| Author
|
Thread |
 
|
|
|
|
Steve B.
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Posts: 769
Location: Long Island, NY3/11/14 10:28 AM |
The land owner was quoted as stating that he prefered a railroad running coal trains over a rail-trail.
That one had me puzzled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6593
Location: Westchester/NYC3/11/14 10:36 AM |
quote:
The land owner was quoted as stating that he prefered a railroad running coal trains over a rail-trail.
That one had me puzzled.
Quite! Not that it actually surprise me. I know people have strange believes.
But the court decision means such strange believe will stop a rail trail from being build.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Currie
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 802
Location: Vermont3/11/14 12:35 PM |
I'm of two minds on this. Obviously I like rail trails and think they should proliferate, especially nowadays when I'm forbidden the road. At the same time, many rail rights of way are exactly that: rights of way that were taken under eminent domain or other bargains long ago, and many deeds include the right of reversion. Exactly who owns an abandoned railway is not always clear, but sometimes it's spelled out pretty clearly in a deed.
I didn't open the pay per view link, but even though I'd rather see bikes than nothing, I can kind of sympathize also with the idea that what ought to be on a railway is trains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve B.
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Posts: 769
Location: Long Island, NY3/11/14 1:15 PM |
You may well never again see the SC decide a case with an 8-1 majority, which says something about the federal governments case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19083
Location: PDX3/11/14 1:49 PM |
Change?
My cousin in west KY had a rail trail happen at the back edge of his property. [80 acres] It was like 1/2 mile at least from his porch back across his field to the rear. You could see folks walking and running by if you looked. I remember the first time I saw it, I was quoted as saying "what the heck is that?"
Having been on that property a few dozen time since 5 years old.
He was not happy, but this compared to an abandoned train track empty for decades. He was born and raised on that property. Probably used to put pennies on the tracks as a kid, he is 70 now. Rail trail happened 12 year back approx.
Folks are very attached to their property, especially when it has been in the family for a few hundred years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JohnC
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 1939
Location: Glastonbury, Ct3/11/14 2:16 PM |
This was an interpretation of a 140-year old law, in light of the argument the Government made in another case 70 years ago. Nobody's sure how much land it applies to (the law was changed in 1988) The casae is not about stopping rail trails, for the most part -- it's about getting some money. Specifically, the heirs of people who had land taken (for compensation) more than 100 years ago, getting compensated again when the Government (which legally took their land for a public purpose) now wants to use it for another public purpose. The 1875 law that said the land would revert to the prior owner if the railroad abandoned it, I'd guess, envisioned that happening in some short time frame, not over a century later.
Here's a good analysis (this is the best SC site, BTW)
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/opinion-analysis-victory-and-money-for-landowners/#more-206146
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
greglepore
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 1724
Location: SE Pa, USA3/11/14 6:49 PM |
The land was taken for a specific public purpose, and the law, unfortunately for us, was clear...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
