Verdict

Juries have their own wisdom. It looks like they decided that with 13 building permits, the property was usable as residential, but it would be hard, and they discounted for that. They also decided that even with heavy regulation, the land still had some value as a place for storing traps for commercial fishermen. They expressed these decisions in the three values they were asked to give for the property, and they gave the plaintiff about $3.5 million less than they asked for, and asked the government to pay about $3 million more than they were willing to pay. It may look like they just split the baby, but on the "after the take" value, which is the value of the property with heavy regulation, the jury said that the property still had a value of $250,000, when the plaintiff said it was only worth $10,000. Which, unbeknownst to the jury, means that there probably hasn't been a regulatory take, that the government hasn't actually taken the land, and the plaintiff will get 0, regardless of how the jury valued the property. Funny how in some cases what looks like not a particularly good result is actually a win.