Harley-Davidson Motor Co. v. Springettsbury Township

I agree with the following conclusions reached by the majority: a cost-to-cure approach is inapposite in the present circumstances; the trial court erred in failing to multiply the market value by the common-level ratio; a potential buyer’s environmental-remediation responsibilities and limitations on use should be taken into account when calculating the property’s market value; and the five-percent stigma reduction is adequately supported in the record.1

With that said, I have difficulty with the majority’s analysis concerning whether Mr. Camins reached his valuation figures by assuming the…