Opinion ID: 242089
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Asserted Discretion to Delay

Text: 27 Defendant contends that, even if it was required to propose changes with reasonable frequency, it has been justified in delaying action until an appraisal of the property was completed, without which depreciation and interest could not be accurately estimated. 29 The appraisal has now been finished and further delay cannot be justified on that ground. 30 It further suggests that the Korean War, pending legislation to alter § 412, and the 1955 treaty with Panama have introduced 'uncertainty rendering it unwise to change tolls at the present time.' It has been five years since the new formula went into effect and almost two decades since the tolls were last changed. Uncertainty has become the norm in world affairs. The legislative policy is to make tolls reflect changes in these uncertainties, and not to suspend all changes until world conditions become static; 31 further delay is not an exercise of the defendant's conceded discretion to determine the frequency of toll changes, but an arbitrary refusal to obey the mandatory requirement of § 412 that tolls be set in accord with costs. 28