Court Opinion

ID: 9545869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:21:14.578307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:40.336252
License: Public Domain

WOLFE, Chief Justice.
I concur.
It is true, as urged by the appellant, that in determining the market value of lands sought to be condemned, the special purpose for which they are taken is not the basis on which the owner is entitled to be compensated. Its availability for that purpose, however, is an element to be considered in arriving at its market value, the market value being the true measure of compensation. Minneapolis-Saint Paul Sanitary District v. Fitzpatrick, 201 Minn. 442, 277 N. W. 394, 124 A. L. R. 897. Be that as it may, in the instant case the appellant is not seeking to condenn lands of others. We are concerned with a determination of the fair market value of lands which it now owns and which it has put to a use different than was being made of them when acquired. It is conceded by the appellant that in determining fair market value, the assessing body may consider the
“advantages of the situation of the property, its earning capacity or productiveness, the purpose or use to which it is put, its actual earnings, and any other factor which may influence or enhance its actual value.” 51 Am. Jur. 649.
I agree with Mr. Justice Wade that the appellant by using the lands for a tailings dump of a multi-million dollar mining operation has put the lands to a higher use than *438was formerly made of them, reflecting an increase in their market value. Also, that if these lands were sought to be condemned for a public use now, the appellant would be entitled to compensation therefor not on the basis that they were lands now practically worthless because their value for grazing had been destroyed, but on the basis that they were used as an integral part of a vast and profitable mining operation.
The fair import of the testimony of Commissioner Hammond of the Tax Commission is that the value of the use of the lands to Kennecott was only one factor in the Commission’s determination of valuation. He expressly testified that the Commission did not know what would be the value of the lands to the appellant; that such a valuation would be difficult to determine by
“one who is not engaged in Kennecott’s operation,”
but that
“possibly [Kennecott’s] engineer could determine such a value”;
that the value of the lands to the appellant might be an “astronomical figure” and that such value would not be a sound basis for valuing the lands for purposes of taxation. He did amdit that the lands would have a nominal or negative value if the appellant’s operation were abandoned. But Kennecott’s operation has not been abandoned — it is very much alive and the lands should be assessed with that fact borne in mind. Certainly an owner of real property in the business district of a city cannot complain of his assessment on the ground that the business district may at some time in the remote and non-foreseeable future shift to a different part of the city, rendering much of the old business district property vacant and non-rentable.
Were there a demand for adjacent grazing lands for industrial uses, such fact could be taken into consideration in their assessment and a higher value would doubtless result.