If the land is as valuable as contended, show your offers and listings.

As is common, the law and appraisal standards are tossed out the door. From United States Supreme Court as contained in Uniform Appraisal Standards of Federal Land Acquisitions...


Elements affecting value that depend upon events or combinations of occurrences which, while within the realm of possibility, are not fairly shown to be reasonably probable should be excluded from consideration, for that would be to allow mere speculation and conjecture to become a guide for the ascertainment of value � a thing to be condemned in business transactions as well as in judicial ascertainment of truth.

From Utah Supreme Court...

as is irrespective of any claimed value based on an aggregate of values of individual lots in a subdivision which one hopes to sell at a future time to individuals rather than to an individual. The test is not what lots will bring when and if 62 willing buyers come along, but what the tract, as a unit, and as is, platted or not, and in whatever state of completion, will bring from a willing buyer of the whole tract...� [The jury is] not to inquire what a speculator might be able to realize out of a resale in the future but what a present purchaser would be willing to pay for it in the condition it is now in.�

Market value is not set by speculation and conjecture. At the time of valuation, the highest and best use of acreage acquired was mosquito breeding and pasture. Allowing speculation and conjecture into the courtroom, it became prime residential land. Show us the offers, not your imagination, speculation, and conjecture. The road to developing the land will likely cross roads with Army Corps of Engineers -- which by itself is a deterrent sufficient to turn developers away.

If the land could of honestly sold in 2001 for $4,300,000, that should be the award. However, there were no offers or listing supporting that amount. The only way to reach $4,300,000 is through speculation and conjecture -- which is not allowed in determining market value.

Utah needs a law that when an owner's land is appraised for eminent domain, that appraised value is used as the assessed value. If the owner claims a higher value, that should be the assessed value. No more double standard for those full of greed.

As taxpayers, let us hope UDOT appeals this decision and that Court of Appeals or Supreme Court of Utah will follow the law, exclude conjecture and speculation, and pay the owners the MARKET VALUE of their land. Otherwise, taxpayers pay more for less roads.