With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". both factors. Gulf Coast presented several experts who testified that the property has no present cash value. They testified that, in their opinion, no one would buy the property because the costs associated with the cleanup of the property exceed the value of the property. See Roden, 508 So.2d at 731 (“[T]he condition of the property may be such that the owner or a potential buyer would have to expend monies to make the property usable, thus lowering the value of the property.”). Gulf Coast also presented testimony regarding the condition of the property, including the extent of the contamination, the cleanup required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the costs associated with that cleanup. Compare Finkelstein v. Department of Transp., 656 So.2d 921 (Fla.1995) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment

A: holding that proof of relevant market is essential under  2
B: recognizing different factual situations may dictate application of a different valuation ie other than fair market value of the damage to the property
C: holding that evidence of contamination is relevant and admissible on the issue of market value in an eminent domain valuation trial
D: holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value
C.