cta de no vo tri al on th e is su e o f jus t co m pe ns at io n o r rem an d t he rep ort fo r a n ew tr ia l b efo re a n ewly-app oi nt ed
co m m is si on . Firs t, the y

co nt en de d t ha t the di st ric t co urt h adus edth e wro ng st an da rdto de te rm in e whe th er the Gov ern m en t h adact edto de pr es s l an d v al ue . Seco nd , th ey

co nt en de d t ha t the di stric t co urt s ho ul d h av e am en de d t he in st ru ct io ns to th e Co m

m is si on ers rel at in g t o t he 19 81 EastEver gl ad es Zon in g Ove rlay . The co urt fo un d t ha t the se two ob jecti on s re ga rd in g t he 19 81 Zon in g Ove rlay ha d a lre ady

be enad dr es se d a ndreject edinanearl ie r Rep ort an d Rec omm en da ti on . Last ly, App el la nt s ar gu edth atth e tr ia l p ro ceed in g b efo re the Lan d C ommis si on vi ol at edDue P ro ces s. 17Acco rd in g t o t he App el la nt s, the Gov ern m en t h adbe ensch edul in g t ria l

gr oups “ in whi cheit he r no lan do wne rs or l an do wne r at to rn ey s ap pe aredor i n whi chlan do wne rs ap pe ared pr o s e , witho utass is ta nc e o f co un se l an d wi th ou t pr oduc in g e xp ertva lu at io n t es ti m on y .” App el la nt s ar gu ed : By vo lu nt ari ly dis m is si ng pa rcel s fo r whi chanatt orne y fil eda no ti ce of ap pe aran ce i n t he earl y

tri al gro up s, the go ve rn m en t ac hi ev edfor it se lf t he pra ct ic al equi va le ntof e x p art e h eari ng s. Th e [Go ve rn m en t] co ul d p res en t i ts ap pr ai se rs witho utcro ss -ex am in at io n o r wit ho ut co m pe ti ng ex pe rt t es ti m on y . It co ul d a dv is e th e Co m m is si onon po in ts of l aw wit h n o o pp os in g l eg al arg um en t o r inpu t fr om th e Co urt. (R-1 7, at9). Ap pe ll an ts ul ti m at el y co nc lu de d t ha t b y

th e ti m e th ei r cas e wen t t o tri al , a cle ar p at te n o f co m pe ns at io n ru li ng s h adem erg edan d t he Co m m is si on ha d th ei r m in ds en ti rel y

m ad e up. Fi rs t, Ap pe ll an ts no te d t ha t the Co m mis si on co ns is te nt ly val ue d i so la te d t ract s i n M an ag em en t Are a 2 A of t he Ever gl ad es at $5 00 pe r acr e in adhe ren ce wi th th e Gov ern m en t ex pe rt’s o pi ni on , bu t the Co m m is si on wou ldbu m

p t he va lu e up t o $ 70 0 fo r no ap pa ren t re as on when a la nd own er ap pe ared pr o s e . Seco nd , th e Co m m is si ondi d n otgi ve an y

weig htto th e 1 98 7 c om

pa rab le sal e fo r $1 ,05 0 p er ac re h ig hl ig ht edby the App el la nt s dur in g th e cro ss -ex am in at io n o f th e Gov ern m en t’s ap pr ai se r, di rectof Ap pe ll an ts ’ ap pr ai se r, an d Ap pe ll an ts ’ cl os in g, d es pi te th e fac t tha t the 19 87 sal e was inth e vi ci ni ty of th e 1 98 6 c om

pa rab le on whi chth e Co m m is si on rel ie d a ndwas ay ear 18cl os er t o t he da te of v al ua ti on . App el la nt s d iff eren ti at edth ei r cas e fro m Uni te d St at es v. 5.0 0 Acr es , 67 3 F .2d12 44 , 12 47 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ), whi chreject edan arg um en t tha t a C omm is si on was b ia se d b ecau se itha d h eardth irt y -n in e un co nt es te d c as es . App el la nt s i ns te adco m pa redth ei r cas e to Gwa th mey v. Un it ed St at es , 21 5 F .2d14 8 (5 th Cir . 19 54 ) (rev ers edan d re m an de d fo r a n ew tr ia l due to own ers be in g d en ie d due pro ces s af te r Gov ern m en t co nd em

ne d 2 36 tra ct s an d pr es en te d a ll ev id en ce b efo re o ne jury). The Mag is tra te Ju dg e is su eda Rep ort an d R eco m m en da ti on reco m

m en di ng App el la nt s’ ob

jecti on s b e reject ed . (R-1 7) . The Ma gi st rat e Ju dg e fo un d t ha t (1 ) Gwa th meywas d is ti ng ui sh ab le an d d idno t co nt ro l the m at te r, an d (2 ) “ th e Co m m is si on ex am in edth e co m pa rab le s p res en te d, i nc lu di ng th e [co m pa rab le refe ren cedby App el la nt s] andno te d i n d et ai l the ir r eas on in g fo r acc ep ti ng an d reject in g e ach co m

parab le . The Co m

mis si on ’s refu sa l t o c on si de r App el la nt ’s ap pr ai se r co m

pa rab le s was reas on ab le , andth e [Ap pe ll an ts ] ha ve fai le d t o s ho w an y ba si s fo r reject in g t he Rep ort o f th e Co m mis si on ongro un ds of b ia s o r de pr av at io n o f du e p ro ces s.” Ap pe ll an ts m ov edva cat e th e Ma gi strat e Ju dg e’s Rep ort an d R eco m

m en da ti on . The d is tri ctco urt v acat edth e Rep ort an d Rec omm en da ti on , rev ie wedth e m atte r de no vo , reject edApp el la nt s’ arg um en ts ,

19an d t he n a do pt edth e Co m m is si on ’s fin di ng s o n c om pe ns at io n. Ap pe ll an ts ap pe al edto th is co urt. (R- 18 ). II . Dis cus si on The be gi nn in g o f th e in qu iry in a ny con de m na ti on m atte r is th e Fi fth Am en dm en t wh ic h s ta te s t ha t “ [n ]o pe rs on . . . sh al l b e d ep riv edof . . . pr op erty witho utdu e p ro ces s o f la w; n orsh al l p riv at e p ro pe rty be t ak enforpubl ic us e, witho utjus t co m

pe ns at io n.” U.S. Con st . am en d. V. Inad di ti on to th e co ns id erab le du e p ro ces s ju ris pr ud en ce, co urts have de ve lo pe d anu m be r of leg al
worki ng rul es to de te rm in e whe n c om pe ns at io n i s “

jus t.” Fi rs t, the m eas ur e o f
co m pe ns at io n i s g en eral ly the va lu e o f th e p ro pe rty at th e d at e o f ta ki ng . Uni te d St at es v. 32 0 Acr es , 60 5 F .2d76 2, 7 81 (5t h C ir. 1 97 9)
. The v al ue of apro pe rty is 4 ge ne ral ly its “ m ark etva lu e” o r th e p ric e th ata reas on ab le an d wi ll in g b uyer wou ld pa y a reas on ab le an d wi ll in g s el le r gi ve n m ark etco nd it io ns . Id
. Ju st co m pe ns at io n i s n otli m it edto th e v al ue of t he pro pe rty as i t i s p res en tl y us edbu t al so in cl ud es an y

ad di ti on al m ark etva lu e itm ay co m m an d b ecau se of t he pr os pe ct s fo r de ve lo pi ng itto th e “ hi gh es t an d b es t u se ” fo r whi chitis su it ab le
. Id
. In d et erm in in g apro pe rty’ s “ hi gh es t an d b es t” us e, a co urt m ay co ns id er
I n B o nner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) , the Elevent h 4 Circuit adopted as binding prec edent all decisions rende red by the former Fifth Circuit prior to October 1, 1981. 20ex is ti ng zo ni ng res tri ct io ns ; i f a zo ni ng res tri ct io n p recl ud es a cert ai n u se , th e

co urt wi ll ge ne ral ly notco ns id er tha t u se init s ev al ua ti on . Id
. (qu ot in g Uni te d St at es v. Mea do w Bro ok

