Some time ago, I offered some observations about how to value the diminution in property value caused by contamination.  I examined in particular the case of a property where someone other than the landowner had the obligation to clean up.  All of this was motivated by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court’ decision in Harley-Davidson’s long-running property tax appeal.

In September, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on the case.  Harley-Davidson Motor Co. v. Springettsbury Twp., No. 82 MAP 2014 (Pa. Sept. 29, 2015).  That formed the subject of my October environmental practice column in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly.  Interestingly, the Supreme Court appears to endorse a reduction in property value for property tax purposes on account of “stigma.”  The court’s notion of stigma is not tied to the expected costs to cure or the (negative) value of any restrictions on use.  This is a deduction to take account of the fact that the property just is not quite right, even though someone other than the landowner has to satisfy the regulators with any clean up.  In that case, the assessed value was reduced by 5% to account for stigma, and in a non-industrial context the court implied that it might endorse a large deduction.

Read Further Thoughts on Valuing Contaminated Property, 38 Pa. L. Weekly 972 (Oct. 20, 2015), by clicking here.

 

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of David Mandelbaum David Mandelbaum

David G. Mandelbaum represents clients facing problems under environmental laws. He regularly represents clients in lawsuits and also has helped clients achieve satisfactory outcomes through regulatory negotiation or private transactions. A Fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, David teaches Superfund, and…

David G. Mandelbaum represents clients facing problems under environmental laws. He regularly represents clients in lawsuits and also has helped clients achieve satisfactory outcomes through regulatory negotiation or private transactions. A Fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, David teaches Superfund, and Oil and Gas Law in rotation at the Temple University Beasley School of Law as well as an environmental litigation course at Suffolk (Boston) Law School.

Since United States v. Atlas Minerals, the first multi-generator Superfund contribution case to go to trial in 1993, Mr. Mandelbaum has been engaged in matters involving allocation of costs among responsible parties, especially under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).  He has tried large cases and resolved others as lead counsel.  He has written, spoken, and taught extensively on the subject.  More recently he also has been engaged to assist lead counsel from this firm and others:

  • to develop cost allocation methodologies;
  • to craft expert testimony in support of a favored methodology (given a definition of “fairness,” why one methodology better tracks it than another);
  • to develop efficient case management approaches; and to assist private allocation as part of the neutral team.

Concentrations

  • Air, water and waste regulation
  • Superfund and contamination
  • Climate change
  • Oil and gas development
  • Water rights