The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-04-29
whose properties were to be taken.
 Excessive Prices

EXCeSSlVe Fr1ceS
 On the subject of land prices, 1t is the conclusion of the jury, speaking in general, that prices were excessive. Evidence on this point is naturally conflicting but in SO many cases 1t appears that the property owners received prices considerably in excess of what they anticipated, that they exhibited their satisfaction in no uncertain terms. In a few cases the property owners were so pleased by the liberal awards made by the States purchasing agent that they were encouraged to make further purchases of land along the path of the Parkway with the hope of securing further substantial profits, which hopes were often realized. The purchas- ing agent failed entirely to give consideration to the purchase price paid by the one with whom he dealt, even though but a short time elapsed between his purchase and the sale to the State; or, to the further fact that in the tn- terim no money had been spent by the property owner and no im- provements made thereon. The prices paid for neighboring prop erty not appropriated by. highway purposes seemed to carry no weight whatsoever in establishing prices for land taken for the Park way.
 Theoretically, at least, it was not necessary for property owner to employ broker to represent him in a sale to the State. But 1t is an established fact that a broker was employed in the overwhelm- ing majority of caseS,--in some of which the owners were reluctant to incur the expense - for, unless a broker was secured, land owners found it difficult to contact or do business with the States agent. It is the opinion of this jury that the purchasing agent for the State made but small effort, in a large number of cases, to negotiate di- rectly with the owner, or when he did, to offer fair figure for the property wanted. The only meth cd used by the purchasing agent, as revealed from the record in this case, appears to have been for the States agent to set ridiculouSly low price upon the property. the owner to set an equally high price, and then haggle to conclusion without much regard for what would constitute fair market value. This criticism may on large measure be the result of the Com missioner's instructions to his agent to acquire the land by pur- chase in all events, and not by condemnation proceedings.
 Brokers Tipped Oh''
 In spite of the fact that several prospective layouts had been sur veyed as possible routes for the highway, certain brokers were made aware. in advance, of the actual line to be adopted and were therefore able to approach the land owners before they had re- ceived any notification from the State that their land was to be taken, and before the purchasing agent for the State had made any effort to deal with them.
 A further reason for the high prices demanded by the property owners was the great uncertainty as to the grade at which the high way would pass through the sell- CTS land. It is clear that if the highway went through the land of a seller at a grade substantially higher than the surrounding land, the consequential damage to the remaining property would be con- siderable; whereas, If the highway went through the land at the pres- ent grade, or lower, the conse- quential damage would be much less. In the whole length of the parkway there is no known in- stance of the seller being informed at the time of the sale as to this grade. The land was purchased before the grade was established and due to the uncertainty. the seller invariably measured his consequential damage based upon a grade which would cause the surrounding land the greatest amount of depreciation. Many of the property owners would will ingly have sold for less If they had known the actual grade of the highway. and when 1t was ultimately established they found themselves the recipients of con- sequential damage far beyond their actual loss. It was asserted that to establish the grade in ad- vance would give property owners too much knowledge of the route to be taken before efforts were made to buy their land. But this argument has little to support 1t In view of the fact that every property owner who sold land knew full well the purpose for which it was to be taken; except in those few instances where a speculator with knowledge of the route rushed in and purchased be- fore the owner of the land real ized what was in contemplation. Under the particular method oi