which is the first law of this kind enacted in this country, is given in appendix A, attached to this report. The English Restriction of Ribbon Development Act of 1935 has similar provisions relative to access, in its sections 13-16, inclusive, which are reproduced in appendix B.
Another situation, already of more frequent occurrence than in the past and sure to occur frequently in the future, is that which arises when it is desirable to acquire possession for the public of a strip of land on each side of a highway, which is not required for the present accommodation of the physical structure of the highway, but which may become necessary for such purpose in the future and is needed immediately for the purpose of regulating and controlling the use of the land bordering upon the highway.
This may be desirable for aesthetic reasons. It unquestionably is the best available measure for disposing of unsightly billboards. Or, it may be desirable as a measure of safety, intended to control, or at least to set back from the trafficway, those bordering developments, such as roadside stands, filling stations, taverns, dance halls, tourist camps, and used-car lots, that, by causing the sudden stopping, turning, or emergence of vehicles upon the highway, are such prolific sources of dangerous accidents.
An anticipated new situation may arise through efforts by governmental agencies to recoup all or part of the cost of highway and street improvements by the resale or other disposal of benefited lands in excess of the need for the highways or streets acquired in advance of their improvement. This may be referred to as “recoupment taking.” In support of the theory underlying such excess taking, there is usually cited the successful use of the practice in England, in Canada, in some European countries, and at least one early experience in the United States. A decision by the United States Supreme Court respecting resort to such taking in the case of Cincinnati v. Vester (281 U.S. 439), indicates that its use is subject to definite limitations in order to avoid infringement of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. A digest of this decision, a brief statement of the terms of constitutional provisions in eight States pertaining to this subject, and a summary of several outstanding examples of recoupment operations are given in appendix C, attached to this report.
The foregoing discussion is designed to set forth briefly the difficulties in the proper planning of highway and street improvements encountered by governmental agencies because of the right-of-way problem. These same difficulties have an equally retarding effect upon other public improvements, such as parks, recreational facilities, slum clearance, low-cost housing, and the reclamation of marginal and submarginal areas adjacent to highways and streets. Land availability, more than any other single consideration determines the character and frequently the success of such projects. It is obvious that the acquisition of land has not been given proper weight in planning for public improvements by either the legislative, judicial, or administrative branches of the Government.
Highway authorities in many States, both State and local, operate under rather definite statutory restrictions as to the maximum width of right-of-way that may be acquired for highway or street improvement purposes. These statutory widths were adopted in some instances many years ago and have been allowed to remain in the
