Posted on 02/23/2009 4:41:18 AM PST by tj21807
"Dale Henderson, a prominent Maine landowner who owns two pieces of land that the new trail runs through, is challenging the state over ownership of parts of the new Sunrise Trail. About 50 miles of the project recently was opened to hikers, bikers, cross-country skiers, snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles.
But Henderson isn’t waiting for the courts to decide his fate. He already has taken matters into his own hands.
The landowner recently erected barricades to stop users from traversing his property. In the town of Hancock, Henderson put up a berm on the tracks at one end and a stone wall at the other end. On a smaller piece of land in the Washington County town of Steuben, he built berms on both ends of the 50-acre property where the tracks run through."
(Excerpt) Read more at bangordailynews.com ...
“Virgil Bliss was the dirtiest man in Hancock County”.
Good for him.the state has no business putting bike/skimobile trails on his land.
It is a former railroad right-of-way, though. Is it his property? Did he purchase it from the former railroad?
Trails are covered by insurance policies purchaced by the towns, just as regular parks are.
It is more than likely that he may own the land but it carries an easement or right of way for a railroad that is long gone. The railway route is now a trail and may be very legal.
The land owner is likely not aware of the old right of way ownership. A real estate agent may have told him the old easement no longer applied. When the rail road ceased, it might have been ceded to the state for back taxes.
from the article
“Based on our research, we’re confident he owns that former rail bed and therefore has a right to post his property."
True, but not if that person wanders off the trail (chasing wildlife, to find a scenic view, use the restroom, etc.) into his property and then gets hurt.
This guy wanted a fence built alongside the trail to prevent that from happening.
If someone gets hurt on his barriers, the State will have more than just a trail thru that property - they’ll have a park.
Never read the article.
Or it may be that his deed carried a reversion clause that upon abandonment by the rr, the right-of-way would revert back to the deedholder.
I know for a fact that the rail-to-trail fanatics would like to make you believe otherwise.
This same thing happened to me. I fought the trail successfully because the rr had abandoned the property a decade before and my deed said I recovered the right-of-way. The County did everything short of eminent domain, then abandoned the idea when it was pointed out to them how much it would cost to buy 15 miles of former right-of-way.
.....it may be that his deed carried a reversion clause .....
I know. It may also be, as it locally occurred, that at some point the state acquired the right of way as creditor of the railroad and the route was never abandoned.
It causes never ending hard feelings.
Some rail easements ceded land back and some did not. Sounds like his lawyer did the research and will not allow his land to be torn up by atv’s
That was the point of erecting the berms and barriers. If the landowner simply tried to negotiate with the State of Maine, the process would've been unending. Now, it will be resolved one way or another in court.
It also looks like the landowner would settle for the State springing for some fencing.
Personally I hope he wins.
Says who? If people want to tramp over country land let them buy farms and tramp over their own land. Otherwise go to existing parks or stay home. The last thing this country needs is an expansion of government ownership of property.
“A real estate agent may have told him the old easement no longer applied. “
Who, in his right mind would consult a real estate agent over legal properity matters.....
.......Who, in his right mind would consult a real estate agent over legal properity matters.......
The same guy who paid no money down on an adjustable rate loan
We once had a settlement that included an old railroad right of way. ( in Pennsylvania) The lawyer for the buyer explained to them that the RR easement was there and what it meant. It had to be discussed. The agent selling the property stormed out and sat in her car. She thought to much time was spent on the items in the title search. At that time the RR could come back and run a line or the township could possibly make it a nature trail of some sort. The buyers were well aware of the RR bed and issues involved.
“Based on our research, we’re confident he owns that former rail bed and therefore has a right to post his property.”
There usually is at least two sides to disputes that enter the legal system. Here is the statement from the other side so in effect it will wind up in court for a determination as to the ownership.
snip.....
Mark Latti, spokesman for the Maine Department of Transportation, disagreed.
“In our view, he has defaced public property,” Latti said of the barricades. “We’re going to take the appropriate action through the legal system.”
Henderson already has two active lawsuits against the state, one in Hancock County Superior Court, the other in Washington County. Both challenge the assumption that the state owns a right of way to the former Maine Central Railroad Co. train tracks.
end snip........
I suspect that the land owner is this situation, has consulted with lawyers, and feels he is on firm ground by blocking access...I would do the same, accept I may have offered to sell the right away to the government, or better lease it out for 10 year periods....
Lets hope there's not so many illegals trying to cross his land or they'd own it by now.
Possible and has happened before BUT if you fail to secure your property rights, you can lose them. Granted this frequently takes years of 'OPEN AND NOTORIOUS USE' but when you are fighting government, it is best to be very proactive. Just posting "No Trespassing" signs on the trail would probably be insufficient. An entity that can only be sued with its own permission is a difficult thing to fight, you have to start strong from the beginning!
Locally in Kansas, this is as big an issue as anywhere else. The legality of ‘rails to trails’ is being played out in the courts. Even if it does turn out to be legal, property owners have other complaints, that the local government has not addressed.
1. People violate the hours and ride on the trails in the middle of the night.
2. Riders do not necessarily stay on the old railroad row, and gradually ‘widen’ the trail, sometimes doing crop damage.
3. Riders sometimes steal things - usually picking crops out of fields.
4. Riders leave trash, and some even use the private property as a personal restroom.
When property owners complain, the county just shrugs it shoulders. If they can’t control the trail, they should either close it to the public, or fence it.
