Court Opinion

ID: 9668046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:01:02.330783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:42.671414
License: Public Domain

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice, dissenting. It is my view that the amortization provisions of the sign and zone ordinances constitute a public taking of private property in violation of Ark. Const, art. 1, § 22. A four year amortization period for a sign constructed of concrete or steel seems unreasonable. The anticipated useful life at the time of construction would clearly be in excess of four years as evidenced by the fact that all of the sixty signs are from twelve to twenty-four years old. I would alsp disagree with the majority in their holding that the cost of the sign, standing alone, is sufficient evidence of its value. Further, I cannot agree with the majority’s suggestion that the fact that this case has been in litigation for some years has some effect on the fair market value of the signs. Purtle, J., joins in this dissent.