larger parcel; the backland theory, slide back theory, front land-rear land concept

[Howard]

The judge let the attorneys run with it. The problem was with the inexperienced DOT attorney who didn't know what she was doing. She didn't challenge the method the guy used, so the judge let it go. Once it's in and unchallenged, the jury got to consider it.

The larger parcel rules. Even one with multiply zonings, etc. This was one big farm. No zoning. All the same type of land. Taking was a strip along the entire frontage to a depth of 100 feet. The 10 acre commercial use thing was totally made up. Some potential for commercial, as there were a few spot commercials on that stretch of highway, but again, you don't appraise the part taken. What is the entire larger parcel worth before, what is it worth after, the difference is the compensation due. It had the same commercial potential in the after condition. What it was missing was 10 acres off the back.

State rules differ on the topic of enhancement, but otherwise, the procedure is pretty well established. Look to the Yellow Book for a detailed explanation. Works exactly the same way.

 

[Pivopiju]

NFL Officials

It has been my experience that judges are a lot like NFL officials, don't make the call and let the replay official (appeals court) call it.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

It has been my experience that judges are a lot like NFL officials, don't make the call and let the replay official (appeals court) call it.

I've been in court where the judge ruled very tightly what could or could not be asked. Also was in one where the lawyer said the judge was letting the questioning run because they expected it to be appealed and therefore allowed all questions so as not to open the door of the appeal...thanks...kept me on the stand for nearly 3 hours and the opposing appraiser just as long or longer...BTW he's not allowed to testify in Arkansas now.
The "Walmart Way" of taking "backland" and selling off the expensive frontage...doesn't that throw the theory on its head? Walmart has challenged the tax assessor over land valuations where they asked for a cut because they have only narrow easement roads into the store and sell off the frontage to fast food, gas stations, or carwashes..

 

[Pivopiju]

the Wal-Mart way

It all depends on the "larger parcel" and the highest and best use judgment. One ownership can have many "larger parcels" or the "larger parcel" may cross several ownerships.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

It all depends on the "larger parcel"

That's Wal-Mart argument. The 'larger parcel is worth X dollars. The parts on the highway frontage are sold off for Y+Z+N. X - (Y+Z+N) = the value of Wal-Mart's property (according to them)
So give a $1,000,000 for land, sell off a $200,000 frontage lot, a $300,000 frontage lot, and another $200,000 frontage lot, then Wal-Marts land is only worth $300,000 although its still 90% of the land.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

That's Wal-Mart argument. The 'larger parcel is worth X dollars. The parts on the highway frontage are sold off for Y+Z+N. X - (Y+Z+N) = the value of Wal-Mart's property (according to them)
So give a $1,000,000 for land, sell off a $200,000 frontage lot, a $300,000 frontage lot, and another $200,000 frontage lot, then Wal-Marts land is only worth $300,000 although its still 90% of the land.

Not really .... WalMart is entitled to profit as a result of their increasing the value of the front parcels from 1) Platting the out pad sites and 2) Location of their store in relation to the outpads.
Its not a simple matter of subtraction ... and Im sure that was your point.