Katy Trail landowners awarded $410,000
Brent Hugh
say the least, this has some serious ramifications for rails to trails
projects . . .
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48501-2002Nov27.html:
--
The U.S. government must pay $410,000 to 13 landowners whose property
was used to build a 225-mile hiking and biking trail in Missouri, a
federal court has ruled.
Total awards could reach $10 million by the time the court determines
compensation for 285 more landowners with property along the Katy
Trail who have claims pending, said Gary Heldt, a spokesman for the
landowners.
. . . The federal government is responsible for paying the awards
because the trail was built under guidelines of the national Rails to
Trails Act . . . An earlier Court of Claims ruling found that
landowners were entitled to compensation, because under Missouri law,
abandoned railroad easements revert to landowners.
--
See also:
http://news.ozarksnow.com/news/katytrail112802.html
--Brent
+++++++++++++++++ Brent Hugh / bh...@mwsc.edu +++++++++++++++++
+ Missouri Western St College Dept of Music, St. Joseph, MO +
+ Missouri Bicycle Federation: http://www.MoBikeFed.org +
+ Piano Home Page: http://staff.mwsc.edu/~bhugh +
+ Earthquake Fugue: http://mp3.com/stations/MathMusic +
+++ Music of the Human Genome: http://mp3.com/brent_d_hugh +++
Jeff Potter
Let em starve.
A country gets the culture it deserves.
No trails, all cars, all the time.
--
Jeff Potter j...@outyourbackdoorNOSPAM.com
http://OutYourBackdoor.com -- a friendly ezine of modern folkways and
culture revival...offering a line of alternative books and a world of
bikes, boats, skis...plus shops for great sleeper books, videos and music
...plus nationwide "Off the Beaten Path" travel forums for local fun,
bumperstickers and a new social magnet stickers! ...Holy Smokes!!!
Hunrobe
wrote:
>
>This story appeared in the Washington Post & other media recently. To
>say the least, this has some serious ramifications for rails to trails
>projects . . .
>
>
>From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48501-2002Nov27.html:
That link is no longer functional but a search located the article. Based
solely on that article it doesn't appear to me that the ruling will be of any
great significance for a couple of reasons. First, it applies only to Missouri
and those States that have similiar laws reverting ownership of abandoned
railroad ROW property to individual landowners. Second, while $410K may seem a
lot of money to an individual (it certainly does to me <g>) it's a drop in the
ocean of federal transportation funding.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Stephen Harding
We've had a local rail trail extension held up for about 3 years from landowners
claiming ownership of the rail line right of way. They've lost every contest so
far, and are on their final state court case now. They're expected to lose
again.
Nonetheless, this story is of real concern to me. I'm a solid supporter of the
Rails-to-Trails organization and what they do. The multi-use trails are great,
and it's good national policy to "bank" these rail right of ways for possible
future use (maybe MagLev trains will someday catch on after our highways are
so clogged, no one can move on them).
Problem is owners get used to thinking the abandoned rail lines are part of
their property, and don't want streams of people "trespassing".
Sometimes, the right of way probably is their property, if the company operating
the rail line had an *easment*. Technically, it should thus go back to the
original owner when the use ended.
In other cases, the land was outright owned by the company operating the rail
line, and so it is most certainly not the property of the adjacent land owner.
Not certain which situation dominates in a national sense (easement or ownership).
But I feel even if the land was under easement, there is sufficient "national
interest" to bank the right of way, and make "temporary" use of it as a multi-
access rail trail, than to give it back to the adjacent land owners.
Landowners all across the country are becoming more organized in fighting rail
to trail conversions. So far, the banking process seems to have had the upper
hand in court, but I do not accept this as a future guaranteed result.
SMH
SP
news:20021205222648...@mb-da.aol.com...
> Second, while $410K may seem a
> lot of money to an individual (it certainly does to me <g>) it's a drop in
the
> ocean of federal transportation funding.
