Some bad news for Rails-to-Trails

[OldCrank]

Hmmm first we have preferences:
<<<“We traded for the land with a right of way on it for railroad uses,” Brandt said in December. “They want to bring a train through here, that’s fine. We never expected and we never agreed to a bicycle trail.”>>>

Then the pure genius of judges:
<<<“I certainly think bicycle paths are a good idea, ” Justice Stephen Breyer said during oral arguments in January. The problem, he continued, is that the U.S. government doesn’t have a central database of the land it could convert to bike paths: “For all I know, there is some right-of-way that goes through people’s houses, you know, and all of a sudden they are going to be living in their house and suddenly a bicycle will run through it.”>>>

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/10/supreme_court_ruling_delivers_a_major_blow_to_bike _paths/

[rnhood]

I'm not sure how this will affect the RR conversions in other areas and states. This case is probably somewhat isolated since the most RR land is probably not tied in some agreement with a landowner or family trust. But its still a blow and I don't like it. Obviously it was sort of cut and dry, as all by one justice agreed. Maybe we need to start exercising imminent domain - especially when it benefits so many.

What I do like recently is the effort many cities and states are putting forth for local greenways. Our Raleigh system is turning out to be truly excellent. Florida is doing an excellent job as well. I suspect the same is true in other cities/states.

[redir]

What a curmudgeon. He's the only one of about 30 property owners not to let this through and is sounds like it's all just because of the point. Don't tread on me BS or something like that.

I mean really? Let a loud click clack train rumble through your back yard or some bicyclists nice and quiet. Sounds like a real dolt. Not to mention that it's been shown over and over again that bike trails actually increase property values and stimulate business growth.

The judge I guess presumes that a train will be going through some one's house too... Geesh.

[verticaldoug]

You should go to Cornell University Law School website and read a syllabus of the case. The sound bites the popular press select really don't serve the ruling.

The ruling looks pretty solid and reasonable to me.

To acquire this land, the family trust traded other land with the Gov for this property. Nothing stops the local government from using eminent domain to acquire this land from the trust. They just have to pay a fair market value for it. This seems fair to me.

The precedent was set with the Great Northern Case because the Government argued that the railway no longer has a claim on the right way after disuse. At stakes in this case were mineral rights.

If anything, I'd worry that Justice Sotomayor's comments show her to be a constitutional lightweight. Potential legal challenges caused by the ruling have nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law and should not be her concern.

[Louis]

Hmmm first we have preferences:
<<<“We traded for the land with a right of way on it for railroad uses,” Brandt said in December. “They want to bring a train through here, that’s fine. We never expected and we never agreed to a bicycle trail.”>>>

We had the same resistance here in MO for the Katy Trail. Some folks would still oppose conversion even if doing so would result in world peace and a cure for cancer.

http://www.mostateparks.com/park/katy-trail-state-park

http://www.mostateparks.com/sites/default/files/flickrcache/72157626109382606/5467571511.jpg

http://www.mostateparks.com/sites/default/files/flickrcache/72157626109382606/5467572643.jpg

http://www.mostateparks.com/sites/default/files/flickrcache/72157626109382606/5468504424.jpg

[parris]

Here's another thought and I could be way off base with it. My family were farmers in upstate NY for many years and we had railroad tracks running through one of the farms. In the early 80's the tracks were abandoned, taken out, and people started to use them for horses, snowmobile, atv, motorcycle, etc. My dad was concerned with liability as well as trespass by some users. He and my uncles breathed quite a bit easier when that particular piece of land was sold after they had retired.

Again I'm not saying this is the reason. But it could at least be a partial reason.

[torquer]

“We traded for the land with a right of way on it for railroad uses,” Brandt said in December. “They want to bring a train through here, that’s fine. We never expected and we never agreed to a bicycle trail.”
Anyone want to do a Kickstarter campaign to run a train through this guy's living room?
That'll learn 'em to mess with the all-powerful bike lobby!
(Or is that just a NYC thing?)

[dekindy]

I am a big fan of bicycle paths.

What I am a bigger fan of is our individual and property rights. The landowners traded for this land under the agreement that the railroad right of way if abandoned, would revert to their ownership. This was black letter law agreed to forever ago. If the law said that the railroad right of way could be converted to other uses for the public good then maybe a bicycle path might meet that standard; but from my perspective(big fan of bike paths) it would still have a tough time meeting that standard.

Where did we go off the tracks(pun intended) and lose sight of the fact that the personal rights of the property owner could be cast aside so easily?

I bet you guys criticizing the property owners would sing a different tune if it was your property being seized for something you did agree to and did not want.

As for the lone dissenting vote I have to wonder what Law School that justice went to.

My title to the story would be "Good news for individual and property rights".

[parris]

^ very good point.

[Louis]

Typically what happens (and that's what happened here in MO) is that initially folks along the trail oppose the conversion, probably for a number of reasons, some good, some bad, some just due to inertia. But after the trail is put in (and if it's a good one that gets lots of use) they realize that there are plenty of benefits of having the trail, most of them economic. Since many of the trails are in rural areas where the economy is hurting they end up helping the very communities that opposed them. (and there's nothing like a little $ to help change someone's mind about things)

[choke]

What I am a bigger fan of is our individual and property rights. +11ty billionI bet you guys criticizing the property owners would sing a different tune if it was your property being seized for something you did agree to and did not want.And I wonder how many would be complaining had it been the other way around: the owner agreed to an easement for a bicycle trail and the Govt decided down the road to build a railroad instead.

[Louis]

the owner agreed to an easement for a bicycle trail and the Govt decided down the road to build a railroad instead.

Actually, that is the deal - the bike trails are "temporary use."

In case they ever want to go back to railroads the bike trails go away and the trains come back.

Edit: this is from the MO DNR web site:

The opportunity for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to acquire the right-of-way was made possible by the National Trails System Act, which provides that railroad corridors no longer needed for active rail service can be banked for future transportation needs and used on an interim basis for recreational trails.

[saab2000]

Justice Sotomayor was the dissenting justice and stated the following. It sounds like a reasonable opinion, though I have no legal education or any knowledge of any of this. I'm just a curious bystander.

Taken from the NPR website:

In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote that the justices were shifting the court's position on rights of way that it established in 1903. The issue is broader than whether rights are termed "easements" or "fees," she said. She concluded:

"By changing course today, the Court undermines the legality of thousands of miles of former rights of way that the public now enjoys as means of transportation and recreation. And lawsuits challenging the conversion of former rails to recreational trails alone may well cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars."

[LesMiner]

Meanwhile in Minneapolis there is a debate over where to locate a light rail track. A recreatioal area that includes a bike path that was a railroad track at one time is one of the favored routes. As bike friendly as Minneapolis is there is a demand for light rail public transportation that could trade off the bike path for the light rail route. So where is the greater need? Recreational area for quality of life or better public transportation for communting into Minneaplois as well as downtown shopping and on to the Mall of America.

[dekindy]

Meanwhile in Minneapolis there is a debate over where to locate a light rail track. A recreatioal area that includes a bike path that was a railroad track at one time is one of the favored routes. As bike friendly as Minneapolis is there is a demand for light rail public transportation that could trade off the bike path for the light rail route. So where is the greater need? Recreational area for quality of life or better public transportation for communting into Minneaplois as well as downtown shopping and on to the Mall of America.

I thing we all know the answer to that.

[Mr. Pink]

This is why we'll never have high speed trains in this country. No way we could collectively withstand the massive land grab necessary. Just imagine if our only high speed train, the Acela, was modified to actually be a modern, Euro/Chinese HSP. The lawyers would get insanely rich, and it would never happen, in the end.

[saab2000]

Meanwhile in Minneapolis there is a debate over where to locate a light rail track. A recreatioal area that includes a bike path that was a railroad track at one time is one of the favored routes. As bike friendly as Minneapolis is there is a demand for light rail public transportation that could trade off the bike path for the light rail route. So where is the greater need? Recreational area for quality of life or better public transportation for communting into Minneaplois as well as downtown shopping and on to the Mall of America.

As a former and hopefully future resident of Minneapolis, I am torn on this one. I have used the light rail and it's really nice and has been wildly more successful than the original projections.

That's a tough one.... The bike ways in the Twin Cities are amazing too.

[LesMiner]

This is why we'll never have high speed trains in this country. No way we could collectively withstand the massive land grab necessary. Just imagine if our only high speed train, the Acela, was modified to actually be a modern, Euro/Chinese HSP. The lawyers would get insanely rich, and it would never happen, in the end.

What is interesting in the Minneapolis case is that there were railroad rights of way all over. Those rights of way were given up because the focus went to building expressways instead. Public transportation resorted to buses and public transportation reduced, go buy a car or take a bus. Now realizing a need for public mass transportation light rail has become popular. Urban sprawl has made mass transit planning a nightmare. The first light rail started up about 10 years ago. Before that no mass transit system while other major cities had one.

[tylerbick]

+11ty billionAnd I wonder how many would be complaining had it been the other way around: the owner agreed to an easement for a bicycle trail and the Govt decided down the road to build a railroad instead.


The problem here is a big one, in America, and the rest of the world. We're all so selfish and near-sighted, too concerned for our own selves to see the big picture, or recognize that what's good for MANY is better than what's good for FEW. One property owner upset about a rail to trail, should be outweighed by the rights of the 100's or 1000's to utilize the trail! The trails in Minnesota will benefit MORE people than currently use them when re-converted to light rail, simple as that.

[parris]

Tyler I don't see it that way. It appears that the property owner in this case entered into a contract and held up his end. It was the government that attempted for several years to circumvent the agreement. If you look at the map of where this case took place it appears that there are several roads that run close to the former railroad right of way.

[verticaldoug]

The problem here is a big one, in America, and the rest of the world. We're all so selfish and near-sighted, too concerned for our own selves to see the big picture, or recognize that what's good for MANY is better than what's good for FEW. One property owner upset about a rail to trail, should be outweighed by the rights of the 100's or 1000's to utilize the trail! The trails in Minnesota will benefit MORE people than currently use them when re-converted to light rail, simple as that.

I think it is part of the human condition. I have never seen a society without corruption and selfishness. It may be different from the American form, but it is still there hidden if you know where to look. (in many cases, if you try to look, you end up in jail as an enemy of the state.) The fact individuals can still say no to the masses, should be cherished.