Clu b , 25 9 F .2d41 , 45 (2dCir .), cer t den ie d , 35 8 U.S. 9 21 (1 95 8) ). In d et erm in in g wh ata hypo th et ic al wil li ng bu y er wo ul d g iv e fo r pr op erty , cou rts oft enlo okto actua l, co m parab le sal es on th e o pe n m ark etbe twee n ot he r wil li ng bu y ers an d s el le rs . Id
. at 7 81 n.2 3. “ Gen eral ly, th e m or e co m pa rab le
a sa le is , th e m or e p ro ba ti ve itwil l b e o f th e fai r m ark etva lu e o f th e co nd em ne d pr op erty .” Id
. at 7 98 . “ So un d a ndjus t tria l p ract ic e is to adm itas m an y of t he ‘m os t co m

pa rab le ’ sa le s av ai labl e as is ne ces sa ry to fai rly perm iteach si de to pr es en t i ts arg um en t o f fai r m ark etva lu e fo r th e jury’ s co ns id erat io n.” Id
. Inso m e cas es st ric t adhe ren ce t o m ark etva lu e an d c om pa rab le sal es wil l
res ul t i n m an ife stin

jus ti ce t o t he own er o r to th e p ub li c, an d c ou rts m us t ap pl y sp eci al rul es an d s ta nd ard s t o a rri ve at “ jus t” co m pe ns at io n. On e su chrul e is th e

“ sc op e o f th e p ro

ject” do ctrin e. Thi s d oc tri ne see ks to en su re tha t wh ende ci di ng th e m ark etva lu e o f th e p ro pe rty the fact -fi nd in g b od y do es no t co ns id er the po si ti ve or t he ne ga ti ve im pa ctof a ny deci si on th e Gov ern m en t m ak es withi n t he
sc op e o f th e p ro

ject wh ic h p ro m

pt edth e ta ki ng . As a p artof t hi s d oc tri ne , a fact fin de r m ay

di sr eg ardth e im

pa ctof azo ni ng res tri ct io n o n api ece o f pr op erty in de te rm in in g ju stco m

pe ns at io n wh enth e Gov ern m en t p as se d t he res tri ct io n fo r th e

21pu rp os e o f de pr es si ng th e p ro pe rty’ s v al ue inanim pe nd in g e m in en t d om ai n pr oc eed in g. Uni te d Sta tes v. 3 20 Acres , 60 5 F .2dat 8 20 n.1 31 (ci ti ng Metro po li ta n Ar ea Tra ns it

Autho ri tyv. One Pa rc el

of La nd , 41 3 F . Sup p. 1 02 , 10 6 (D. Md . 19 76 ), af

f’d , 54 8 F .2d11 30 (4t h C ir. 1 97 7) ). The in st an t m at te r requi res us to ad dr es s t he ap pr op ria te leg al st an da rdin th is cir cu itforde te rm in in g wh enth e Gov ern m en t h as pa ss eda res tri ct io n fo r th e pu rp os e o f de pr es si ng a pr op erty ’s val ue inanim pe nd in g e min en t d om ai n pr oc eed in g a ndwhen a co urt s ho ul d g iv e anin st ru ct io n t o t he factfin de r reg ard in g su chres tri ct io ns , as wel l as th e ap pr op ria te pro ces s t o b e g iv enlan d o wne rs du rin g a co nd em na ti on pro ceed in g. A. Th e Co rr ect

Legal Stan da rd to Dete rmi ne W

he n a Zo ni ng

Restri ct io n or Regu la ti on Sh ou ld

Be Ign or ed

Beca us e th e Gov ernme nt Acte d t o Dep ress Pro

pe rt y Val ue in Ant ic ip at io n o

f Co ndemn at io n The Elev en th Cir cu itha s n ev er ad dr es se d t he ap pr op ria te st an da rdfor de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e Gov ern m en t h as im pl em en te d ares tri ct io n i n o rd er t o de pr es s v al ue pre ced in g atak in g b y em in en t d om ai n. We m

us t d eci de whethe r to affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt an d a do ptth e “pr im ary pu rp os e” o r “ in te nt ” st an da rd
supp orte d i n p artby the Seco nd , Thi rd , andFif thCir cu it s, se e Uni te d Sta tes v. La nd , 21 3 F .3d83 0 (5 thCir . 20 00 ) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. 2 7.9 3 Acr es of La nd , 92 4 F.2 d 5 06 (3dCir . 19 91 ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Mea do w Bro ok Clu b , 25 9 F .2d41 (2d 22Ci r. 19 58 ), ad op t the bro ad er “ ne xu s” st an dardadvo cat edby App el la nt s, o r ad op t

a uni qu e st an da rd . This is su e is a m at te r of law wh ic h we r ev ie w de no vo . So uthe rn Na tu ra l Ga s v. La nd , Cul lma n C

ou nt y , 19 7 F .3d13 68 , 13 72 (11 th Cir
. 19 99 ). The di stric t co urt’s s tand ardco ns is ts of t wo p art s –(1) “ a la nd own er m us t sh ow tha t the pri m ary pu rp os e o f th e reg ul at io n was to de pr es s t he pro pe rty val ue orth atth e o rd in an ce was en act edwith t he sp eci fic in te ntof d ep res si ng pro pe rty va lu es forth e p ur

po se of c on de m

na ti on ,” an d (2 ) th e land own er m us t s ho w th at th e g ov ern m en t b ody

im po si ng th e reg ul at io n i s ei th er the same go ve rn m en t b od y in vo lv edinth e co nd em

na ti onor h as act ed“ in co nc ert[or ] ag reem en t wi th ” th at en ti ty (R-6 a t 1 1, 1 4) . App el la nt s d is pu te th e in te ntor p rimary pu rp os e requi rem en t. An an al y si s o f th e p rimary pu rp os e o r in te ntst an da rdbe gi ns with Mea do w Bro ok . 25 9 F .2d41 . There , a lan do wne r so ug htto ha ve th e Town Bo ardre-z on e it s p ro pe rty from

res id en ti al to in du st ria l. Id
. at44 . Desp it e th e fac t tha t the area su rro un di ng th e p ro pe rty hadbe co m e la rg el y in du st ria l, the Air Fo rce, as an ad joi ni ng lan do wne r, ob

jecte d t o t he re-zo ni ng . Id
. Sho rtl y th erea fte r, th e Gov ern m en t m ov edto co nd em n t he lan do wne r’s pr op erty to ex pa ndth e Air

Fo rce ba se . Id
. at43 . The l an do wne r co nt en de d t ha t the Air Fo rce h adact edinba d fa it h 23in op po si ng re-z on in g i n o rd er t o l owe r th e v al ue of t he pro pe rty pri orto

co nd em na ti on , andab se ntth e Air Fo rce’s i nt erv en ti on rezo ni ng wou ldha ve oc cu rred
. Id
. at 4 5. Th e co urt re jecte d t he lan do wne r’s arg um en t ap pl y in g a

