Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/1997

Home

Page 4 - October 10, 1997 Z.B. Inyerse Condemnation - Owner says road closing is a taking Department of Transportation v. Bridges, 486 S.E.2d 593 (Georgia) 1997 Bridges owned an undeveloped tract of commercial land abutting Chumley Circle, a public road, near its intersection with Canton Road. Bridges considered Chumley Circle the primary access to Canton Road. For safety reasons, the Department of Transportation closed Chumley Circle at its intersection with Canton Road. This didn't prevent Bridges from using Chumley Circle, but he now had to drive through residential streets and it took longer to get to Canton Road. The closure also cut off the most direct route to Canton Road for other property owners as well. Bridges brought an inverse condemnation suit against the transportation department. Under state law, landowners' rights fell into two categories: general rights, which the landowner had in common with the public, and special rights, which were unique to a particular landowner. For a taking or damag- ing of a landowner's property to be compensable, a special right had to be violated. According to Bridges, blocking Chumley Circle reduced the value of his property because he had to take a longer route through a residential area to get to Canton Road. He also argued it was a taking because he would have to change his commercial development plans due to traffic being routed through a residential neighborhood. The department asked for judgment without a trial, which the court denied. The department appealed. The appeals court affirmed, ruling Bridges deserved a trial. It found the inconvenience imposed on Bridges was "unique" to his property because the road's closure impacted the commercial nature of his property. The department appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia. DECISION: Reversed. Bridges was not entitled to a trial. Although his inconvenience was greater than that of the general public, he lost no property right for which he was entitled to compensation. Bridges' access to the road abutting his property, Chumley Circle, was unchanged. Because his complaint was based on the inconvenience of accessing a road that did not abut his property, it was compensable only if the inconve- nience was special to him - and not shared by the general public. The appeals court distorted the concept of "uniqueness." That closing the road made access from Bridges' property to Canton Road more roundabout didn't entitle him to damages. Nor was his inconvenience turned into a taking because he thought he would have to change his commercial devel.: opment plans due to traffic being routed through a residential neighbor- hood. see also: Tift County v. Smith, 131 S.E.2d 527 (1963). see also: Department of Transportation v. Durpo, 469 S.E.2d 404 (1996). 37