Posted on 07/23/2008 11:39:23 AM PDT by mainestategop
JONESBORO, Maine - When John Cox heard about plans to turn 87 miles of inactive rail bed in Washington and Hancock counties into public trails, he hoped someone would start a petition against it.
(Excerpt) Read more at bangornews.com ...
This has been happening all over the country for what seems like a decade.
In Indianapolis and the surrounding “donut” counties, they’ve been digging up the old Monom Line and turning it into the “Monon Trail” for walking, running and biking.
Problem is, they extended it outside the city (Marion County) and north into the more affluent cities. Homeonwers who expected the abandoned rail lines to revert to them under eminent domain were now seeing paved paths between their yards.
Some homeowners began piling trash, furniture (bedsprings, etc.) across the trails.
Really, nobody wants the state pumping strangers through their backyards.
The way I’m reading it, the rail line is unusable for trains in its current condition. If they remove the old rails and cross ties and let people use it for a while, so what? At least this way the grade and right of way will be maintained. If they need it, they can always put it back with up-to-spec rails and ties.
I think all this “public trail” nonsense has gone too far, but if I lived next to one I would be grateful there weren’t trains rumbling by at all hours.
Sucks to be them. Why are they piling trash on land that doesn’t belong to them?
Nope.
In many areas, they’re PAVING over the old lines.
That property should have reverted to the adjacent landowners as soon as the nature of the easment was changed.
Building rail lines using eminent domain is OK.
Confiscating property for walking paths is not.
Because, under the law, the land belonged to them as soon as the easment was abandoned by the rail lines.
The city and counties sued and re-took the land for other purposes.
Well you may be right about that. If you Google some images of the railroad like I did it does not look good. Some of the tracks are submerged in swamps, there was this wooden bridge that had a big gap in the middle, some of the rails I heard were even torn off and sold for scrap. But if they do rebuild it it might help ailing industry in Hancock and Washington county.
I gotta disagree with many here. Most of these rail beds are ROW for the railroad. So, chances are it’s not your property anyway.
Would you rather have a screaming train running through your backyard or an occasional hiker/biker/walker. Keep in mind this is northern Maine and will probably have about 10 people use it a year. Trails like this also add value to your property in places like this — they are marketed as “direct access to so and so trail”
From my experience this guy is an exception, most people in New England normally don’t mind others using the back of their property for hunting, etc with permission
Idiots. So an area long-designated for a heavy industrial usage is being converted to a pedestrian/bicycle trail - and there's someone out there who will PROTEST this? Imagine what would happen if the county built a new train line through Yuppieville instead.
Once the easement is abandoned, trains aren’t going to go running throug there.
That doesn’t give the state the tacit right to infringe upon the legitemate and legal rights of the adjacent propertyholders.
The lack of an active train line has nothing to do with an illegally repurposed easement. It should have reverted back to the landowners, period. The state doesn’t have the right to build anything new (trails, nuclear waste dumps, etc.) unless the land is taken or the ROW (easement) reestablished.
I wonder why the homeowners have not filed adverse possession claims?
Again, the easement was ABANDONED.
Legally, the land was to have reverted to the landowners.
If the rail line wanted to build a new line, they’d have to restart the ROW process again.
As far as the easment was concerned, it was no longer designated for “heavy industrial usage”.
Wait until somebody takes your property and then we’ll see how great the idea is.
I would sign on to build the trail.
Around here in Michigan, the land was purchased from the railroads for a hefty sum. At least this railroad subsidy was not wasted on Amtrack and we have something of value to show for our money.
Was the land re-purchase by the adjacent landowners?
An overwhelming majority of folks on the trails are nice people. There is nothing to fear.
An overwhelming majority of folks on the trails are nice people. There is nothing to fear.
I’ll bet they has, too!
No the local towns bought the land and actually worked together to make a series of parks. It was a long time in the making, fighting the nay sayers, but it is really a nice park system.
If the rail lines were built using easements with owners then those should be honored if the easement included a provision that the land be turned back over to the original owner (or his heirs?) if the rail line fell into disuse. It would be interesting to see those agreements. I’ll bet some of them are a hundred years old.
I’m not a big fan of eminent domain but I sure don’t see that taking land for the profit of a private railroad is somehow better than taking land for a not-for-profit activity that the entire public can use. That’s whether it’s an interstate highway or a hiking trail. Many of the national parks were built that way. Of course, I know people who think all use of eminent domain should be stopped.
If it’s like the rails-to-trails conversions I have seen the “paving” is a thin coat of asphalt that keeps it from getting muddy. There’s nothing about that preventing the corridor from being turned back over to trains if need be.
sorry after I posted, I missed that point. In that case I agree.