“ m ot iv e te st .” The S eco ndCir cu itst at ed : Cl earl y , th e Uni te d S ta te s, l ik e an y ad joi ni ng lan do wne r, was apro pe r pa rty to r es is t re -zo ni ng . . . . If th e ai r fo rce h ada pr op er m ot iv e, th is well mig htha ve pre cl ud edre-z on in g a t an y ti m e [an d t he refo re an in crea se inth e p ro pe rty’ s v al ue ]
. . . . Butitis als o c le ar tha t i f th e go ve rn m en t’s s ol e m ot iv e in res is ti ng th e ch an ge inzo ni ng was t o de pr es s t he m ark etva lu e o f th e p ro pe rty whic h i t the n i nt en de d t o co nd em n, the co urt’s es ti m at e o f th e p ro babi li ty of re-z on in g (a s a fact oren te rin g i nt o t he ul ti m at e cal cu la ti on of v al ue ) sh ou ldno t h av e refl ect edth is op po si ti on . Id
. The Se co ndCir cu itfou ndth atth ere was no t s uf fic ie ntev id en ce i n t he reco rd to supp ort M ead ow Br oo k’s ch arg e o f ba d fa it h a ndaffi rm edth e d is tri ctco urt’s de ci si on to co ns id er the ex is ti ng zo ni ng of t he pro pe rty andth e unl ik el ih oo d t ha t i t wou ldch an ge inde te rm in in g t he pro pe rty’ s m ark etva lu e. Id. at 4 6. The Fif th Cir cu itrece nt ly ado pt ed Mea do w Bro ok ’s st an da rdin La nd . 21 3 F.3 d 8 30 . There , th e Fi fth Cir cu itde ci de d t ha t the Arm y Co rp s o f Eng in eers ’ 19 79 de ci si on to de ny a dev el op m en t co rp or at io n’s co ns tru ct io n p erm itto bu il d a le ve e was no t wi th inth e sc op e o f th e Nat io na l Pa rkSy st em ’s ul ti m at e acqui si ti on an d c on de m

na ti onof l an d fo r Je anLafit te Nati on al Park
. Id
. at. 8 35 -3 6. Co ng res s crea te d t he pa rk

in19 78 ; i ts pl an s t o a cqui re l an d b eg in in19 86 ; an d the

24Gov ern m en t d idno t fi le co nd em na ti on co m

pl ai nt s u nt il 19 94
. Id. The co urt fo un d tha t the re was no ev id en ce tha t the Co rp s’ m ot iv e inde nyin g t he lan d de ve lo pe r’s pe rm itap pl ic at io n was to dri ve do wn the va lu e o f th e p ro pe rty, and in st eadth e rec or d i nd ic at edth atth e Co rp s’ pri m ary pu rp os e was to pro te ctth e Je anLafit te Nati on al Park ’s eco syste m . Id
. at 8 36 . As su ch , th e co urt fo un d t ha t co m pe ns at io n fo r th e le ve e la ndsh ou ldbe ba se d o n i ts va lu e atth e ti m e o f
co nd em na ti on rathe r th anth e v al ue itm ig hthave ha d i f th e Co rp s h adgra nt edth e 19 75 co ns tru ct io n p erm it
. Id
. The Thi rdCir cu itad op te d Mea do w Bro ok in 27 .93 Acres . 92 4 F .2d50 6. The re, the Gov ern m en t co nt act edlan do wne rs to acqui re the ir p ro pe rty, zon ed ag ric ul tu ral , forth e App al ach ian Nat io na l Sc en ic Trial
. Id
. at 5 08 -1 1. Th e p art ie s co ul d n otreac h aset tl em en t an d t he Gov ern m en t u lt im at el y fil eda co nd em

na ti on pr oc eed in g. Id
. Prio r to th e co nd em na ti on pro ceed in g, the Town sh ip inwhi chth e la ndwas l oc at edbe ga n c on te m pl at in g a n e nt erp ris e d is tri ctwhi chwou ldrequi re th atth e land own er’s p ro pe rty be re- zo ne d a s co m m erci al
. Id
. Whi le indi sc ov ery with t he Gov ern m en t, the lan do wne rs fil edanap pl ic at io n t o h av e th ei r pr op erty re-z on edwith t he Town sh ip pl an ni ng bo ardan d i t was ten ta ti ve ly app ro ve d. Id
. The Gov ern m en t ag reedto po stpo ne tri al an d t ak e d is co ve ry onth e co m

m erci al
va lu e o f th e p ro pe rty. Prio r to th e cl os e o f di sc ov ery, th e Pl an ni ng Co m m is si on 25reco m

m en de d t o t he Town sh ip th atth e la nd own ers ’ pe ti ti on be de ni ed , off eri ng fo urreas on s. Id
. The l an do wne rs lat er l earn edth atth e Gov ern m en t h adsen t a le tt er t o the Town sh ip Bo ardst at in g t ha t i t o pp os edth e re- zo ni ng reque st . Id
. The bo ardul ti m at el y

de ni edth ei r pe ti ti on . Id
. At tr ia l, the di st ric t co urt d idno t al lo w th e la nd own ers to pre se ntev id en ce o f th e co m m erci al va lu e o f th e p ro pe rty. Id
. The lan do wne rs ap pe al edto th e Thi rdCir cu itarg ui ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s di sc ov ery ru li ng s p rev en ti ng th em fro m off eri ng ev id en ce attri al on th e Gov ern m en t’s m ot iv es inop po si ng re-zo ni ng an d t he co m m erci al va lu e o f th e la nd were i m pr op er u nd er Mea do w Bro ok
. Id
. at 5 11
. The Thi rdCir cu itrev ie wedforab us e o f di sc ret io n a ndaffi rm edth e tr ia l
co urt fi nd in g t ha t d es pi te th e fac t tha t the lan do wne rs ha d d ep os edth e au th orof th e le tt er t o t he Bo ardan d t ak enot he r di sc ov ery, th ey off eredno m or e th an co nc lu so ry

all eg at io ns reg ard in g m ot iv e. Id
. The co urt fo un d t ha t the lan do wne rs ha d n otsh ownby a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the Gov ern m en t’s ac ti on s were the “bu t fo r” caus e o f th e Bo ard ’s rem ov al of t he co nd em ne d t ractfro m

th e en te rp ris e d is tri ctan d t he de ci si on no t t o re -zo ne , andth us th e d is tri ctco urt ac te d ap pr op ria te ly in n otsubm it ti ng to th e jury the qu es ti onof wh ethe r th e co nd em ne d tra ctwou ldli ke ly be re-z on edco m m erci al
. Id
. at 8 14
.

