Question

请大家帮我翻译一下这几段文字（谢绝翻译软件），在线等，请求各位高手的帮助！

Other courts are refusing to deny value reductions even to intentional polluters. In Reliable Electronic Finishing Company, Inc. v Board of Assessors, the court cited Firestone as authority for rejecting the moralistic approach of subordination market value analysis to the concern that polluters should not be rewarded. Recognizing the duty to assess all real property at full and fair cash value, the court held: “The fact that a landowner negligently, recklessly, or even intentionally has caused environmental damage to its real estate, thereby reducing its fair market value, would not justify valuing that property for local tax purposes as if that damage had not occurred.”
Citing constitutional concerns, in Inmar Associated, Inc. v Borough of Carlstadt, GAF Corporation v Borough of South Bound Brook, the court held it would not balance environmental concerns against the traditional appraisal theory that property be assessed at true value. The court wrote:
South Bound Brook urged that “in attempting to reach true value, public policy must be considered.” In short, it argued that environmental policy dictates a departure from the constitutional mandate of assessment of all property at true value substituting a balancing test that would balance the public concerns, i.e., the environmental concerns, against all assessments of true value.
Although we are sympathetic to the argument when the public concerns are so stark, the New Jersey Constitution affords us no discretion to balance the interests. Even when the salutary public concern includes as laudable a policy as preservation of farmlands, we are not free to balance that policy against the constitutional demand that property be assessed at true value.
“COST TO CURE” STANDARD
Some courts have adopted the “cost to cure” standard for valuing polluted property. In Northville Industries Corp. v the Board of Assessors of the Town of Riverhead, the New York Supreme Court confirmed that in assessment review proceedings regarding contaminated property, market value is the value at which real property may be taxed. The court further held the full cost of compliance with New York’s sanitary code must be deducted from each tax year’s assessments on the subject property.
再加上这一段，On appeal the trial court held the board’s conclusion that it would be bad policy to allow a tax reduction was irrelevant, since there was no dispute that the cost of toxic waste cleanup reduced the property’s fair market value. The California Court of Appeals held the board’s function was limited to determining the fair market value of Firestone’s property, and that its finding on the hazardous waste issue was erroneous as a matter of law.
急用，希望各位高手们帮帮忙！谢谢大家！
这些都是跟评估有关的！

