Image
Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
E. S. B 4 July 10, 1952 "As to the competency of the items of cost introduced under the heading ’Development Costs’, we think that the item termed ’Mat operating loss’ was proper to be considered, it if was made to appear that the enterprise, at the time of the taking, was a profitable one, or that it was reasonably probable it would become profitable within a reasonable time. The item of ’Interest on bonds’ under this heading, we do not regard as proper evidence of going value$ but interest on money derived from the bonds, to the extent that the money went into the development of the business, and not into construction, would be proper to be considered, subject to the limitation above stated. In considering such items, however, the jury should be instructed that they should not be taken into account by them if they are of the opinion that the enterprise had, at the time of the taking, no going value, actual or potential, as above defined." Water Rights The land values fixed by Mr, Bates are based entirely upon the values of. adjoining lands which have been sold primarily for subdivision purposes. I don’t think it can be said that any element of water rights value attaches to the sale of adjoining parcels for subdivision purposes. Therefore the values which he has fixed are merely surface right values which are separate and apart from the water rights value. In addition to this the water rights in this case are owned almost entirely by the Las Vegas Land and Water Company who own them separate and apart from the ownership of the land. I believe it is the policy of our management not to place too high a value on water rights if we are able t© obtain a favorable price for both the land and physical plant which will be sold. However in bargaining with the District I think it should be made plain that a valuable water right is being transferred to the District,which in a condemnation case would be given considerable value. In the rate case toy Wehe added to the original cost of the property f>3G,000 representing water rights. It is plain from his testimony and the discussion found on pages