26App el la nt s u rg e u s t o i gn or e th e in te ntor m ot iv e h ol di ng s o f ou r si st er

ci rcu it s an d i ns te adto ad op t a s ta nd ardun de r whi cha land own er m us t o nl y sh ow a

“ ne xu s” be twee n t he Gov ern m en t’s p ro ject- rel at edact iv it ie s an d t he lo cal zo ni ng whi chcau se d d ep reci at io n i n v al ue . App el la nt s draw thi s s ta nd ardfro m Uni te d St at es v. Tru ro , 47 6 F . Sup p. 1 03 1 (D. M as s. 1 97 9) , and Ass at eagu e Is la nd Co ndemn at io n Op in io n N o. 3 , 32 4 F . Sup p. 1 17 0 (D. M d. 1 97 1) . In Tr ur o ,

“ Co ng res s m ot iv at ed , and , as apra ct ic al m atte r, pr es su red ” si x t own s t o e na ct zo ni ng pro vi si on s wh ic h C on gr es s wan te d t o p res erv e “ th e Cap e Co d way of l ife witho utris k o f fu rth er d ev el op m en t o r of us es in co ns is te nt ” wit h C on gr es s’s p lan to est ab li sh a na ti on al sea sh or e th ere. Id
. at 1 03 3- 34
. Afterth e zo ni ng pro vi si on s 5 were i n p la ce, Co ng res s co nd em ne d p ro pe rti es withi n t he si x t own s fo r a n at io na l
se as ho re. Id. at10 34 . The o wne rs of t he zo ne d a ndco nd em ne d tract s s ou gh t t o ha ve th e “ zo ni ng bylaw se t as id e fo r th e li m it edpu rp os e o f de te rm in in g the fai r m ark etva lu e o f th ei r la ndan d [s ou gh t] to ha ve th e fai r m ark etva lu e o f th ei r la nd de te rm in edpu rs ua ntto whatth e zo ni ng pro vi si on wou ldha ve be eninth e ab se nc e

The Depa rtment of the Interior provided officia ls in the aff ecte d towns with copies of 5 sug g ested minimum z oning r equire ments. The S ecr etar y of the Interior drafted leg islation so that all zoning ordinanc es passed by the towns would have to be approve d by him. The town planning boards u n d erstood “that a bylaw providing for any thing less than [the zoning restric tions that the Depa rtment of Interior wa nted] would not be approve d by the Secre tary and that they must either adopt [these regulations] or live with the risk o f co n d em n at ion” by the Gover nment. Truro , 476 F. Supp. at 1034. 27of

fed eral in te rv en ti on .” Id
. at 1 03 5. Th e co urt fo un d t ha t the ne w zon in g b y la ws were “ in lar ge pa rt m ot iv at ed , in du cedan d i m pl em en te d b y

ag en ts of t he Uni te d St at es ,” th e to wn’s ad op ti on of t he zo ni ng pro vi si on s “ was anin te gr al pa rt o f th e fed eral de si gn ,” an d the “ fed eral go ve rn m en t s ho ul d n otbe all owe d t o p ro fitfro m th e d ecre as edpro pe rty val ue s wh ic h [t ho se ] bylaws effe ct ed .” Id
. The co urt di st in gu is he d the Tr ur o si tu at io n fr om ot he r in st an ces inwhi chth ere was no co nn ect io n b etweenth e taki ng au th or it y an d the ap pl ic ab le zo ni ng reg ul at io n. Th e co urt h el d t ha t “ th e fed eral go ve rn m en t [c ou ldno t] di sa vo w th e n ex us whi ch
ex is te d b etweenit s ac ti on s an d t he ad op ti on of t he Trur o z on in g p ro vi si on ,” th atit
was “ cl ear b oth fr om

th e st atut ory

lan gu ag e an d t he ev id en ce p res en te d a t the he ari ng th atCo ng res s m ad e anoff er wh ic h Tr ur o real is ti cal ly cou ldno t re fu se ,”
an d t o “ ch arac te riz e th e en act m en t o f th e [zo ni ng bylaws] as th e to ta ll y free actof th e Tru ro cit iz en ry

at t own m eet in g wo ul d b e to sh uton e’s ey es an d e ars to what real ly w en t o n.” Id

. The co urt al lo wedth e aff ect edlan do wne rs to in tro du ce ev id en ce o f le ss res tri ct iv e to wn zo ni ng on si m il ar l an ds ou ts id e th e p ro po se d
na ti on al pa rkbo un da ry

to est ab li sh va lu e. Id
. at10 36 . The co urt fo un d t ha t the flu ctua ti on s i n m ark etpri ce at tri bu tabl e to th e zo ni ng res tri ct io ns were at tri bu tabl e to th e p ro ject i ts el f, an d l ik e an y

de pr eci at io n o r ap pr eci at io n i n v al ue du e to th e im pe nd in g p ro

ject, s uc h fl uc tu at io ns sh ou ldbe ex cl ud edinde te rm in in g v al ue . Id
. 28Altho ug h Tr ur o us es th e wor d “ ne xu s” an d n ev er ex pl ic it ly requ ire s p ro of

of m ot iv e o r in te nt , itdo es no t ap pe ar t o tru m pe t the bro adst an da rdwhi ch App el la nt s ad vo cat e. The a ct io ns of t he Secr et ary of th e In te rio r were s o o ve rt th atth ey arg uabl y ev id en cedin te ntan d p rimary pu rp os e. Furth er, i t i s cl ear t ha t th e Town sh ip was wo rk in g “ in co nc ert ” wit h t he Secr et ary whe n i t p as se d t he
zo ni ng res tri ct io ns , andth e st ro ng arm tac ti cs of t he Secr et ary im pl y th at“bu t fo r” th e Sec ret ary, th e Town sh ip wou ldno t h av e p as se d t he res tri ct io ns itdi d. Th us , th e fac ts of Tr ur o actua ll y see m to supp ort the st an da rdart ic ul at edby the di st ric t co urt. Ass at eagu e Is la nd al so ad dr es se d ana ti on al sea sh or e p ro ject. 3 24 F. Sup p. 11 70 . There , W or ces te r Co un ty enact eda m or at or iu m on bu il di ng pe rm it s an d
res tri ct edsewa ge di sp os al pe rm it s o n As sa te ag ue Isl an d a t the urg in g o f th e Dep artm en t o f In te rio r to sl ow d ev el op m en t u nt il Co ng res s co ul d c on si de r th e de ve lo pm en t o f a n at io na l s eas ho re the re. Id
. at 1 17 5- 76 . Bot h t he m or at or iu m an d t he sewa ge pe rm itpro ces s wer e st ru ckdo wn b y Marylan d c ou rts be fo re the Uni te d S ta te s u lt im at el y

de ci de d t o d ev el op a na ti on al sea sh or e an d s ou gh t t o t ak e la ndon Ass at eag ue Isl an d b y em in en t d om ai n. Id
. at 1 17 7. Th e la nd own ers arg ue d t ha t the m or at or iu m on bu il di ng pe rm it s an d t he di ffi cu lt y inob ta in in g se wag e d is po sa l p erm it s d ecre as edth e v al ue of t he ir l an d. Th ey wis he d t o 29in tro du ce ev id en ce o f la ndsal es inot he r ne arb y co m m un it ie s n otsubjec t t o t he se res tri ct io ns . Id
. at 1 17 1- 72 . The co urt co ns id eredsal es inot he r are as no t s ub ject to th e res tri ct io ns . The l an do wne rs were n otrequi redto sh ow tha t the Department of Int eri or ’s so le m ot iv e o r pu rp os e in en co ur ag in g t he res tri ct io ns was t o d ep res s la ndva lu e. Id
. at 1 18 0- 81 . Furt he r, th e co urt co ns id eredth e act iv it ie s o f th e Gov ern m en t i n s et ti ng co m pe ns at io n. Id
. Unl ik e th e in st an t ca se , Ass at eagu e Is la nd di d n otin vo lv e a zo ni ng res tri ct io n wh ic h l an do wne rs ask eda co urt t o d is reg ard ; b ot h o f th e res tri ct io ns at is su e were s tru ckdo wn b y st at e co urts pri or

to th e Gov ern m en t’s em in en t d om ai n act io n. Th e Ass at eagu e Is la nd co urt was ne ve r fac edwith t he qu es ti on of t he ap pr op ria te st an da rdto setasi de a zo ni ng res tri ct io n; rathe r, itm erel y ha d t o co ns id er wh ethe r la ndsal es un de r th e res tri ct io ns co ul d b e u se d a s co m pa rab le s. Fu rth er, i n Ass at eagu e Is la nd th ere was di rectev id en ce tha t the Gov ern m en t’s pr im ary pu rp os e was to de pr es s p ro pe rty val ue s. Thu s, we fi nd Ass at eagu e Is la nd 6 to be anin ap pr op ria te cas e fro m whi chto draw a st an da rd
.