Answer 1

其他法院拒绝否认价值减少甚至有意污染者。 In Reliable Electronic Finishing Company, Inc. v Board of Assessors, the court cited Firestone as authority for rejecting the moralistic approach of subordination market value analysis to the concern that polluters should not be rewarded.在可靠的电子整理公司，公司v委员会评估，法院认为凡世的权力拒绝说教的方式从属市场价值分析关切污染者不应该得到回报。 Recognizing the duty to assess all real property at full and fair cash value, the court held: “The fact that a landowner negligently, recklessly, or even intentionally has caused environmental damage to its real estate, thereby reducing its fair market value, would not justify valuing that property for local tax purposes as if that damage had not occurred.”认识到工作地点，以评估所有不动产在充分和公平的现金价值，法院裁定： “事实上，地主疏忽，鲁莽，甚至故意造成的环境损害其房地产，从而减少其公平市场价值，将不会理由财产估价为地方税收的用途，如果这种损害没有发生。 “
Citing constitutional concerns, in Inmar Associated, Inc. v Borough of Carlstadt, GAF Corporation v Borough of South Bound Brook, the court held it would not balance environmental concerns against the traditional appraisal theory that property be assessed at true value.引用宪法问题，在Inmar相关公司v自治区Carlstadt ， GAF公司诉区的南界布鲁克，法院将不会对环境问题的平衡的传统理论，财产评估分摊的真实价值。 The court wrote:法院写道：
South Bound Brook urged that “in attempting to reach true value, public policy must be considered.” In short, it argued that environmental policy dictates a departure from the constitutional mandate of assessment of all property at true value substituting a balancing test that would balance the public concerns, ie, the environmental concerns, against all assessments of true value.南界布鲁克敦促说， “在企图到达真正的价值，公共政策必须加以考虑。 ”简言之，它认为，环境政策规定背离了宪法规定的评估，所有的财产，真正的价值取代平衡测试，将余额公众的关注，即环境问题，对所有评估的真正价值。
Although we are sympathetic to the argument when the public concerns are so stark, the New Jersey Constitution affords us no discretion to balance the interests.虽然我们同情的论点时，公众的关注是如此鲜明，在新泽西州宪法使我们没有自由裁量权，以平衡各方面的利益。 Even when the salutary public concern includes as laudable a policy as preservation of farmlands, we are not free to balance that policy against the constitutional demand that property be assessed at true value.即使有益公众的关注，包括为值得称赞的政策，保护农田，我们不能够自由地平衡这一政策违反宪法要求分摊财产的真正价值。
“COST TO CURE” STANDARD “成本治愈”标准
Some courts have adopted the “cost to cure” standard for valuing polluted property.但有些法院已经通过了“成本治愈”标准的价值污染财产。 In Northville Industries Corp. v the Board of Assessors of the Town of Riverhead, the New York Supreme Court confirmed that in assessment review proceedings regarding contaminated property, market value is the value at which real property may be taxed.诺斯维尔工业公司在五局评估镇的河源，纽约最高法院确认，在评估审查程序的有关财产的污染，市场价值的价值是在不动产可征税。 The court further held the full cost of compliance with New York’s sanitary code must be deducted from each tax year’s assessments on the subject property.法院还认定的全部费用遵守纽约的卫生代码必须扣除每一纳税年度的评估关于这个问题的财产。
On appeal the trial court held the board’s conclusion that it would be bad policy to allow a tax reduction was irrelevant, since there was no dispute that the cost of toxic waste cleanup reduced the property’s fair market value. 在上诉法院的审判委员会的结论，这将是糟糕的政策，使减税无关，因为不存在争端的费用，减少有毒废物清理的财产'博览会的市场价值。 The California Court of Appeals held the board’s function was limited to determining the fair market value of Firestone’s property, and that its finding on the hazardous waste issue was erroneous as a matter of law. 加州上诉法院举行的执行局的职能是有限的，确定的公平市场价值凡世的财产，它的发现对危险废物的问题是错误的作为一项法律问题。

谢谢采纳

Answer 2

其他法院拒绝否认价值减少甚至有意污染者。在可靠的电子整理公司，公司v委员会评估，法院认为凡世的权力拒绝说教的方式从属市场价值分析关切污染者不应该得到回报。认识到工作地点，以评估所有不动产在充分和公平的现金价值，法院裁定： “事实上，地主疏忽，鲁莽，甚至故意造成的环境损害其房地产，从而减少其公平市场价值，将不会理由财产估价为地方税收的用途，如果这种损害没有发生。 “引用宪法问题，在Inmar相关公司v自治区Carlstadt ， GAF公司诉区的南界布鲁克，法院将不会对环境问题的平衡的传统理论，财产评估分摊的真实价值。法院写道：南行布鲁克敦促说， “在企图到达真正的价值，公共政策必须加以考虑。 ”简言之，它认为，环境政策规定背离了宪法规定的评估，所有的财产，真正的价值取代平衡考验，将平衡公众的关注，即环境问题，对所有评估的真正价值。虽然我们同情的论点时，公众的关注是如此鲜明，在新泽西州宪法使我们没有自由裁量权，以平衡各方面的利益。即使有益公众的关注，包括为值得称赞的政策，保护农田，我们不能够自由地平衡这一政策违反宪法要求分摊财产的真正价值。“成本治愈”标准有些法院通过了“医治费用”标准的价值污染财产。诺斯维尔工业公司在五局评估镇的河源，纽约最高法院确认，在评估审查程序的有关财产的污染，市场价值的价值是在不动产可征税。法院还认定的全部费用遵守纽约的卫生代码必须扣除每一纳税年度的评估关于这个问题的财产。
（第二段的：）在上诉法院的审判委员会的结论，这将是糟糕的政策，使减税无关，因为不存在争端的费用，减少有毒废物清理的财产的公平市场价值。加州上诉法院举行的执行局的职能是有限的，确定的公平市场价值凡世的财产，它的发现对危险废物的问题是错误的作为一项法律问题。

