- 14 -
other law is both the source and the sole explanation of a
displaced person’s right to acquisition cost or just
compensation, to say that such payments are “received under”
subchapter II of the Relocation Act would defy logic. We
conclude instead that just compensation is not relocation
assistance and should not be governed by the tax rules applicable
thereto, but it continues to exist as an independent requirement
in no way eliminated by the statute under consideration.
Case law emanating from Federal and State courts further
supports this interpretation. For instance, the California Court
of Appeal explained the relationship between just compensation
and relocation assistance as follows:
“The ‘just compensation’ which a condemnee may recover
from the condemnor when his property is acquired for a
public use pursuant to the eminent domain law, as
contemplated by the Constitution and that law alike, is
the ‘value’ (or ‘actual value,’ or ‘fair market
value’), measured at a pertinent time * * * ”. * * *
Other amounts which may be “compensable” by the public
entity under the CRAL [California Relocation Assistance
Laws] or the URA [Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970] result
from statutory provisions and are independent of the
constitutional requirement of “just compensation” * * *
[City of Los Angeles v. Decker, 132 Cal. Rptr. 188, 193
(Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (quoting City of Mountain View v.
Superior Court, 126 Cal. Rptr. 358, 363 (Ct. App.
1975)).]
A similar view of the Relocation Act’s role was taken by the
Kansas Court of Appeals, which stated that “the purpose of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011