“Again, the easement was ABANDONED.
Legally, the land was to have reverted to the landowners.”
That’s certainly not the case here in Summit County, Ohio. I had an abandoned rail line slicing through my backyard. Back in the 1800s, the railroads bought the property for their lines. The railroad had to maintain a crossing for the owners to get to the back 100 acres of the farm. When the line was abandoned, it was eventually deeded to the county for a bike/hike trail. Better than the RR paying taxes on unused land. The land could only have ended up in my hands by “adverse possession,” as I didn’t own it. It was private property.
This may also be the case in Maine, or anywhere a RR existed in the 1800s and forward. Not an easement!
The rail right-of-way already belongs to the railroad. They have the legal right to run freight trains on it again, if that were to prove economical. They could abandon the right-of-way by selling it to the adjacent property owners.
Given the economics of train service and the inevitable impact controversy that resuming rail service would involve, the railroad is doing the community a favor by deeding it over to Rails-To-Trails (or other such organization) for quiet pedestrian use. But no - some lawyer cooked up the concept of "reversionary rights", which would if upheld give adjacent landowners the right to take back railroad property without paying for it. So far as I'm concerned, file this one under "I moved close to the airport, so now I'm protesting it."
On the other hand...why couldn't we have hiking/biking/riding trails co-existing with current rail-lines?
The question of whether the easement reverts or not went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously against reversion.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/1/
U.S. Supreme Court
Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1 (1990)
Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Commission
No. 88-1076
Argued Nov. 1, 1989
Decided Feb. 21, 1990
494 U.S. 1
Syllabus
Because preexisting federal law failed to deal adequately with the national problem of shrinking rail trackage, Congress enacted the National Trails System Act Amendments of 1983 (Amendments) to the National Trails System Act (Trails Act), which authorize the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC or Commission) to preserve for possible future railroad use rights-of-way not currently in service and to allow interim use of the land as recreational trails. Section 8(d) of this so-called “rails-to-trails” statute provides that a railroad wishing to cease operations along a particular route may negotiate with a State, municipality, or private group prepared to assume financial and managerial responsibility for the right-of-way. If the parties reach agreement, the land may, subject to ICC-imposed terms and conditions, be transferred to the trail operator for interim trail use notwithstanding whatever reversionary interests may exist in the property under state law. If no agreement is reached, the railroad may abandon the line entirely, thereby allowing the property to revert to abutting landowners if the terms of applicable easements and state law provide for such reversion. After Vermont Railway, Inc., stopped using a right-of-way adjacent to petitioners’ land in Vermont, petitioners brought a state court quiet title action, alleging that the railroad’s easement had been abandoned and thus extinguished, and that the right-of-way had therefore reverted to them under state law. Holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the ICC had not authorized
Page 494 U. S. 2
abandonment of the route, and therefore still exercised exclusive jurisdiction over it, the court dismissed the action, and the State Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioners then sought a certificate of abandonment from the ICC, but the Commission granted a petition to permit the railroad to discontinue rail service and transfer the right-of-way to the city of Burlington for interim trail use under § 8(d). The Federal Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioners’ contentions that § 8(d) is unconstitutional on its face because it takes private property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment and because it is not a valid exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power.
Held:
1. Even if the rails-to-trails statute gives rise to a taking, compensation is available under the Tucker Act, and the requirements of the Fifth Amendment are therefore satisfied. Since the Amendments and their legislative history do not mention the Tucker Act — which provides Claims Court jurisdiction over claims against the Government to recover damages founded on, inter alia, the Constitution — the Amendments do not exhibit the type of “unambiguous intention” to withdraw the Tucker Act remedy that is necessary to preclude a claim under that Act. See Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 467 U. S. 1019. Section 101 of the Amendments — which provides that
“authority to . . . make payments . . . under this Act shall be effective only to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriation Acts”
does not, as petitioners claim, indirectly manifest the necessary intent by rendering “unauthorized,” as not approved by Congress for payment in advance, any rail-to-trail conversion that could result in Claims Court litigation. Since § 8(d) speaks in capacious terms of interim use of any right-of-way, it clearly authorizes conversions giving rise to just compensation claims, and therefore does not support petitioners’ contention. That there is no explicit promise to pay for any takings is irrelevant, since the Tucker Act constitutes an implied promise to pay just compensation which individual laws need not reiterate. Moreover, § 101 speaks only to payments under the Amendments themselves, and not to takings claims that “arise” under the Fifth Amendment and for which payments are made “under” the Tucker Act from the separately appropriated Judgment Fund. Nor do statements in the legislative history indicating Congress’ desire that the Amendments operate at “low cost” demonstrate an unambiguous intent to withdraw the Tucker Act remedy, since a generalized desire to protect the public fisc is insufficient for that purpose, see, e.g., Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102, 419 U. S. 127-128, and since the statements might simply reflect Congress’ rejection of a more ambitious program of federally owned and managed trails. Because petitioners’ failure to make use of the available Tucker Act remedy
Page 494 U. S. 3
renders their takings challenge to the ICC’s order premature, there is no need to determine whether a taking occurred. Pp. 494 U. S. 11-17.
