Assessing the benefits of California's new valuation rule for partial condemnations

Using a problem in California condemnation law, this Comment examines relat ionships between private and public property rights and among the legislati ve and judicial methods for enforcing those rights. When a state or local g overnment agency in California exercises ifs power of eminent domain, the s tate and federal constitutions entitle the seller to "just compensation" fo r her property. If the seller gives up only part of her holdings, she recei ves payment not only for the portion she sells, but, also for the effects o f the sale on the remainder portion she keeps. The California Supreme Court held in 1997 that compensation to an owner of remainder property should fa ctor in all the effects of partial condemnation, whether those effects are unique to the remainder or common to the neighborhood. This Comment analyzes the court's new valuation rule for partial condemnati on by comparing it to the common law rules of inverse condemnation and the voter-approved constitutional limitations on benefit assessment. The new ru le makes compensation for the negative effects of public works projects mor e generous to private owners in partial condemnations than in inverse conde mnations; it also makes private owners' contributions to the cost of benefi cial public works projects more generous to the government in partial conde mnations than in benefit assessments. This Comment argues that both results are wrong. It concludes that a rule limiting remainder compensation to the same sorts of special and distinct harms and benefits required for inverse condemnation awards or benefit assessments would have been more equitable, less expensive to administer, and more respectful of local legislative and political choices.