The condemnation itself doesn't affect the appraisal. But if the property is in poor condition, that would. The auction analogy doesn't quite work because at an auction, you're limited by the folks who show up, so you might not actually get a 'willing buyer.' Fair market value is more of a legal fiction than anything else. It assumes a willing buyer and a willing seller and that the property isn't condemned.

And as far as that 'low ball' offer goes, I do think this situation is a lot more unique and public than, say, someone's land being taken or damaged for a drainage easement in NW OKC, so we might see politics playing a role in the value of these properties.

A better analogy might be this -- say you have a Stradivarius violin that's been in your family for generations. There's a fire and it's destroyed. You have a really good insurance policy, but you haven't had it appraised in 25 years. Well, the insurance company is going to offer you X, but you think it's worth more, so you hire an appraiser, and sure enough, it appraises at Y. You now have the choice to either take the insurance company's original offer or take them to court and get them to pay more. The price that the court's going to make up is going to be the fair market value of the violin. That's reached by listening to your expert's testimony as well as the other guy's, then arriving at a number that is equitable, probably going with whichever expert is more believable, or just splitting the difference.. or whatever. Juries do what they do and God knows they do some weird things to get where they go... so that number that comes out of the jury room? That's fair market value.