2. The Amendments are a valid exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power. The stated congressional purposes — (1) to encourage the development of additional recreational trails on an interim basis and (2) to preserve established railroad rights-of-way for future reactivation of rail service — are valid objectives to which the Amendments are reasonably adapted. Even if petitioners were correct that the rail banking purpose is a sham concealing a true purpose of preventing reversion of rights-of-way to property owners after abandonment, the Amendments would still be valid because they are reasonably adapted to the goal of encouraging the development of additional trails. There is no requirement that a law serve more than one legitimate purpose. Moreover, this Court is not free under the applicable rational basis standard of review to hold the Amendments invalid simply because the rail banking purpose might be advanced more completely by measures more Draconian than § 8(d) — such as a program of mandatory conversions or a prohibition of all abandonments. The long history of congressional attempts to address the problem of rail abandonments provides sufficient reason to defer to the legislative judgment that § 8(d) is an appropriate answer. Furthermore, in light of that history, Congress was entitled to make the judgment that every line is a potentially valuable national asset meriting preservation even if no future rail use for it is currently foreseeable, so that the fact that the ICC must certify that public convenience and necessity permit abandonment before granting an interim trail use permit does not indicate that the statute fails to promote its purpose of preserving rail corridors. Pp. 494 U. S. 17-19.
853 F.2d 145 (CA2 1988), affirmed.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. O’CONNOR, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., joined, post, p. 494 U. S. 20.
Page 494 U. S. 4
Yes but/
In Maine it may be used for snowmobiles. The trail would help with tourism but lots of noise too.
And outsiders without a clue.
The trails will probably be used by snowmobilers and atys. It is actually in ‘eastern’ Maine. It won’t be the financial panacea that has been proposed.
This rail line goes through many swampy areas. It really won’t be a pleasure to hike.
The city where I live was initially against turning the abandoned rail lines through town into hiking/biking trails. Now that it has been a number of years since the trails have been opened it has been great for the town. The waterfront area has been cleaned up, old factory buildings renovated, a marina is being built, an amphitheater was built that is now host to many events, and it has just generally been a boon for economic development, recreation, and overall town aesthetics.
Without the program, many of those corridors would have reverted to private ownership.
Good luck creating a railway corridor through housing developments.
I meant for them to be using the same Right Of Way....
I live in a very, very rural area. The abandoned railways are gated and locked.
I wouldn't want some city slicker hiking down that old rail-bed looking at my cattle...and thinking they knew what was best for them.
fwiw-
Well I knew that you didn’t mean them hiking on the tracks themselves. Except stupid people would do exactly that if given access.
BUT: it's always possible that someone will invent a carbon fiber, totally silent, elevated transit structure that builds itself and runs on moonbeams. Keeping the old railroad right-of-way in one piece as a pedestrian trail would allow it to be reopened for dual use. Once such a continuous right-of-way disappears entirely in a developed area, it's de facto impossible to get back.
You can’t fence in stupid.
You’re joking, of course, but numerous people are hard at work trying to make an economical (overhead) monorail for passenger transport. This would allow it to be put easily in areas without existing right-of-way corridors. I’ve given to understand that there’s a federal law that would allow it to be put down the middle of interstate corridors which makes it a whole lot easier to install in crowded urban areas.
The rail at-grade rights-of-way are sufficiently wide that, in the event of a derailment, the cars won’t take out anyone standing nearby. This makes them much wider than is required to simply run the train.
I agree with your observation that once the ROW disappears it’s almost impossible to get back.
Not In My Back Yard !
They’re doing something similar about 6 blocks from my home in South San Francisco, converting old Southern Pacific RR tracks to a walking trail. We welcome it, because it will beautify the area. Intersections surrounding the rails have been cleared of old businesses (gas stations, car dealerships, etc.). I guess through eminent domain? They’re putting in parks and playgrounds around the trails. Another nearby rail-line was taken over by a rapid-transit extension (BART). I don’t think the old trains are ever coming back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.