“T h e S ec re t ary of the Interior asked the State to defe r the building of a bridg e ‘until 6 Congr ess has had an opportunity to evaluate the leg islative proposals that will soon be place d befor e it to cre ate a National Seashore ’ beca use otherwise the bridg e will ‘re sult in a monetary windfall to prese nt proper

ty owners ’ an d delay

ing construction would ‘avoid unnece ssary inflation and speculation in land values.’” ( Appellee Brief, at 18). 30App el la nt s’ pri m ary arg um en t fo r a “ ne xu s s tand ard ” is th ei r co nc ernth ata

pr im ary pu rp os e o r in te ntst an dardgi ve s t he Gov ern m en t a s tro ng in cen ti ve to
m as k i ts real pu rp os e in pa ss in g z on in g re st ric ti on s b eh in d p ret ex tu al ass ert io ns of be ni gn pu rp os e. It i s v ery un li ke ly tha t the Gov ern m en t wo ul d e ve r adm itth atit s pr im ary pu rp os e o r m ot iv e in pa ss in g a n o rd in an ce o r reg ul at io n was to de pr es s va lu e in an ti ci pa ti on of c on de m na ti on . Accor di ng to App el la nt s, the Gov ern m en t wil l b e ab le to be ne fitby dep res si ng lan d v al ue s as lo ng as the y als o h av e an

y ot he r pu rp os e fo r zo ni ng reg ul at io ns whi chwou ldon ly hap pe n i n ra re ca se s. Co urts wil l h av e to en ga ge inanin te ns e, factba se d, ex pl or at io n o f pe rs on al
co rres po nd en ce an d s im il ar ev id en ce t o d et erm in e “ in te nt ” an d “ pr im ary pu rp os e” to pro hi bi t s uc h c on du ct . App el la nt s’ con cern s ar e v al id ; h owe ve r, th e “ sc op e o f th e p ro ject” rul e is a na rro w exc ep ti on fro m

th e g en eral rul e th atreg ul at io ns are t o b e co ns id eredin de te rm in in g apro

ject’s “ hi gh es t an d b es t u se .” Co urts ha ve on ly app li ed
ex cep ti on s t o age ne ral tak in gs do ctrin e whe n i t i s n eces sa ry to do so inord er t o pr ot ectth e ri gh ts of b ot h t he tak in g b od y an d the lan do wne r. Badfai th by reg ul at in g g ov ern m en t en ti ti es sh ou ldbe th e ex cep ti on , no t the rul e. A “ m ere ne xu s” rul e al so en da ng ers th e Gov ern m en t’s ri gh t as a land own er t o p lay a ro le in

31zo ni ng an d l an d u se de ci si on s. As s uc h, we ad op t the st an dardap pl ie d b y th e 7 di st ric t co urt an d fi ndth atinord er t o h av e a zo ni ng res tri ct io n e xc lu de d fr om a cal cu la ti on of apro pe rty’ s v al ue , a lan do wne r m us t s ho w th atth e p rimary pu rp os e of th e reg ul at io n was to de pr es s t he pro pe rty val ue of l an d o r th atth e o rd in an ce was en act edwith t he sp eci fic in te ntof d ep res si ng pro pe rty val ue forth e p ur po se of lat er co nd em

na ti on B. W he th er a Gi ven Restri ct io n Was Pas se d f or th e Pri mar

y Pur po se of Dep ress in g Pr op er tyVal ue is a Ma tt er of La w to Be Deci de d b

y th e Dis tr ic t Co ur t App el la nt s co nt en d t ha t the m ag is tra te an d d is tri ctco urts erre d wh enth ey ex cl ud edev id en ce o f th e n ex us be twee n t he Gov ern m en t an d t he lo cal zo ni ng bo ardfro m

th e Co m m is si on . App el la nt s u se ou r di sc us si onin 32 0 Acr es to arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e te st edth e su ffi ci en cy of Ap pe ll an ts ’ ev id en ce ab ou t the ne xu s b etweenth e Gov ern m en t an d t he 19 81 Over la y , fou ndApp el la nt s’
ev id en ce t o b e su ffi ci en t, an d s ub m it te d t he is su e to th e jury to d et erm in e whe th er th e Gov ern m en t i nt erfe redinlo cal zo ni ng m at te rs to de pr es s t he va lu e o f th e la nd

There is also a considera

ble question of fac t whether Appellants could even prove a “nexus” 7 i f t he court wer e to adopt this standard. It appea rs that the Gover

nment was mere ly interested i n advanc ing the same environmenta l g oals as the state. The Z oning Over lay was passed in 1981, more than eight year s befor e Congr ess expanded the park, more than ele v en y ear s befor e funding was appropriated, and almost twenty year s befor e the proper ty in qu es t i o n was condemne d. Such a timetable weighs ag ainst a nexus. There does not se em to be any thing in the rec ord as overt as the threat-like leg islation in Truro . 32in th e are a eas t o f Eve rg la de s Nat io na l Pa rk . App el la nt s m is un de rs ta nd 32 0 Acr es

an d t he res pe ct iv e ro le s o f th e Co m m is si on an d the tri al jud ge ina co nd em na ti on pr oc eed in g. A cou rt i n i ts di sc ret io n m ay ord er tha t the is su e o f “

jus t co m pe ns at io n” ina co nd em na ti on pro ceed in g b e d et erm in edby a commis si on of t hr ee p ers on s ap po in te d b y

th e co urt ra th er than ajury. Fed . R. Civ . P. 71 .1(h ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Reyn olds , 39 7 U.S. 1 4, 1 9 (1 97 0) . A dis tri ctjud ge ha s a m uc h b ro ad er ro le ina co nd em na ti on pro ceed in g t ha n h e d oe s i n aco nv en ti on al jury tri al , andex cep t fo r th e si ng le is su e o f th e am ou ntof ju stco m pe ns at io n, the tri al jud ge de ci de s al l is su es , leg al an d fa ctua l, ar is in g i n afed eral co nd em na ti on pro ceed in g. Id
. at19
- 20
. Ourve ry

len gt hy op in io n i n 32 0 Acr es supp orts th e d is tri ctco urt’s ac ti on s he re. 6 05 F.2d76 2. 32 0 Acr es di sc us se s t he rol e o f th e jud ge an d t he factfin de r in two co nt ex ts : (1 ) th e “ sc op e o f th e p ro ject rul e” an d (2 ) th e “ hi gh es t an d b es t us e.” As d is cu ss edab ov e, th e “ sc op e o f th e p ro ject” rul e is de si gn edto en su re th atth e land own er i s n ei th er h urt n orhe lp edina ta ki ng s v al ua ti on by any act io n do ne by the Gov ern m en t wi th in th e sc op e o f th e p ro ject l ead in g t o t he tak in g. 8 For example, if the Gover

