difference in injury to INP’s property is not one of degree, it is one of kind. INP demonstrated that the building’s special design made its increased-proximity injury peculiar to its property and thus the increased-proximity damages are special not community. See Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 781. We therefore hold that the court of appeals erred in determining that the trial court improperly admitted evidence about these damages. B. Damages foe Unsafe Access and the Cost to Cure The State argues that the trial court erred by finding that INP’s remainder property suffered a material and substantial impairment of access as a matter of law because reasonable access to the property remained after the condemnation. See Archenhold Auto. Supply Co. v. City of Waco, 396 S.W.2d 111, 114 (Tex.1965) (<HOLDING>); DuPuy v. City of Waco, 396 S.W.2d 103, 110
holding first amendment guarantees access to criminal trials and limitations on access are subject to strict scrutiny holding that damages for diminished access are not compensable as long as suitable access remains holding that reasonable access includes general facility access without notice and patient access with twentyfour hour notice holding that limitation of access is accomplished under states police power and is not compensable holding that where by virtue of state action access is limited but remains reasonable there is no such denial of access as entitles the landowner to compensation