When a portion of an owner’s lot is condemned for a public project, the value of the property is clearly diminished. Arguably, however, the property’s value may be enhanced by the benefit conferred by the project, as by having convenient access to a main road or some other public amenity. Such enhanced value could not traditionally be considered in determining the award unless it was deemed a “special benefit” to the individual property owner and not a “general benefit” shared by the entire community.
In Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Karan, A-120, decided July 8, the Supreme Court abolished the long-extant distinction between “special” and “general” benefit and held that the fair-market value standard applicable in cases of total condemnation applied equally in partial condemnation cases. As part of an erosion-control and storm-protection program, Harvey Cedars had condemned a portion of Harvey and Phyllis Karans’ beachfront property for the construction of a protective dune, one of a series of such dunes built along the shore. The dune obscures defendants’ ocean view and they claimed a diminishment in the value of their property. At the trial, Harvey Cedars was not allowed to introduce evidence of enhanced value deriving from the protection against storm damage. The trial court ruled that the dune was part of a communitywide project and was therefore a general benefit to the community, not a special benefit to the Karans’ property. The Appellate Division affirmed.