nment announce s that it will establish a park on parc el A, then files 8 an action to take parc el B adjac ent to parc el A, the Gover nment should not have to pay for the incre ased value to parc el A following the Gover nment’s park annou n ce m en t . L ikewise, if the Gover nment announce s that it will establish a landfill on parc el A, the Gover nment should pay the 33The “hi gh es t an d b es t u se ” ru le en su res th at“ jus t co m pe ns at io n” tak es in to acco un t al l the po ss ib le an d p ro babl e u se s fo r a p ro pe rty, notjus t the us e to whi ch th e cu rren t o wne r is pu tt in g i t. A us e is no t p os si bl e an d p ro babl e if itis pr oh ib it edby a zon in g re gu la ti on th atis no t l ik el y to ch an ge . Indi sc us si ng th e ro le s o f th e jud ge an d t he factfin de r in th e co nt ex t o f “be st an d h ig he stus e,” we s ta te d: [I]n s cree ni ng pro ffer edpo te nt ia l u se s t o a sc ert ai n wh ethe r th ere i s su ffi ci en t ev id en ce o f th ei r pr act ic ab il it y an d p ro babi li ty to warran t subm is si on to th e tr ie r of fact , th e jud ge m

us t t ak e in to acco un t an y reg ul at ory

res tri ct io ns ap pl ic ab le to th e p ro pe rty andth e p ro po se d us e. Andif the jud ge fin ds th atth e reg ul at io ns pre cl ud e th e p ro ffer ed us e, he m us t u nd er Ru le 71 A(h ) ex cl ud e ev id en ce o f th atus e fro m th e jus t co m pe ns at io n d et erm in at io n. . . . A leg al res tri ct io n e it he r ap pl ie s t o t he pro po se d u se or i t d oe s n ot– an d t ha t i s a qui nt es se nt ia l qu es ti on of l aw fo r th e jud ge to de ci de
. . . . [Howev er], if th e la nd own er ca n d em on st rat e a “ reas on ab le po ss ib il it y ” th ata pe rm it wou ldbe is su edor tha t re -zo ni ng wil l o ccu r, th ereb y free in g t he pr op erty fora us e whi chot he rwis e wou ldbe pre cl ud edby regu la to ry res tri ct io ns , th e o wne r is en ti tl edto ha ve th at‘ reas on ab le po ss ib il it y ’ co ns id eredby the jury, pro vi de d o f co ur se th atth e u se is ot he rwis e a pr act ic ab le an d re as on ab ly pro babl e o ne . Indi sc us si ng th e d is ti nc ti on inth e co nt ex t o f th e “ sc op e o f th e p ro ject” rul e, we fo un d: Insu m , th e jud ge de ci de s (a ) whe th er the ev id en ce warr an ts ap pl ic at io n o f th e [s co pe of t he pro ject] rul e, (b ) ho w th e ru le sh ou ld be ap pl ie d –i.e., wh ethe r orno t an y ch an ge inva lu e attri bu tabl e to

owner of par cel B the amount it was worth be fore the Gover nment announce d the landfill. 34th e p ro ject s ho ul d b e in cl ud edor d is reg ard ed , and(c) wh ere ap pr op ria te , th e d at e aft er wh ic h a ny chan ge inva lu e sh ou ldbe di sr eg ard ed . Butwhet he r th ere i n fa ctha s b een an y in crea se or de crea se inva lu e due to th e p ro ject, an d b y

ho w m uc h, i s u lt im at el y fo r th e jury (or co m

m is si on ) to de ci de as p artof i ts jus t co m pe ns at io n de te rm in at io n o n t he ba si s o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i t. Rea d i n c on

jun ct io n wi th each ot he r, th es e d is cu ss io ns m ak e cl ear t ha t i t i s fo r th e jud ge , andno t the jury orCo m mis si on , to de ci de App el la nt s’ sco pe of t he pro ject type arg um en t tha t zo ni ng res tri ct io ns pa ss edat t he be he stof t he Gov ern m en t i n or de r to lo wer p ro pe rty val ue sh ou ldbe ex cl ud edinde te rm in in g “ jus t co m pe ns at io n.” Here, the di st ric t co urt ex am in edth e 1 98 1 Ov erl ay an d d et erm in edth atit ap pl ie d t o Ap pe ll an ts ’ pr op erty an d t he re was no “ reas on ab le po ss ib il it y ” th atit
wou ldch an ge inth e n ear f utur e. Inth e ab se nc e o f a “ reas on ab le pro babi li ty” th at th e reg ul at io n wo ul d n o l on ge r ap pl y , th e Co m m is si on di d n otne edto he ar an y ev id en ce ab ou t the va lu e o f App el la nt s’ pro pe rty with ou t the reg ul at io n. Th e di st ric t co urt al so de te rm in edwhet he r th e ev id en ce warr an te d t he ap pl ic at io n o f th e sc op e o f th e p ro

ject rul e. The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t the Gov ern m en t’s in vo lv em en t i n t he pa ss ag e o f th e 1 98 1 Ov erl ay was n otwithi n “ th e sc op e” o f it s de ci si on sev eny ears lat er t o e xp an d Ev erg la de s Nat io na l Pa rkor i ts de ci si on ni ne te eny ears lat er t o b eg in co nd em ni ng pro pe rti es . Once t he di st ric t co urt
35de ci de d t ha t the rul e sh ou ldno t ap pl y , th ere was no de ci si on forth e Co m m is si on to m ak e. Becaus e th e Co m m is si on di d n otne edto de ci de whet he r th ere was “ an y in crea se or d ecre as e in va lu e due to th e p ro ject,” th ere was no ne edfor itto he ar an y ev id en ce ab ou t the va lu e o f la ndwitho utth e reg ul at io n o r ab ou t the Gov ern m en t’s ro le , if an y , inge tt in g t he 19 81 Over lay pa ss ed . The d is tri ctco urt act edco rrec tl y

inrul in g o n Ap pe ll an ts ’ ob jecti on reg ard in g t he zo ni ng res tri ct io ns as a m atte r of

law an d i n t he n e xc lu di ng ev id en ce re ga rd in g t hi s o bjec ti onfro m th e fact -fi nd in g C omm is si on . C. Due Pro ces s Du ri ng th e La nd Co mmis si on Pro ceed in g App el la nt s co nt en d t ha t the Co m m is si on was b ia se d a ga in stth em be cau se th e Co m m is si on was e xp os edto a “ lo ng an d s te ady di etof u n- reb ut te d go ve rn m en t p res en ta ti on s” be fo re the Co m m is si on he ardth e in st an t co nt es te d
m at te r. (App el la nt s’ Bri ef, at24 ). App el la nt s av er tha t ra th er tha n a ss es si ng

9 App el la nt s’ cas e o n i ts own in di vi du al ev id en ce, the Co m m is si on fol lo wedth e Appellants contend that the Gover nment co n s olidated very small trac ts of land, whose 9 owner s wer e less likely to be repr esente d by counsel, in groups for the earliest Commi ssion trials and then selec tively dismiss ed parc els from those trial groups upon notice of the appea ranc e of counsel. In this way , Appellants arg ue, the Commi ssion was allowed to hear numerous trials wi th only a Gover nment evaluatio n ex pert. Appellants contend that the courts delayed their proce eding until afte r these trials by failing to rule on their pretria l motions and ref using to set p ro mpt trial dates despite their repeated protests of prejudice. It ultimately took a court order to secure a tri al d ate. Appellants maintain that the court exacer bated the delays in bring ing them to trial by rea ssigning the trial judg e and the mag istrate judg e. 36pa tt ernof a ward s i t h adde ve lo pe d i n p rio r cas es , $5 00 pe r acr e in un co nt es te d

cas es an d $ 70 0 p er ac re wh enth e la nd own er ap pe ared pr o s e , when itaward ed App el la nt s $ 70 0 p er ac re fo r th e v as t m ajor it y of t he rel ev an t p ro pe rty. App el la nt s m ai nt ai n t ha t the Co m

mis si on ’s fai lu re t o re fere nc e th ei r ex pe rt’s 1 98 7
co m pa rab le an d t he Co m

