Circuity of Travel

[Howard Klahr]

I gave you full credit. I was only asking what you found out about Wisconsin law. Thanks for the info.

 

[Farm Gal]

I know that the property has been damaged, but by how much?

Uh... ya got any got sales in BOTH before and after conditions to PROVE it?

Lots of businesses survive on RI-RO modifications... since that usually only happens when a property gets a higher traffic count to go along with it! I am not saying I wouldn't squeal like a stuck pig if I was apprised of that modification to MY properties entrance(s)...

However: You may want to read through this link- City of Wichita V McDonald'sand then ASK the legal department of the state in which you are doing the work what the LAW is in THAT state regarding circuity of travel in that state - A FOIA request will work for non DOT employees - employees should go through channels. And then your next step should be to... ask a second opinion of someone who is NOT involved with the DOT...

It is merely a coincidence that it was MickeyD's which was involved in this case - I didn't post it for that reason... Happens it is one of the best and most recent and CLEAR rulings on the subject of circuity of travel - and I am not sure which states are citing it as the source for further decisions, hence suggestion #1. I learned about it in a national organization course, where it was conveyed that this is the precedent setting case on the matter - subsequently cited as case-law by other entities. Which 'precedent' is often cheerfully ignored by most courts when dealing with condemnation. So good luck with that part of it...

Short story is that cutting off direct Highway access, if access remains via public roadway is NOT the problem of the condemnor... as far as damages based on altered access ALONE are concerned. If the H&BU remains the same <shrug> you appraise at H&BU.

So cutting off one way of in-out AND retaining at least only ONE in-out from the same location AND not altering the other in-out? <shrug>

Mickey D's is probably FULLY aware of this case... Your State DOT may not be... Have fun!

And remember no matter WHO your client is you area Disinterested Third Party...

who may never work in that town again (HA!)

 

[Michigan CG]

Is that compensable in Iowa - if that is where you were at the time?

In Iowa access is not compensable, however the MAI I worked for had a case in the 1970's and won in the Iowa Supreme court not based on access, but a change in Highest and Bet Use.

I forget the case name, but Simpson v. Iowa comes to mind.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

I have seen whole highways moved in Missouri and while the traffic patterns changed significantly, the business along the old road were not entitled to compensation. One in fact was a McDonalds. Knowing the law is very important in an assignment like this. Who is your client?

 

[Sheikh Yerbouti]

Who is your client?

Since the OP already "knows" that the property will be damaged, I'm guessing it's the building owner.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

Since the OP already "knows" that the property will be damaged, I'm guessing it's the building owner.

Dave .. Ive learned not to guess here any more. Merely "knowing" scares me enough as it is. A google search or a forum search (by the opposing attorney) would most likely result in determination of a preconceived conclusion .... Im amazed these days and yet its so rampant.

 

[Fred]

I gave you full credit. I was only asking what you found out about Wisconsin law. Thanks for the info.

Just kidding anyway.

Since the OP already "knows" that the property will be damaged, I'm guessing it's the building owner.

Even though he has DOT in his handle?

 

[Michigan CG]

Steve, in reference to post 13, it was Simpkins v. Iowa.

 

[Dennis J. Black ASA IFAS]

OP sent me a PM telling me not to make "smart ***" comments and how he does not need to be working with a General Certified because he works for DOT.

It may be true that he does not have to have a gerneral cert working with him because he works for DOT, but this then begs other questions to be answered.

 

[Fred]

I disagree that being a government employee creates a per se exemption from the compentency rule. That is something a lawyer can make headway with on voire-dire.

We all noticed it. That's why are answers were obtuse.