No. The government does not have to pay for a price increase that it created itself by announcing the project. The Constitution requires a 'fair price' so the owner is in the same financial spot as if their land wasn't taken. It's not fair for owners to get a huge bonus by gambling on a government project. Since it was clear from early on that this land would probably be needed for the railroad, the owners shouldn't get paid for the 'boom' in value that the project itself created.

The money paid for the land should be based on its value when it's taken, just like what would happen in a normal sale between a buyer and seller, without adding extra for the government's project. The landowners should be put in the same financial position they would have been in if their property wasn't taken, because they're only supposed to get back what they lost. They shouldn't get more money because of the project since their land was probably going to be taken for it anyway. If only part of their land is taken, they should be paid for any value lost because of how that part relates to the whole property. But they shouldn't be paid extra just because the government really needed the land.

The owner is to be put in as good position pecuniarily as he would have occupied if his property had not been taken

Fair market value for the condemned property "is what a willing buyer would pay in cash to a willing seller."

"It is conceivable that an owner's indemnity should be measured in various ways depending upon the circumstances of each case and that no general formula should be used for the purpose. In an effort, however, to find some practical standard, the courts early adopted, and have retained, the concept of market value. The owner has been said to be

It is the owner's loss, not the taker's gain, which is the measure of the value of the property taken.

Just compensation for property the government has taken ordinarily is determined by the fair market value of the property.

If only a portion of a single tract is taken the owner's compensation for that taking includes any element of value arising out of the relation of the part taken to the entire tract

The value-to-the-taker rule prohibits an owner from receiving an award based on a tract's special value to the taker, as distinguished from its value to others who may or may not possess the power to condemn.

—the Government was committed to it. If they were not, but were merely adjacent lands, the subsequent enlargement of the project to include them ought not to deprive the respondents of the value added in the meantime by the proximity of the improvement. If, on the other hand, they were, the Government ought not to pay any increase in value arising from the known fact …

No. The Fifth Amendment's requirement of just compensation does not include any element of value which the property owner's property has because of the very project for which it is being taken. The owner is entitled to be put in the same pecuniary position as if the property had not been taken, but is not entitled to a windfall from speculation on the government's actions. If the condemned lands were probably within the scope of the project from the time the government was committed to it, any increase in value arising from the known fact that the lands would likely be condemned must be excluded from the compensation award. In this case, the project always included the railroad relocation, and a probable route was marked over the respondents' lands before they were developed. Therefore, the trial court was correct to instruct the jury to disregard any increment of value accruing after the project's authorization date that was due to the project itself.

The fair market value of property taken for public use should reflect its value at the time of taking, excluding any increase in value due to the government's commitment to the project that necessitated the taking. I believe the owner is to be put in as good a position pecuniarily as he would have occupied if his property had not been taken, because it is the owner's loss, not the taker's gain, which is the measure of the value of the property taken. The respondents' lands were probably within the scope of the project from the time the government was committed to it, and thus, it was proper to exclude any increase in value arising after the project's authorization. If only a portion of a single tract is taken, the owner's compensation for that taking includes any element of value arising out of the relation of the part taken to the entire tract. The value-to-the-taker rule is prohibited, as the owner should not receive an award based on the tract's special value to the taker, as distinguished from its value to others.

United States v. Miller

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot