If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Cities)   Rails-to-trails projects are source of civic pride, place to exercise safely within the city, and candy store for sue-happy NIMBYs who get free federal money as compensation for land they never owned   (theatlanticcities.com) divider line 29
    More: Strange, NIMBY, just compensation, Downtown Seattle, Federal Circuit  
•       •       •

5078 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Nov 2013 at 10:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-08 01:55:34 AM  
7 votes:
That headline is incorrect. The people suing own the property the railroad or trail is on.

The railroad was built on an easement, which means they own the land but the railroad gets to build the railroad through it. Part of the description of the easement includes what uses the railroad can have on the land. That description did not include pedestrian or biking trails, so the people that own the land get more money for a new easement that includes those uses.
2013-11-08 10:43:41 AM  
4 votes:
billhensley.files.wordpress.com

Also, Rail Trails are awesome.  And they keep my bike off of the roads, so I expect some love for them here on FARK.
2013-11-08 01:04:17 PM  
3 votes:

To The Escape Zeppelin!: onzmadi: aaaand once again why we can't have nice things.

It is still a transportation easement, just a different mode.

They should amend the law and tell these jackanapes to get bent.

So the fact that it's legally their property means nothing to you? If the city wants to use it that's fine, but they better pay for it. Just because the railroad used it for decades doesn't mean it's up for grabs.


Though as I understand it, and somebody mentioned it upthread, the adjoining property owner may not hold title to the land. Way back when they were laying out the railroads west of the Mississippi,the feds sold alternating sections along the right of way to the railroad, so they would own 1 section on the north side, then one on the south side, for each mile of run if I understand it.

Once they paid the liens off, the railroads sold the land that didn't include the ROW. Now what happened to that piece after they abandoned the ROW is hard to tell. It may not belong to the property owner if the title never included it in the first place.

I say fark it. We need more rail in this country anyway, maybe the feds should just start laying new track along these disputed easements, and the NIMBYs can listen to freight traffic rolling by instead of having to look at somebody on a bicycle once in a while.
2013-11-08 11:04:27 AM  
2 votes:
Got to say, the landowners are entirely in the right here. They actually own the land, the railroads just had permission to use it.
2013-11-08 10:55:12 AM  
2 votes:

fireclown: [billhensley.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]

Also, Rail Trails are awesome.  And they keep my bike off of the roads, so I expect some love for them here on FARK.


Amen Brother!

Attention farkers, this is now a hiking thread

Rails to Trails in Cloudcroft, New Mexico, my neck of the woods

www.fs.usda.gov

images.fineartamerica.com

fivefs.files.wordpress.com
2013-11-08 10:53:32 AM  
2 votes:

Krieghund: That headline is incorrect. The people suing own the property the railroad or trail is on.

The railroad was built on an easement, which means they own the land but the railroad gets to build the railroad through it. Part of the description of the easement includes what uses the railroad can have on the land. That description did not include pedestrian or biking trails, so the people that own the land get more money for a new easement that includes those uses.


Doesn't the easement still exist, i.e. the feds can change it back to a rail with no red tape?
2013-11-08 10:43:25 AM  
2 votes:

patrick767: Nabb1: Welcome to first year property law. Today we will discuss the basics of easements.

People can't be glad they don't have farking trains going through instead, for which they'd receive zero compensation? No, they've gotta sue.


If I've got an open-and-shut case for being paid an easy few thousand dollars, I'm suing to get it.
2013-11-08 10:39:24 AM  
2 votes:
Since I regularly ride my bicycle to and from work on a rail-to-trail, and will again this afternoon, I'm getting kicks, etc.
2013-11-08 08:25:06 AM  
2 votes:
Welcome to first year property law. Today we will discuss the basics of easements.
2013-11-09 12:44:58 AM  
1 votes:
Here's my Rails-to-Trails.
img.fark.net
It has nice views, eagles, girls in tights, newts, vagrants, butterflies, dog walkers, miles of paved path with no cars, kids on bikes, parks, mountains and lots of other stuff.
img.fark.net
Awesome trail, the end is Boring.
img.fark.net
2013-11-08 02:22:01 PM  
1 votes:

George Babbitt: fireclown: Meatschool: And where was the photo you posted upthread taken?

I'm not sure, it isn't mine.  But my GIS was for Harpers Ferry, and it kind of looks like the trail surface near Whites Ferry.

