This article shall apply to all acquisitions of real property by a state agency or a political subdivision of the state for a program or project for which federal financial assistance will be available to pay all or any part of the cost of the program or project; except that, if any other provision of state law is applicable to such acquisitions and such provision of state law requires relocation payments and assistance or prescribes land acquisition policies which are equivalent to or are greater or more stringent than the payments, assistance, or policies specified by this article, such other provision of state law shall apply to such acquisitions.
Source: L. 71: p. 680, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 69-10-21.
ANNOTATION
An examination of the legislative history, read with attention to the structure of the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act and its state counterpart, demonstrates that congress and general assembly did not intend "acquisition" to mean property purchased from an owner that places its property on the market of its own volition and sells without coercion. Understanding the act's ambit to exclude voluntary open-market purchases is consonant with its aim of protecting individual property owners from the superior negotiating position that the federal government or state and local governments enjoy. Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., 34 P.3d 408 (Colo. 2001).
The acquisition at issue has all of the markings of a bargained-for real estate transaction in which the seller willingly offered to sell its property. Because RTD bought property on the market for land-banking purposes, purchased the parcel from a willing seller without improperly leveraging its dominant bargaining position, and paid a market price, the statutory provisions designed to protect unwilling sellers are inapplicable. Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., 34 P.3d 408 (Colo. 2001).
As a threshold matter, an agency must acquire property for "a program or project for which federal assistance will be made available" before it becomes obligated under the federal and state acts to obtain an equal interest in any structures or improvements located on the property. In this case, the parcel was not purchased for a program or project for which federal funds would become available. Therefore, regional transportation district was not required to acquire an equal interest in the billboards and owes Outdoor Systems no compensation for removing them. Accordingly, RTD did not contravene its promises to the federal transit administration that it would abide by the structures of the federal and state acts. Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., 34 P.3d 408 (Colo. 2001).
INTERSTATE COMPACTS AND AGREEMENTS