Comments on: N.J. court: loss of ocean view in dune condemnation https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/07/n-j-court-loss-ocean-view-taking-dune-condemnation/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Tue, 09 Jul 2013 21:32:33 +0000 hourly 1 By: Walter Olson https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/07/n-j-court-loss-ocean-view-taking-dune-condemnation/comment-page-1/#comment-223825 Tue, 09 Jul 2013 21:32:33 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=39812#comment-223825 Thanks, updated with a correction.

]]> By: TD https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/07/n-j-court-loss-ocean-view-taking-dune-condemnation/comment-page-1/#comment-223823 Tue, 09 Jul 2013 21:19:56 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=39812#comment-223823 Walter, don’t believe everything you read on the Internet. The reporter absolutely got it wrong. The court agreed the loss of a view could be a taking, but that it needed to be offset by the benefit incurred because the dune would presumably prevent future flooding. The lower courts had not allowed for the offset.

]]> By: Frank https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/07/n-j-court-loss-ocean-view-taking-dune-condemnation/comment-page-1/#comment-223815 Tue, 09 Jul 2013 19:03:32 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=39812#comment-223815 “N.J. court: loss of ocean view not a taking in dune condemnation”

Are you sure that’s what the court said? Huh. I thought the Court stated that the difference in value before and after had to be calculated in order to appropriately compensate for the taking.

Wish I had a law degree so I understood these things..

]]> By: Hugo S. Cunningham https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/07/n-j-court-loss-ocean-view-taking-dune-condemnation/comment-page-1/#comment-223807 Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:33:38 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=39812#comment-223807 The NJ court got it right. In computing “just compensation,” the government (as agent for the taxpayer) has the right to deduct the value of government subsidies, eg flood insurance and flood protection.

]]>