m is si on ’s rel ia nc e o n t he Gov ern m en t’s 1 98 6 c om pa rab le il lu st rat es th atth e Co m

m is si on ers ha d c lo se d t he ir m in ds to ne w evi de nc e. Thi s co urt wi ll ad dr es s (1 ) whe th er the sch edul in g o f App el la nt s’ tri al vi ol at eddu e pr oc es s; an d (2 ) whe th er the Co m m is si on ’s react io n t o the 19 87 co m parab le in di cat es th atitwas n otco ns id eri ng App el la nt s’ cas e o n t he ba si s o f it s i nd iv idua l fact s. The Gov ern m en t an d t he tri al co urt h av e a duty to “ faci li ta te jus ti ce” a nd gu ardag ai ns t due pro ces s v io la ti on s i n c on de m na ti on pro ceed in gs in vo lv in g a la rg e num

be r of si m il ar l an d t ract s wi th nu m ero us own ers . 32 0 Acr es , 60 5 F .2dat 77 0. Be cau se th e p ro te ct io n o f a jury is n otaffo rd edinRu le 71 LandCo m m is si on cas es , th e co urts m

us t b e “pa rti cu la rly vig il an t t o e ns ur e th atev ery pr ecau ti on is ta ke n t o s afeg ua rdth e ri gh ts of i nd iv idua l l an do wne rs .” Uni te d Sta tes v. 5 .00 Acre s , 67 3 F .2d12 44 (11 thCir . 19 82 ). A cou rt m ay vi ol at e co ns ti tu ti on al du e pr oc es s i f itch oo se s an ad jud ic at io n m ech an is m

de si gn edto pre cl ud e land own ers fro m pro du ci ng rel ev an t ev id en ce o pp os in g t ha t o ffer edby the Gov ern m en t. Se e 37Sa

pe ro v. May or

&Cit y Co un ci l o

f Ba lt imo re , 92 0 A.2 d 1 06 1, 1 07 8 (M d. Ct . App
. 20 07 ) (h ol di ng a co urt v io la te d due pro ces s wh enitab us edst at e’s “ qu ic k t ak e”
m ech an is m

to tak e p ro pe rty in abs en ce o f rea l em erg en cy ). Num ero us co urts ha ve ad dr es se d wh ethe r itpre jud ic es a la nd own er wh o wis he s t o c on te stth e Gov ern m en t’s ev al ua ti on of h is pro pe rty, andvi ol at es du e pr oc es s ri gh ts to ha ve a la ndco m m is si on he ar num ero us un co nt es te d c as es fir stor atth e sa m e ti m e as a co nt es te d c as e. In 5.0 0 Acr es , th e ap pe ll an ts arg ue d t ha t the la ndco m m is si on th ere h adbe co m e p reju di cedby heari ng th irt y -n in e pr o s e pr oc eed in gs inwhi ch lan do wne rs di d n oteffe ct iv el y pre se ntev id en ce o f la nd
va lu es . 67 3 F .2dat 1 24 7. We foundth atth e land own ers ha d s ho wn n o a ctua l bi as , m uc h l es s b ia s b ey on d re as on ab le po ss ib il it y of d is ag reem en t, an d s ta te d,

“ th e rec it at io n o f nu m

be rs pro ve s n ot hi ng . The p ur po se of aco m

mis si on is to he ar al l ca se s fo r anen ti re p ro ject andach ie ve so m e uni fo rm it y of r es ul t.” Id
. In Gwa th mey v. Un it ed

Stat es , we fou ndth atlan do wne rs ha d b een de ni ed du e p ro ces s b ecau se th e Gov ern m en t h adco ns ol id at edth e ev al ua ti on of m or e th an 20 0 t ract s o f la ndinon e cas e an d d idno t d is m is s t he jury to de te rm in e th e v al ue s of each tra ctun ti l ev id en ce h adbe enpre se nt edwith re ga rdto all th e tr act s, m ak in g i t i m

po ss ib le forth e jury to a ss es s t he va lu e o f eac h t ractof l an d o n t he fact s ad dr es si ng th attra ct . 21 5 F .2d14 8 (5 th Cir . 19 54 ). In 75 .13 Acres , 38la nd own ers cla im eda du e p ro ces s v io la ti on be cau se th e sa m e th ree c omm is si on ers

he ardall of t he co nd em

na ti on cas es in vo lv in g aparti cu la r pr ojec t. The co urt reject edth is cla im

an d s ta te d: The pu rp os e o f ap po in ti ng a co m m is si onun de r Fed . R. Civ . P. 71 A(h ) is to pro m ot e uni fo rm ity inco m pe ns at io n b y

en ab li ng on e gr oup o f pe op le to est ab li sh va lu at io ns forall tra ct s t ak eninon e pr ojec t. . . . [T] he lan do wne rs ha ve no t s ho wn tha t the co m m is si on ers were b ia se d a ga in stth em or f ai le d t o c on si de r th ei r cas e o n t he ba si s o f th ei r in di vi du al fact s. 69 3 F .2dat 8 17 . Our h ol di ng s i n Gwa th mey an d5.0 0 Acr es an d the Eig ht h Ci rcu it ’s op in io n i n 75 .12 Acres m ak e cl ear t ha t h av in g alan d c omm is si on he ar nu m ero us un co nt es te d c as es be fo re a co nt es te d c as e is no t a p er s e v io la ti onof due pr oc es s as lo ng as i t ap pe ars th atth e Co m m is si on ev al ua te d e achcas e o n t he ba si s of it s i nd iv idua li zedfact s. App el la nt s co nt en d t ha t the Co m m is si on fai le d t o c on si de r th ei r cas e o n t he ba si s o f th ei r own fact s b ecau se th e Co m m is si on ’s rep ort re li edon th e Gov ern m en t’s 1 98 6 c om

pa rab le an d d idno t d is cu ss a 19 87 co m pa rab le whi ch
so ldfor$1 ,05 0 p er ac re an d the Co m m is si onaward edApp el la nt s a s um si m il ar t o wha t i t h adaward edinpri orcas es wher e th e la nd own ers were re pr es en te d a nd pr es en te d v irtua ll y

no ev id en ce. The Gov ern m en t co nt en ds th atgi ve n the pauc it y of pro of of t he 19 87 sal e, th ere was am pl e b as is for

th e Co m m is si on ’s dec is io n n ot
39to rel y

on it , an d t ha t the Co m m is si on is su eda su ffi ci en t re po rt t o ju st ify its 1 0 ul ti m at e award . As ex pl ai ne d abo ve , th e in st an t ca se tu rn edon th e co m pa rab le
sa le s o ffer edby each s id e’s ex pe rt. Th e Gov ern m en t’s ex pe rt o ffer edCo m pa rab le 1, a 1 98 6 s al e fo r $7 00 pe r acr e, jus t as he ha d d on e in nu m ero us pri ortri al s. Th e Co m m is si on ha d re li edup on th is sal e num ero us ti m es inpri or tri al s an d d idso ag ai n i n t he in st an t ca se . App el la nt s’ exp ertoff eredth e 1 98 7 c om

pa rab le for $1 ,05 0 p er ac re i n t he same vic in it y to sp eci fic al ly rebu t the Gov ern m en t ex pe rt’s 19 86 co m pa rab le an d t o wea ke n t he Gov ern m en t ex pe rt’s c red ib il it y as a n ap pr ai se r. On cro ss -ex am in at io n t he Gov ern m en t ex pe rt a dm it te d t ha t the 19 87 tra ns act io n wo ul d h av e fi gu redin to hi s o pi ni on ha d h e kno wn ab ou t i t. App el la nt s’ cou ns el reem ph as iz edth e Gov ern m en t ex pe rt’s fa il ur e to co ns id er the 19 87 tra ns act io n i n c lo si ng arg um en t. Inhi s cl os in g re m ark s, the Gov ern m en t at to rn ey adm it te d t he 19 87 tra ns act io n was rel ev an t. Des pi te all of t he em ph as is

