Evening star., 1928-02-12
NEW CONDEMNATION LAW
ASKED BY FEDERAL AGENCY
Proposed Legislation Would Expedite
Acquisition of Land for United States
Buildings and Parks.

lace there for place for their chill
dren. II was in tfickly built-up part
Of the northeast. but finally good
sized lot was located. The Government
agents and the owners could reach no
agreement for purchase. so the Gov
eminent instituted condemnation pro-
ceedings.
Building Was Started.
While the Government was acting
the owners were busy They fastened
plans for an apartment house and even
let contracts for the material. some OF
which vas hauled TO the site. Where
upon the Government conceded its de-
feat and withdrew the proceedings. as
1t would have been assessed the amount
equal TO the losses OF the owners on
their Cancelled contracts and the ma
terial delivered.
Another notable case was that In
Piney Branch, east and north Of the
so-called Tiger Bridge on Sixteenth
street Here the land was destroyed for
park purposes by repeated dumping On
the site which all but closed UP the
valley there, and made it useless except
as means Of getting under the bridge
and into Rock Greek Park.
The proposed Law is designed to cor
rect all these evils, so-called. In ad-
dtion to providing for special court,
the measure makes IL mandatory that
condemnation proceedings be given the
right of way. T. provides that the jus
tice shall view the property. and that
he shall conduct the case and make
the award. unless either party 20 the
proceedings requests jury. vnen .
jury OF three shall be impaneled. but
The Law provides that no one engaged
in the real estate business shall Re ?
eligible 10 membership on this jury.
The explanation for this is that as the
/ business Of one so engaged is so direct
" dependent upon high values and IN.
creasing prices that such person, al.
| though absolutely honest. cannot avoid
such bias as would affect his suitability
! for Jury duty in these cases.
| The Jury must make decision with
| in reasonable time after the evidence
! is in. and would not be permitted 10
adjourn for a long period. as IS the
case under the present system.
Assessor Could Be Witness.
The proposed new Law would make
the District assessor or his assistant
competent witness. Now the assessor
cannot testify. because ne has no direct
knowledge Of the property and. 1t IS
ooi1tcd out, in many instances the as
sessments are not a fair guide "a 70
the real value of the property. Accoro-
ing TO persons versed in legal affairs,
II is difficult TO see how. after the pas
sage of the Law, the assessor Toulo oe
automatically qualified, unless ne SUD-
mitted 10 examination on the witness
stand as to his particular knowieoge OF
the value Of the property IN the genera
{ ;aI- et-n
being sought.
that nothing shall be allowed for I'm.
provements on the property mace aIseE
the filing OF the condemnation proceed
;ngs- and. on the other hand. oedue-
ton shall be made from the award Ior
darnages done By the cutting OF trees,
grading and other things which oetracs
from its value for the use intended.
This is one OF the features which. 1t Is
expected would take cases nieo uncef
the new law into long run In the
courts. According TO those famuiar
with the Law. there IS a very iealously
| guarded section Of the Constitution OK
I the United States which says that prop
erty cannot be taken for public use
without lust compensation. II belongs
! 10 the owner until the Governments
! takes it and pays for x. and therefore.
! IL is argued. how can the Governments
make the owner stand q loss OF any
/ kind Just because he did something 20
keep the Government from wanting u:
Cites New York Law.
The new law even gives the Govern
rent the right TO SeiZs the property I'M
mediate and pay the owner three
fourths OF its assessed value, the re-
maincier to be paid. with interest. when
the jury decides what the total amount
should be- Authority is given in the
Law for the right of appeal 70 the DIS
trict Court os Appeals with the right
in that tribunal 10 review not only the
Law, as it usually does IN other cases.
bur the facts. and even gives IL authority
10 reduce or enlarge the amount OF the
verdict OF the jury without sending II
back 10 the lower court for retrial or
change consistent With any decision :s
might make.
Lieut.. Col. L. S. Grant. Sd. executive
officer of the Park and Planning Com
mission, pointed out that New YORK has
such a law and that IL had worked sue
ceSsfuliy there. and III few instances
only have jury trials been asked either
/ b. the government or the property
owner However. IL might be pointed
out that The condemra,ionS there are
under the State constitution and not
under the Federal Constitution.
But the officials only want something
done which will make 1t possible for
them - carry out their duty Of proyid-
ing parks and Fairgrounds at n reason
able cost, II was pointed out, They
have before them now numerous IN
stances OF efforts to purchase land a.
private sale as what they considered q
fair price, but for which the owners are
asking two and sometimes three times
this supposed reasonable value They
have only limited funds 10 exINnd and
they are prohibited from going hlSher
than - per cent above the assessed
value Of the land. When owners seek
more than this amount II is iynraSsihle
to continue Negotiations.
Nno~ - nss&