I think San Mar does a few rides a year.  They are also super cool about letting the Cumberland Valley Cycle Club use their parking lot for the annual century haven't ridden my bike yet this year, but at least my orthopedic surgeon will be able to retire early ride every year.

FTFY

Here in Ohio, we have TOSRV. I used to work in a shop, and the week before TOSRV, we would get a glut of bikes that had dust on them from the year before, and wide eyed people excited about the ride this year. Always felt like repacking their hubs with sand to kill their ride a mile in just so they didn't hurt themselves and tie up the SAG wagons.


Oh wow.  My family used to do TOSRV back in the early 80s.  I'm lucky though, I haven't had a dusty bike in a lot of years.  Filthy with trail dust, but not dusty.
2013-11-08 01:57:02 PM  
1 votes:
www.cyclewyoming.org
http://www.cyclewyoming.org/mbt_map.j pg

/best trails are in the mountains
2013-11-08 01:06:18 PM  
1 votes:
If it is an easement situation, (and some comments in this thread sure cast a lot of doubt about how that may or may not be the case with all or some of the trails), I could definitely see the owners wanting compensated for the change in use.  If you bought a property with an old railroad running through it with the understanding that at some point that track could be used for a train again, that's a different scenario than that the public at large could be free to roam that stretch that runs through your property.  People milling around is very different from a train chugging through.  Yes, ideally, the people would all be cool people just out for a little exercise that would be quiet and respectful and leave the place clean and mind their own business.  But the reality of public access isn't always that way.  A train's not going to leave a bunch of garbage laying around or get your animals riled up or  swipe things off your property or wander onto your property and get hurt and sue you. A train isn't nearly as disturbing to your privacy (and country people tend to enjoy that part about the country) as people being around.   A trail where people  you have no control over or choice about are allowed to gather is a whole different story.   

When my family bought land out in the country, we gave the utility an easement to run poles for electric service to the area through our land.  It was with the understanding that it would be for utility poles.  We would have had an issue with it if at some point the law changed and they created a loophole so that the land could be "pole banked" so that technically they could use it for electrical poles again someday but for now they were going to use it for a long narrow public park. We kept horses.  Electrical poles just stood there.  They didn't bother the horses and the horses didn't bother them.  I don't know that it would have the same if people were invited to be there.  It'd have just been a matter of time before someone got drunk and tried to saddle one up that wasn't ready and got bucked off or tried to pet a mean one and got kicked in the teeth and we got sued.  So as much as part of me wants to say "This is why we can't have nice things!" and grumble at the folks who are making a fuss about turning an abandoned railway into something for people to enjoy, I have to be a little sympathetic.
2013-11-08 01:05:25 PM  
1 votes:
I always liked this program. Seems one of the few smart things governement has done. They were working on one of the trails near me for a while. Hope they fixed the bridge, people kept trying to burn it down.
2013-11-08 11:52:06 AM  
1 votes:
The trail group I volunteer with has a couple hundred miles that are 'railbanked' officially, but are not easement/reversionary.  The MoPac was flat-out there before most of the settlement, owned the ROW, and paid taxes on it for a century.  As do we now (as a non-profit, county taxes generally waived).

Hasn't kept dozen of NIMBYs, greedheads, and patriots from trying to sue for "their property rights". Also hasn't kept several of them from wanton destruction of segments of trail, booby-trapping things, or firing warning shots over trail riders.

Fortunately, most people that are hateful farts like that? They stroke out and die eventually.  Their kids sell the farm, almost inevitably, to someone who wants it  specifically because it is on a rail-trail.
2013-11-08 11:42:30 AM  
1 votes:
An easement would mean that the property is listed as part of the plot the landowners have and the railroad had built a rail corridor across it. This sounds like rail corridors that are adjacent to the properties and therefore are not easements, but rather just a power grab by the landowners. In the U.S., virtually all rail networks and infrastructure outside the Northeast Corridor are privately owned by freight lines, which would suggest that an easement is not present in those many cases where the freight company owns the corridor.
2013-11-08 11:33:31 AM  
1 votes:

wxboy: I'd imagine that most people living next to an old rail corridor aren't the richest people in the world;


Developers tend to knock down the crappy housing next to the rail and build nice housing next to the trail.

