2. The value of the premises after the taking, which includes the benefit to the premises by the taking. The difference is the compensation to the owner.
In Portland, Oregon, a verdict is made up of:
1. How much, if any, less valuable the land will be rendered by the taking.
2. The damage to the improvements; that is, to buildings, and so forth.
Both of these rules of damage are open to either of two objections: First, in some jurisdictions juries are averse to finding any benefit, in which case a much greater sum than is just is spread over a benefit district, and owners who have justly received as damages large sums for land taken or damaged pay entirely inadequate assessments for the special benefit which they have received. Second, if the jury gives full consideration to the benefit which a piece of property receives and subtracts the full amount of benefit from the compensation awarded for damages to the property, the owner has a decided grievance because he may be paying $100 for one hundred dollars’ worth of special benefit, but his neighbor on the other side of the street whose property has not been taken is paying in a special assessment only 25 per cent or 30 per cent of the special benefit to his property.
The commissioners appointed in street cases in Minneapolis are directed to find:
1. The value of land taken.
2. The damage to the land or buildings not taken.
3. The special benefit which accrues to each parcel.
The owner of the property receives as compensation the excess of compensation for damages over the special benefit. This rule is open to the second objection which we have discussed above and only in a less degree is the code of California objectionable which requires the finding of: