I am not a lawyer, but didn't the SCOTUS allow a take over of residential property in the northeast a few years ago? I do not know if any properties were occupier owned or rentals, but I remember that the court ruled in favor of business re-development.
Back in the day, I was a realtor for a year or so (obviously not a good one). There was a concept named "highest and best use" - the premise was based on the idea that the more profit that could be realized out of any piece of property was its best use, regardless of environmental or social concerns.
There was also a provision that would allow a "person" who encroached/used another's property to claim rights to it after a certain period of time (as long as no legal complaints were lodged by the encroached party).
This looks bad for even existing trails.
I'll be happy to stand corrected if I am wrong.