But it is a huge amount of money for rail-trails projects considering the
little amount they get each year. Just look at the mini budgets the rails 2
trails program gets. If these judgments become the norm, the rail 2 trails
projects are dead.
Hunrobe
wrote:
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said here. I think it's worth
mentioning again though that the case in point is 1) restricted to Missouri and
by extension to other States with similiar "reversion" statutes and 2) even in
those cases the legal question is, "Absent some type of criminal activity,
should the government be able to take private property and convert it to public
use ***without compensating*** the property owner?".
How exactly has your local rail trail extension been held up? Have the putative
landowners been offered compensation but refused it or is it more a question of
who actually owns the land? Since they've already lost in one or more State
courts then if it's the former they may be almost out of options and if it's
the latter they are out of options and just don't know it yet.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Hunrobe
wrote:
>But it is a huge amount of money for rail-trails projects considering the
>little amount they get each year. Just look at the mini budgets the rails 2
>trails program gets. If these judgments become the norm, the rail 2 trails
>projects are dead.
You might be right but it's also possible that judgements like that would be
used to justify larger appropriations to the projects. It wouldn't be the first
time that something became a problem and the feds threw money at it.
I also think it's important to keep in mind that it *is* a property rights
issue. Are rails to trails a good idea? I think they are but the intended use
of the property shouldn't trump the property owners' rights. Should I be
willing to let the government take my backyard and convert it to a public
picnic area without compensating me for it? My property would shrink in size
and consequently its resale value would decline yet I'd still be paying the
same mortgage. Is there anyone that thinks that would be equitable?
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Stephen Harding
> I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said here. I think it's worth
> mentioning again though that the case in point is 1) restricted to Missouri and
> by extension to other States with similiar "reversion" statutes and 2) even in
> those cases the legal question is, "Absent some type of criminal activity,
> should the government be able to take private property and convert it to public
> use ***without compensating*** the property owner?".
I'm definitely for respecting individuals property rights...within limitations
of generally accepted "public good" (I don't want my neighbor mining lead or
opening up a car junk yard on his property next to my house).
If the public feels that private land conversion to public access trail is in
the general public interest, then they should be willing to pay for it. If
establishment of wolves in Yellowstone is supposed to be a national asset, then
the public should compensate ranch owners that may suffer some losses as a result,
rather than shifting all economic costs on to them and saying "tough luck, its
for the country". Pay up if it's really that important (and I think it is).
> How exactly has your local rail trail extension been held up? Have the putative
> landowners been offered compensation but refused it or is it more a question of
> who actually owns the land? Since they've already lost in one or more State
> courts then if it's the former they may be almost out of options and if it's
> the latter they are out of options and just don't know it yet.
It's a question of who actually owns the land. Was the rail line an easement on
individual's property or was it never their property to begin with? I think the
line dates back from about the late 1870's, an multiple ownership transactions
have somewhat clouded the issue.
There's a group of three or four landowners (one of whom has the line going right
between house and barn, so I understand their concern in that case) that simply
won't give up the ship. Many other land owners seem to have accepted their fate,
while a few others actually welcome the project.
Interestingly, the Northampton rail trail is now advertised as a "feature" of
houses being sold nearby. "Easy access to the rail trail". People were originally
afraid it would cost them real estate value but at least locally, it's been just
the opposite!
SMH
Brent Hugh
I looked into this issue a little more and it turns out that the
situation is quite a bit different (and more complex) than I
originally thought.
For starters, although the payments may in some cases turn out to be
relatively large, the local government or organization operating the
trail NEVER is responsible for paying the judgement. It is the
responsibility of the federal government, and (legally in the
judgement of the courts) the payment is NOT because the right-of-way
is being used as a trail, but rather because it is being removed from
active service and "railbanked". The authority to do this comes from
the federal govt's "rails-to-trails act" and that is why the federal
govt, not local govt's are responsible for paying any payments to land
owners.
