- 27 -
annual rent for petitioners’ 800-head capacity hog barn during
1995 that was more than twice as much as the annual fair market
rent that petitioners received during that year for petitioners’
other buildings, testified during direct examination as follows
in response to the following question by petitioners’ counsel:
Q Can you tell me a little bit about the envi-
ronment for construction of hog barns in your area?
A It’s–-in our area, we’re–-it’s–-right now,
they’ve been under a building moratorium, because there
has been a lot of construction going on, and until the
last couple–-until probably about the last three years,
so people have pigs, and they want to get their pigs
into these newer facilities, but they’ve been unable to
build, so people are really scrambling to try and use
or rent these facilities that are already existing.
You can’t get permits anymore to build, so it’s kind
of–-you know, people are really scrambling to get
buildings that are already in existence.
We understand the foregoing testimony of Mr. Solvie to be ad-
dressing the availability in June 2003 at the time of trial, and
not in 1995, of new hog barns situated around the geographic
location of petitioners’ 800-head capacity hog barn. We are not
persuaded by that testimony that a shortage of new hog barns
existed in 1995, which would have resulted in petitioners’ having
received rent in that year for petitioners’ 800-head capacity hog
barn (i.e., $44,500) that was over twice the fair market rent
that petitioners received in that year for the other buildings on
petitioners’ farmland (i.e., $21,000).
On the record before us, we find that petitioners have
failed to establish that the 1995 claimed rent for petitioners’
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011