As to the legality, there are all sorts of leases, so who knows. But, at its core, these ROW were taken to be used for railroads. Allowing them to be used as a public recreation area does not at all meet the original intent. I would be furious if this happened to me. Its one thing to have a RR, or even a road, through ones property...but a recreation area, with ATV’s and horses? No way.
ROFLOL!! Bull-Loney..!!
Land owners get sued for people trespassing that get hurt or ???....Let alone if you let them come on your land, and you don't tell them of every hazard on that land.
They may not win....but land owners WILL get sued...and have to DEFEND themselves...which costs $$$$
A "right-of-way" is, by definition, an easement to use land in which the "fee" (or absolute) title belongs to someone else. If the use for which the right-of-way was granted has been abandoned, the owner of the fee is entitled to retake exclusive possesion or to be compensated for the additional taking.
The state always assumes it is right going from the premise “might makes right” More power to this guy for taking the greedy b@stards on.
however there is the abandonment argument.
If the city wants the easement back they have to pay for it as if in never existed.
Many of the trails in populated areas and suburbs have turned out to be a big mistake. They have become another well intentioned expensive government boondoggle rendered unusable by unforeseen consequences.
Trails in my county have become arteries feeding victims to muggers and rapers who can easily lurk along the trails in the many great ambush spots provided by the landscape designers.
They also provide easy access routes for criminals to cruise neighborhoods bordering the trail or where the trail passes through subdivisions.
The trails provide cover for them in two ways:
They have a plausible reason to be on the trail, cruising neighborhoods as exercisers or nature lovers.
The trees, landscaping and natural growth provide cover for lurking, ambusing or watching (casing) homes.
My neighborhood successfully fought expansion of a nearby trail through the neighborhood based on the high crime figures for the existing trail nearby.
Trail usage in some areas has dropped to almost zero because of the crime.
I've never seen or heard of it happening around here. I personally let the local kids ride ATV’s, etc.. on my property. I have three rules: Stay in the woods, do not cut any trees and have fun. It's been 14 years without a problem.
In most cases, a railroad easement is worded as being for “transportation uses”. Right or wrong, the use of the easement for bicycles, jogging, and walking meets that definition (at least according to some court cases a couple of decades ago. If it is not being used for “transportation uses”, it will revert to the owner.
In one case around here, the bus company looked into using abaondoned railroad ROW as dedicated bus routes. When they found that they did not go where anyone who uses a bus wants to go, they dropped it. The city grabbed it for trail uses.
If the railroad actually owned the property (instead of using an easement), the owner would have to buy it, get a deed, and record it. It doesn’t sound like that is the case here.
‘Having long right of ways under public ownership may be a big plus if some future technology makes them useful for transportation use again. In the meantime trails and parks will be a good use. ‘
respecting property owners rights is also a good use.
Good for you, its nice that you have a choice to let them play on your land.
It would also be nice to give property owners the choice not to allow people to play on their land.
Absolutely. People should stay in the park and not harm the property of others.
I hope you are not saying we should not have parks because someone might wander off the reservation?
I think it's worth noting that the term "abandonment" has a very specific legal definition when it comes to railroads in the U.S. Whenever I see one of these out-of-service railroad rights-of-way or rail trails (we have a bunch of both in New Jersey) I wonder exactly how far along the formal abandonment process is -- or how long it took to complete it.
I don’t believe it. There is no crime on the trails in Suburban Detroit.
The whole purpose of having a state or county government acquire this sort of property in a railroad abandonment process is to preserve the right-of-way and keep it intact for possible future use (most likely a restoration of the rail service, though they are also ideal for utility easements in some places). The cost of re-acquiring the land to re-create the right-of-way in the future would be enormoug.
Putting a hiking/biking trail on the alignment allows for a very benign public use while the right-of-way is preserved.
“I hope you are not saying we should not have parks because someone might wander off the reservation?”
Not at all. However I do object to the State taking peoples property.
The Railroad took peoples property and that wasn’t right. And although an ATV or bicycle is technically ‘transportation’ the use is primarily entertainment and is not right.
Go to the Smoky Mountains and you’ll find dozens of homes that the govt took away from people so it could make a park. Is that right? Is your right to go hiking greater than that families right to their home? Its no different for these cases.
And that's the way it should be.....IMO
But it's not like that everywhere.....
This is what I said, only you said it better.
Thanks. I pinged you to that post because I was trying to reinforce your point. We’re on the same page!
We had a contact at the RR who was able to get the details on the abandonment and point us to the court where the abandonment was recorded. Without that it would have cost us a lot of extra time and legal fees.
You are correct. But, please spare a moment for the landowners.
These old right-of-ways are often along people’s backyards, which makes them very difficult to police and maintain. In many cases they bifurcate a property in a way that makes getting to the other side of the property legally impossible - that was true in my case. I would have lost access to 12 acres. The county had no plans to deal with these issues.
We had a trail just a few miles away where there were, in 7 years, 3 unsolved rapes that occurred to girls in their own backyards, people who came off the trail to trespass in people’s backyards, and a huge problem with trash and noise. There is never a sufficient budget to handle these issues; it’s not cost-effective to fence or police a narrow ribbon that is often 10-20 miles long.
Until you address those issues there will continue to be massive resistance by landowners.
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.