In some states and in some situations, when a rail right-of-way is
railbanked, this amounts technically to abandonment of the
right-of-way (because tracks are pulled up, etc.). In other states
and other situations, railbanking does not amount to abandonment.
In some states and some situations (having to do with the exact
details of how the right-of-way was granted by the original land
owner), if the right-of-way is considered "abandoned", then the
easement reverts to the landowner.
Under the rails-to-trails act, however, in this situation the easement
will not revert to the landowner.
It is important for both landowners and local govts to understand this
point: the land owners are NOT going to get the land back. This point
has been litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court and the
government won absolutely. They have the right to take the rail
right-of-ways and railbank them. Under the rails-to-trails act the
govt is exercising this right and that is that. You don't have to
like it, but it's a fact . . .
So the ONLY legal question remaining is whether, under the 5th
amendment, land owners are owed additional compensation for this
"taking" of their land. (Note that I specify "additional"
compensation on purpose: land owners were paid in one way or another
when the original rail right-of-way easement was granted.)
Again, IF all the ducks line up in a row (the railbanked right of way
is considered "abandoned" under state law, the easement stipulated
that the right-of-way would revert if the right-of-way were abandoned)
then the land owner will get some compensation.
The compensation comes from some kind of federal fund maintained to
pay judgements that are granted against it.
From the federal govt's point=of-view, it is well worth it to pay the
few judgments that it loses, in order to maintain the integrity and
continuity of the rail right-of-way network. Essentially, they are
paying a few millions in order to prevent the disintegration of a
network worth trillions.
The payments have nothing to do with how valuable the right-of-way is
as a trail. The justification for them is based on how valuable the
right-of-way is as part of a complete national network of such
right-of-ways. The value of such a network is very high indeed.
You can find out a lot more about the background on this issue at:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju80320.000/hju80320_0.htm
By the way, this judgement has very little value as a precedent. Even
in Missouri, if property owners along another rail line were to bring
a similar suit, they would essentially be starting from scratch. This
is because the results of the lawsuit depend rather sensitively on the
state's laws (particularly those in force at the time the right-of-way
was created) and the precise language in the deeds and so on.
So another similar lawsuit, even in Missouri, might fail (or might
not) . . .
Mike Kruger
>
> The payments have nothing to do with how valuable the right-of-way is
> as a trail. The justification for them is based on how valuable the
> right-of-way is as part of a complete national network of such
> right-of-ways. The value of such a network is very high indeed.
>
Would it be OK with you if I quoted from your post (with attribution) on
other lists, or possibly a club newsletter (non-commercial)?
One valuable point you noted above is that right of ways tend to get used
for lots of things over time: electric lines, gas lines, oil pipelines,
water mains, telecommunications, etc. Even if the existing rail
right-of-way has not been used for these purposes, it can be valuable for
these purposes sometime in the future.
Patrick Lamb
>Second, while $410K may seem a
>lot of money to an individual (it certainly does to me <g>) it's a drop in the
>ocean of federal transportation funding.
Ain't that the truth! An interstate spur was completed some 8-10
years ago to within half a mile of my house. Total costs (with over
half the land in farms) ran to some $20 million per mile.
I keep wondering if they could get a 6' easement from the railroad
that parallels the interstate and build a bike path.
Pat
Hunrobe
wrote:
>I'm definitely for respecting individuals property rights...within
>limitations
>of generally accepted "public good" (I don't want my neighbor mining lead or
>opening up a car junk yard on his property next to my house).
>
>If the public feels that private land conversion to public access trail is in
>the general public interest, then they should be willing to pay for it. If
>establishment of wolves in Yellowstone is supposed to be a national asset,
>then
>the public should compensate ranch owners that may suffer some losses as a
>result,
>rather than shifting all economic costs on to them and saying "tough luck,
>its
>for the country". Pay up if it's really that important (and I think it is).
---snip---
Well put.
