- 20 -
forced to condemn the Flick, it is indisputable that the City
would have had to pay fair market value for the property. See
Ramsey County v. Miller, 316 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. 1982); see also
State v. Holmberg, 384 N.W.2d 214, 216 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). We
do not see why the City would have had to pay any more or less
for the Flick simply because Alexander sold the Flick to the City
through a negotiated sale.
We can think of no good reason why the selling price of the
Flick is not a good measure of the fair market value of the
Property. But for its size and appearance, we find that the
Flick was similar in most regards to the Faust. Although it is
true that the actual purchase price of the Flick did not reflect
a premium value for advantageous zoning, it is equally true that
Alexander and the City contemplated the possibility that the
Flick's value would increase on account of the passage of zoning
that was favorable to the Flick's owners. The option provides
that the purchase price of the Flick will increase to $750,000,
if the City enacts ordinances that would otherwise have given the
property on which the Flick was situated a form of monopoly.
The Property, as recognized by both experts, enjoyed a form
of monopoly at the time of its condemnation on account of its
grandfathered status. Assuming that the Flick had similar status
and that the City had been required to pay $750,000 for the
Flick, we calculate that the City would have paid $76.844 for
each square foot of the Flick. Given this rate, as well as the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011