- 27 -
followed to implement the Program, including publication of the
Program, public hearings at which properties offered to the
Program were presented for comment, the limitations on what the
county would pay, and the appraisal process designed to insure
that the county did not pay the full amount of the value of the
development rights indicated by that appraisal, all convince us
that participants in the Program generally intended to make a
gift to the county by way of a bargain sale of development
rights, and we so find.
Of course, our finding that participants in the Program
intended a bargain sale is not determinative that there was a
bargain sale. Nevertheless, it is determinative that the
universe of sales to the county under the Program does not
represent a universe populated with sellers all of whom (or,
perhaps, even, any of whom) were looking for the best deal
(highest price) possible. Sales data from that universe, thus,
are not reflective of a market populated by buyers and sellers
each trying to maximize profits by searching for the lowest
(buyers) or highest (sellers) price possible. Any “market price”
based on evidence from that market is not a market price fairly
reflective of the price the easement would fetch in an
uninhibited market. It is not a “fair” market price within the
meaning of Heiner v. Crosby, 24 F.2d at 193, nor are the sales
“market-place” sales within the meaning of section 1.170A-
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011