Answer 3

其他法院拒绝否认价值减少甚至有意污染者。在可靠的电子整理公司，公司v委员会评估，法院认为凡世的权力拒绝说教的方式从属市场价值分析关切污染者不应该得到回报。认识到工作地点，以评估所有不动产在充分和公平的现金价值，法院裁定： “事实上，地主疏忽，鲁莽，甚至故意造成的环境损害其房地产，从而减少其公平市场价值，将不会理由财产估价为地方税收的用途，如果这种损害没有发生。 “
引用宪法问题，在Inmar相关公司v自治区Carlstadt ， GAF公司诉区的南界布鲁克，法院将不会对环境问题的平衡的传统理论，财产评估分摊的真实价值。法院写道：
南界布鲁克敦促说， “在企图到达真正的价值，公共政策必须加以考虑。 ”简言之，它认为，环境政策规定背离了宪法规定的评估，所有的财产，真正的价值取代平衡测试，将余额公众的关注，即环境问题，对所有评估的真正价值。
虽然我们同情的论点时，公众的关注是如此鲜明，在新泽西州宪法使我们没有自由裁量权，以平衡各方面的利益。即使有益公众的关注，包括为值得称赞的政策，保护农田，我们不能够自由地平衡这一政策违反宪法要求分摊财产的真正价值。
“成本治愈”标准
但有些法院已经通过了“成本治愈”标准的价值污染财产。诺斯维尔工业公司在五局评估镇的河源，纽约最高法院确认，在评估审查程序的有关财产的污染，市场价值的价值是在不动产可征税。法院还认定的全部费用遵守纽约的卫生代码必须扣除每一纳税年度的评估关于这个问题的财产。
问题补充：再加上这一段，在上诉法院的审判委员会的结论，这将是糟糕的政策，使减税无关，因为不存在争端的费用，减少有毒废物清理的财产'博览会的市场价值。加州上诉法院举行的执行局的职能是有限的，确定的公平市场价值凡世的财产，它的发现对危险废物的问题是错误的作为一项法律问题。
这个是百分百对的

Answer 4

其他法院拒绝否认价值减少甚而故意污染源。 在Reliable Electronic Finishing Company，科税者公司v委员会中，法院援引燧石作为拒绝的附属市场价值分析道学方法当局对关心不应该奖励污染源。 认可义务估计所有不动产在充分和公平的现金价值，开庭： “The事实疏忽田主，鲁莽地，甚至故意地造成了对它的房地产的环境损害，从而减少它的公平市价，不会辩解重视地方税目的那物产，好象那损伤没有occurred.” 宪法的Citing有关，在Inmar Associated， Inc. v自治市镇南部一定的溪Carlstadt， GAF Corporation v自治市镇，法院拿着它不会平衡环境问题避免物产被估计在真实值的传统评估理论。 法院写道：
South一定的溪敦促，试图的“in到达真实值，公众政策必须是considered.”简而言之，它争辩说，环境政策口授从对所有物产的评估宪法命令的离开在替代将平衡民众关心，即，环境问题的平衡测试的真实值，反对对真实值的所有评估。 我们是有同情心的对论据的Although，当民众关心很纯然时，新泽西宪法付得起我们没有谨慎平衡兴趣。 既使当有益民众关心包括一样值得赞赏一项政策象农田的保存，我们不自由平衡那项政策避免物产被估计在真实值的宪法需求。
对CURE”标准的费用
Some法院采取了“cost对重视的被污染的物产cure”标准。 在Northville Industries Corp. v Riverhead镇的科税者的委员会，最高法院证实那在评估关于污染的物产的纽约，市场价值的回顾行动是不动产也许被收税的价值。 更加进一步的开庭遵照的充分的费用纽约必须从每对附属的物产的税year’s评估扣除有益健康的代码的’s。
在呼吁审判法庭举行了board’s结论它是允许坏的政策税收减少是毫不相关的，因为没有争执有毒废料清洁的费用减少了property’s公平市价。 加利福尼亚地区法院举行了board’s作用被限制了到确定Firestone’s物产的公平市价，并且它发现关于有害废料问题是错误的作为法律问题。