§51095

4 cases·4 cited

Statute text not available for this section.

4 Citing Cases

John T. Davis & Tammy I. Davis, Petitioners T.C. Memo. 2021-12 · 2021

condemnation as to the land or portion thereof sought to be taken for public use, and the owner shall be entitled to such compensation for the taking as he would have been entitled to had the land not been burdened by the easement. Cal. Gov’t Code sec. 51095 (West 2003) (emphasis added). - 20 - [*20] The reason for such an apparently odd provision is that the California legislature was worried that local governments would view property with conservation easements as especially juicy targets for

Steve Moses & Janine Moses, Petitioners T.C. Memo. 2021-12 · 2021

condemnation as to the land or portion thereof sought to be taken for public use, and the owner shall be entitled to such compensation for the taking as he would have been entitled to had the land not been burdened by the easement. Cal. Gov’t Code sec. 51095 (West 2003) (emphasis added). - 20 - [*20] The reason for such an apparently odd provision is that the California legislature was worried that local governments would view property with conservation easements as especially juicy targets for

condemnation as to the land or portion thereof sought to be taken for public use, and the owner shall be entitled to such compensation for the taking as he would have been entitled to had the land not been burdened by the easement. Cal. Gov’t Code sec. 51095 (West 2003) (emphasis added). - 20 - [*20] The reason for such an apparently odd provision is that the California legislature was worried that local governments would view property with conservation easements as especially juicy targets for

Lori Brown-James, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2021-12 · 2021

condemnation as to the land or portion thereof sought to be taken for public use, and the owner shall be entitled to such compensation for the taking as he would have been entitled to had the land not been burdened by the easement. Cal. Gov’t Code sec. 51095 (West 2003) (emphasis added). - 20 - [*20] The reason for such an apparently odd provision is that the California legislature was worried that local governments would view property with conservation easements as especially juicy targets for