The Gover

nment points out that Appellants’ own appra iser elec ted not to use the 1987 sale 1 0 to deter mine fair marke t value and only used it to revie w and rebut the Gover nment’s appra isal based in part on the 1986 compar able. The Government’s appraiser stated that he chose not to consider the 1986 compar able in appra ising value beca use the land rec ords book and pag e number provided by the Appellants’ appra iser for the proper ty wer e not acc urate and he could not locate evidenc e of the sale. Appellants never enter ed any documentation of the sale into the rec ord. Appellants respond that their appra iser did not use the 1987 case beca use he felt it was too old but used it to respond to the Gover

nment ’s ap p raiser who was using other 1980s case s. Appellants also note that the Gover nment conce ded that the 1987 transac t i o n wa s a valid transac tion at trial and that no documentation of a

ny sale, 1986 or othe rwise, wa s put into evidence at trial.

40on th e 1 98 7 t ran sa ct io n a t tria l, the Co m m is si ondi d n otev enm en ti on itinit s rep ort . W e h av e ex te ns iv el y

rev ie wedth e rec or d a ndha ve readsev eral of t he Co m m is si on ’s op in io ns pre ced in g t hi s ca se alo ng with the Co m mis si on ’s rep ort he re. W e fi ndam

pl e ev id en ce tha t the Co m mis si on co ns id eredth is cas e as well as it s p rio r cas es on th e b as is of t he ir o wn fa ct s. Fi rs t, the Co m m is si on ’s op in io ns il lu st rat e th atth ey

award eddi ffer en t p er ac re v al ue s fo r va rio us pi eces of l an d withi n t he same pro ceed in g a ndacro ss pro ceed in gs . Co mpa re DE 14 8 app . 1 (awar di ng $6 50 fora 1.2 5 a cre p lo t an d a1.1 4 a cre p lo t) wi th DE 14 8 app . 8 (awar di ng $5 70 fora 1.1 4 a cre p lo t an d $ 62 5 fo r a 1 .25 acre pl ot ). Furth er, the re is als o n o e vi de nc e th atth e Co m m is si on co ns is te nt ly awarde d m or e o r le ss in
un co nt es te d c as es th anitdi d i n c as es wher e th e land own er ap pe ared pr o s e. Se e DE 14 8 app . 3 (a ward in g $ 50 0 o r $5 20 pe r acr e to th ree l an do wne rs th atap pe ared pr o s e an d $ 69 8 p er ac re fo r a p ie ce o f la ndth atwas u nc on te st ed ); DE 1 48 ap p. 2 7 (awar di ng $8 00 to pr o s e la nd own er an d b etween$5 00 an d $ 11 00 pe r acr e to un co nt es te d l an d o wne rs ); DE 1 48 ap p. 2 1 (a ward in g $ 14 00 to lan do wne r wit h
co un se l b utwitho utex pe rt, $ 70 0 p er ac re t o pr o s e la nd own er, an d b etween$5 00
an d $ 12 00 pe r acr e in cas es wher e la nd own er d idno t co nt es t). Se co nd , th e Co m m is si on pro vi de d afar m or e d et ai le d re po rt h ere t han t he y pro vi de d i n p rio r 41un co nt es te d h eari ng s. Th ird , th e Co m m is si on ’s ul ti m at e $ 70 0 a wardwas h ig he r th anth e $ 50 0 p er ac re am ou ntreque st edby the Gov ern m en t an d a ward edin earl ie r pr oc eed in gs forsi m il ar p ro pe rty. T he Co m mis si on ’s dec is io n n otto rel y up on th e 1 98 7 c om

parab le , whi chApp el la nt s p res en te d a s re bu tt al rathe r th anin th ei r cas e anch ie f, do es no t al on e il lu st rat e th atth e Co m m is si on fai le d t o c on si de r App el la nt s’ cas e o n t he ba si s o f it s o wn fa ct s n ordo es th e Co m m is si on ’s dec is io n no t t o a dd res s the 19 87 co m pa rab le init s re po rt. W e ad dr es se d t he requi rem en ts for a la ndco m

m is si on rep ort i n d et ai l i n Uni te d Sta tes v. 0 .21 Acres o f La nd , 80 3 F .2d62 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) . There , we fo un d tha t a l an d c omm is si on rep ort i s i ns uf fic ie ntif i t “ m erel y

st at es th atth e awardco ns ti tu te s ju stco m pe ns at io n,” witho utm or e o r “ m erel y su m m ari zes th e ev id en ce wi th ou t p ro vi di ng th e co m m is si on ’s ana lysis .” Id

. at 6 23
. [T]he rep ort m

us t i nd ic at e th e v al ua ti on tec hn ique em pl oyed an d t he ev id en ce re li edonby the co m m is si on. . . [as well as] ho w th e co m m is si on res ol ve d s ig ni fic an t fa ctua l d is pu te s an d h ow the res ol ut io n a ffec te d i ts de te rm in at io n. Furth erm or e, th e co m mis si on m ay ne edto ex pl ai n wh y

itbe li ev edcert ai n wi tn es se s an d d is cred it ed ot he r ev id en ce i f subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce co nf li ct s wi th it s co nc lu si on . Howev er, the co m

m is si onne edno t p ro vi de anov erl y pa rti cu la riz ed rep ort . . . . [T] he co m

m is si onne edno t m ak e d et ai le d fi nd in gs su ch as jud ge s d o wh o try

a cas e wit ho uta jury. Ins te adth ey sh ou ldrev eal th e rea so ni ng th ey

us e in de ci di ng on a pa rti cu la r award
. . . . In sh ort, the co m

m is si on ne edin di cat e o nl y th e b as is forit s awa rdso th atth e d is tri ctco urt ca n d et erm in e whe th er the awardis cle arl y erro ne ou s. 42Id
. (in te rn al cit at io ns an d quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . Here, th e Co m m is si on rep ort

“ in di cat e[d ] th e v al ua ti on m etho d t he Co m m is si onem

pl oyed, the ev id en ce i t fo un d c om

pe ll in g, an d t he ot he r fac to rs itco ns id eredim po rta nt .” 0.2 1 Acr es , 80 3 F.2 d a t 6 24 . Whi le th e Co m m is si onli ke ly sho ul d h av e ex pl ai ne d wh y itdi d n ot rel y up on th e in fo rm at iv e, if

di sp ut ed , 19 87 co m

pa rab le , th e Co m

mis si on ’s fai lu re to do so do es no t s up po rt the co nc lu si on th atitfai le d t o c on si de r App el la nt s’ cas e on th e b as is of i ts in di vi du al fact s. II I. Con cl us io n The LandCo m

m is si on us edanacce pt ab le res ol ut io n m ech an is m to ob ta in
un ifo rm res ul ts acro ss tri al s an d i ss ue d ath ou gh tfu l an d d et ai le d re po rt. App el la nt s h av e n otbe ende ni eddu e p ro ces s, an d t he di st ric t co urt d idno t err in de ci di ng th atth e Co m

m is si on was n otbi as edan d i n re fu si ng to gra ntApp el la nt s a ne w tri al . For the se reas on s, we AFFI RM.

43