My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1990
City-of-Paris
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2015 12:39:52 PM
Creation date
9/2/2015 12:30:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
632
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
VAMURPHY APPRAISALS <br />W.T. "BILL" MURPHY ASA, IFAS, MGA, SRA <br />anal <br />Estate CVq#P%a1ic%& <br />November 20, 1989 <br />Mr. T. K. Haynes, City Attorney <br />City of Paris <br />Box 1037 <br />Paris, Texas 75460 <br />Dear Mr. Haynes: <br />Coniaftanta <br />1360 N.IMAIN PLACE -SUITE D P 0, BOX 696 <br />TELEPHONE 161.3331 <br />PARIS, TEXAS <br />75160 <br />I submit herewith my market value appraisal report of the damages or enhancement <br />caused by the taking of a .05 -acre utility easement along the west side of U.S. <br />Highway 271 North, in Paris, Texas (Boyd.property). <br />The purpose of my appraisal is to estimate the damages or enhancement to the <br />property as the result of a taking by the City of Paris, Lamar-County, Texas, <br />in due process, to provide a basis for just compensation. <br />Definition of Market Value <br />Market value is the highest price which a property will bring if exposed for sale <br />in the open market for a reasonable time by a willing seller and sold.to a willing <br />buyer, neither being under any compulsion to act, both the seller and buyer having <br />full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is being'used <br />and for which it is capable of being used. <br />Definition of Just Compensation <br />The U.S. Supreme Court case of Olson vs. United States, 292 U.S. 246, is most often <br />cited as the authority on condemnation law, and defines just compensation as follows: <br />"Just compensation includes all elements of value that inhere in the prop- <br />erty, but it does not exceed market value fairly determined. The sum required <br />to be paid the owner does not depend upon the uses to which he has devoted <br />his land, but is to be arrived at upon just consideration of all uses for <br />which it is suitable. The highest and most profitable use for which the <br />property is adaptable and needed or . likely to be needed in the reasonably <br />near future is to be considered, not necessarily as the measure of value, <br />but to the full extent that the prospect of demand for such use affects the <br />market value while the property is privately held." <br />Definition of Highest and - -:.Best Use <br />Highest and best use is the most profitable likely use to which a property can be <br />put. The opinion of such use may be based on the highest and most profitable con- <br />tinuous use to which the property is adapted and needed, or likely to be in demand <br />for, in the reasonably near future However, elements affecting value which de- <br />pend upon events or a combination of occurrences, which - while within the realm <br />of possibility - are not fairly shown to be reasonably probable, should be excluded <br />from consideration. Also, if the intended use is dependent on an uncertain act of <br />another person, the intention cannot be considered. <br />Highest and best use is also defined as that use of land which may reasonably be <br />expected to produce the greatest net return to land over a given period of time; <br />that legal use which yield to land the highest present value sometimes called its <br />optimum use. <br />In my opinion, the damages or enhancement to the .05 -acre subject is as follows: <br />Fair market value prior to the taking (1.56 acres) $62,595 <br />Fair market value after the taking $60,518 <br />Damages or enhancement due to the taking of the utility easement $ 2,077 <br />Total damages (rounded) $ 2,077 <br />This opinion of value is based upon my personal inspection of the land and its <br />improvements as of this date, November 20, 1989. <br />Respectfully submi d, <br />W. T. "B 11" urphy, <br />ASA, IFAS, A <br />111111m, 91 <br />EXHIBIT A <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.