>> How exactly has your local rail trail extension been held up? Have the
>putative
>> landowners been offered compensation but refused it or is it more a
>question of
>> who actually owns the land? Since they've already lost in one or more State
>> courts then if it's the former they may be almost out of options and if
>it's
>> the latter they are out of options and just don't know it yet.
>
>It's a question of who actually owns the land. Was the rail line an easement
>on
>individual's property or was it never their property to begin with? I think
>the
>line dates back from about the late 1870's, an multiple ownership
>transactions
>have somewhat clouded the issue.
>
>There's a group of three or four landowners (one of whom has the line going
>right
>between house and barn, so I understand their concern in that case) that
>simply
>won't give up the ship. Many other land owners seem to have accepted their
>fate,
>while a few others actually welcome the project.
---snip---
I'd guess then that the fact that easements/acquisitions were made generations
ago is the real reason it's been held up for as long as it has. Hopefully,
there's an equitable solution for all parties.
>Interestingly, the Northampton rail trail is now advertised as a "feature" of
>houses being sold nearby. "Easy access to the rail trail". People were
>originally
>afraid it would cost them real estate value but at least locally, it's been
>just
>the opposite!
That's certainly the case in the Chicago area. All else being equal, property
that is close to the Illinois Prairie Path (a 200+ mile MUP system) is valued
higher than property farther away. Proximity to the IPP isn't as big of factor
as the local schools or access to the commuter rail system but it definitely
*is* a value enhancer when it comes to real estate.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Brent Hugh
> Would it be OK with you if I quoted from your post (with attribution) on
> other lists, or possibly a club newsletter (non-commercial)?
>
Feel free to use it as you would like!
Reuben Hick
> of the property shouldn't trump the property owners' rights.
But times have changed, and a once great country is now abandoning the
concept of property rights for the amusement and entertainment of those who
never have or may never own property.
One of the problems with trails is that people use them. Problem is that
people bring dogs, kids and garbage and usually leave the most undesirable
parts behind: Feces, noise, and trash. They tear up fences, break beer
bottles, harass the critters, and generally make a nuisance of themselves.
Making it easier for swine to get easy ingress and egress to remote private
property is also a security issue - is the guy hiding behind the tree
urinating or planning on stealing the lawn furniture?
Reuben Hick
> the federal govt's "rails-to-trails act" and that is why the federal
> govt, not local govt's are responsible for paying any payments to land
> owners.
The USC 5th Amendment makes them ultimately have to pay, but the
"rails-to-trails" act is a clear violation of both the 9th and 10th
amendments to the Bill of Rights. (supposedly trumped by the "commerce
clause"). "Rails To Trails" seems to not fit under Article 1 section 8
either, so there really is no legal or constitutional authority for the
fed-gov to confiscate private property for the amusment and entertainment of
people. But then again, the USC has been largely ignored since Marbury v
Madison.
Frank Krygowski
>
> One of the problems with trails is that people use them. Problem is that
> people bring dogs, kids and garbage and usually leave the most undesirable
> parts behind: Feces, noise, and trash. They tear up fences, break beer
> bottles, harass the critters, and generally make a nuisance of themselves.
> Making it easier for swine to get easy ingress and egress to remote private
> property is also a security issue - is the guy hiding behind the tree
> urinating or planning on stealing the lawn furniture?
I'm wondering how common those problems really are.
I attended public meetings before one rail-trail was built in our area.
The landowners nearby - including a married couple I know - were
adamantly against it, citing exactly the problems you quoted.
Now that it's built, that couple, plus the _most_ vocal opponent of the
trail, say it's a wonderful thing. They bought bikes to ride on it.
I've heard of almost no problems, and I've spoken with the police chief
in charge.
Concerning a different trail: I'm on a committee working to put a
walking path (_not_ bike path) in some publicly owned woods. Some of
the residents whose properties abut the woods (or who have illegally
extended their yards into the publicly owned woods) went before the town
council citing the problems you listed and more. For example, they
claimed kidnappers would lurk there, waiting for kids; that burglars
would use the trail for getaways after stealing televisions; that people
who were unfit would have heart attacks while walking (thus,
defibrillator stations would be mandatory); that a path in the woods
would drive away the deer and ducks... and so forth, ad nauseum.