A lot of the people suing are large property owners outside of the cities. Ranchers, farmer, and what not. Those people tend to be land rich and cash poor.
2013-11-08 11:33:13 AM  
1 votes:
aaaand once again why we can't have nice things.

It is still a transportation easement, just a different mode.

They should amend the law and tell these jackanapes to get bent.
2013-11-08 11:09:10 AM  
1 votes:
One thing I've noticed: rail-trail projects REALLY piss off farmers (hey, that's more land that those bootstrappy sons of the earth can grab subsidies for). A lot of anti-bicycle legislation is Farm Bureau payback for rail-trails, though such legislation usually doesn't pass (fortunately).

Example: Texas SB238 in 2001 would have banned groups of more than 3 cyclists from farm-to-market roads, required slow moving vehicle triangles on bikes, and all sorts of other bullshiat. It was sponsored by state senator Jeff Wentworth at the behest of the Farm Bureau after a rail-trail was put through in Blanco County. The Texas Bicycle Coalition raised enough of a ruckus that the bill died, but this crap seems to pop up over and over again. Right-wing radio blowhards are no help.
2013-11-08 11:08:16 AM  
1 votes:
While we're here, is there a good trail network to get me from Maryland/south PA to Columbus OH?

/idly planning future trips.
2013-11-08 11:05:03 AM  
1 votes:
Yep, most people forget that the railroads used rail easements and limited licensing under color of law to build railroads. The original owners were seldom compensated. Because of competing interests, it was impractical and mush too expensive for railroad builders to purchase the land. Instead, they usually obtained a right to use it under the guise of it being a transportation right of way.

Under US law, if a railroad is abandoned, the current owners of the property through which the railroad runs can claim an interest. However, most folks are ignorant of this or don't bother.
2013-11-08 11:01:29 AM  
1 votes:

fireclown: Also, Rail Trails are awesome. And they keep my bike off of the roads, so I expect some love for them here on FARK.


You'd think wrong my friend.  Many of the bicycle-hating loons here are so zealous that the thought that someone is riding a bicycle anywhere is enough to send them into spasms of rage.
2013-11-08 11:00:12 AM  
1 votes:

patrick767: People can't be glad they don't have farking trains going through instead, for which they'd receive zero compensation? No, they've gotta sue.


That's not the point. A use was specified in the easement. This is not the use.

Cities and States cannot take railroad rights-of-way via eminent domain, like they would with normal property, so the owners are entitled to compensation from the government to change the easement.

Conversely, if the neighbors decided to put, say, a fence across the easement, the railroad could theoretically sue that they were infringing on the right-of-way (even if the RR had no intention of using it).
2013-11-08 10:53:58 AM  
1 votes:
One thing I really miss about living back in Rochester, NY (besides Wegmans and DiBellas) is the large number or bike trails they have in the area. There were a lot of railroads in the area and so many of them have been turned into hiking and biking trails. They were always beautiful rides with a  bit of history mixed in.
2013-11-08 10:51:54 AM  
1 votes:

wxboy: patrick767: Nabb1: Welcome to first year property law. Today we will discuss the basics of easements.

People can't be glad they don't have farking trains going through instead, for which they'd receive zero compensation? No, they've gotta sue.

If I've got an open-and-shut case for being paid an easy few thousand dollars, I'm suing to get it.


More importantly, Lawyers who caught on to this are going to call you up and say "If you agree to let me sue on your behalf I'll give you a couple of grand if we win, and you will never have to do anything." I wouldn't turn it down.
2013-11-08 10:35:19 AM  
1 votes:
The way the story reads, the law allows the "land owner" free money. The fact that 8000 claims are pending just means that word gets around.  You'd be stupid to not take them up on it.

/ stupid law is probably stupid
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-11-08 10:23:48 AM  
1 votes:
Many old easements in Massachusetts date back to a simpler time when train tracks were for running trains. When the trains stopped running the easement terminated by its own terms. 19th century lawyers and businessmen failed to anticipate critical parts of modern society, among them the STB, the domination of lawyers, and the involvement of the federal government in your daily walk.
2013-11-08 09:26:45 AM  
1 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Fun fact: railroads are exempt from state & local eminent domain laws.


Transportation is interstate commerce at it's most basic
2013-11-08 09:16:25 AM  
1 votes:
If I had a rail-line going through my property, I would love it to be converted to a trail.

I would love it even more if I made money off it.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report