It seems clear to me that these sorts of complaints are the desparate
spewings of NIMBYs.
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Reuben Hick
> spewings of NIMBYs.
This may be very true.
I see city parks that have trash and debris all over them, and I have seen
what happens when the homeowners in Interlochen (Arlington, TX) put out
their Christmas lights and have to deal with people using their lawns as
restrooms.
On the other hand, I have seen the path made from the old
Detroit-Toledo-Ironton railroad through Adrian, MI; and it appears to be a
long stretch of empty pavement through miles of woods and farmland - in
great order and clean. The trail appears to be a wonderful alternative to
risking one's life on M-52. But if one is real gung ho about making
activity paths, I like what Plano TX has done and that is to pave a curving
trail on the utility easement. In Austin, TX, they have merely declared
certain roads to be bike paths and haven't bothered to clue drivers in.
Dallas has gone through the trouble of making White Rock a world class trail
along the bayou/drainage-ditch.
I guess the R2T program's success has more to do with the demographics of
the actual users. Run it through the barrio, and expect the taggers to
treat it as new canvas; run it through a upscale community and all is well;
run it through a trailer park and expect some residents to store their old
sofa's along the path as ad hoc "park benches".
As a bicyclist, I would personally like to see interesting paths, and the
R2T program seems to fit that bill. OTOH, I must respect the fact that
private property is what produces wealth, and my personal amusement and
entertainment don't appear to be such a pressing need that it trumps
individual rights.
Under the concept of "general welfare", a relatively small minority of
people would ever use such paths, especially after the novelty wears off;
this would seem to me to be more meddling by the FedGov in affairs that the
country's founders tried to prevent from ever happening.
Zippy the Pinhead
"Reuben Hick" <reube...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xkSJ9.1597$657.19...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> is the guy hiding behind the tree urinating or planning on stealing the
lawn furniture?
I can do both at the same time!!!
Stephen Harding
> One of the problems with trails is that people use them. Problem is that
> people bring dogs, kids and garbage and usually leave the most undesirable
> parts behind: Feces, noise, and trash. They tear up fences, break beer
> bottles, harass the critters, and generally make a nuisance of themselves.
> Making it easier for swine to get easy ingress and egress to remote private
> property is also a security issue - is the guy hiding behind the tree
> urinating or planning on stealing the lawn furniture?
Those were all the arguments that were used against the local Northampton
and Norwottuck RTs. Also that it would provide easy access to back yards
for burglars, or persons stealing crops in fields.
None of that has happened though. In fact, a RT is now a selling point to
neighboring homes. "Easy access to the rail trail" is often listed as an
attribute of homes for sale. The RT has actually added value to local
property.
SMH
Brent Hugh
> > The authority to do this comes from
> > the federal govt's "rails-to-trails act" and that is why the federal
> > govt, not local govt's are responsible for paying any payments to land
> > owners.
>
> The USC 5th Amendment makes them ultimately have to pay, but the
> "rails-to-trails" act is a clear violation of both the 9th and 10th
> amendments to the Bill of Rights. (supposedly trumped by the "commerce
> clause").
Maybe so, but the Supreme Court has held exactly the opposite (see
http://www.geog.umn.edu/faculty/squires/courses/8344/web_pages/force/
for some history of rails-to-trails).
--Brent
+++++++++++++++++ Brent Hugh / bh...@mwsc.edu +++++++++++++++++
+ Missouri Western St College Dept of Music, St. Joseph, MO +
+ Piano Home Page : http://staff.mwsc.edu/~bhugh +
+ Music IQ Songs : http://mp3.com/MusicIQ +
++ Music of the Human Genome : http://mp3.com/brent_d_hugh ++++