Supreme Court may have just put in jeopardy Rails to Trails existing and future?
#1
Cat 5 field stuffer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hammond, La
Posts: 1,426
Bikes: Wabi Lightning RE, Wabi Classic
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
3 Posts
Supreme Court may have just put in jeopardy Rails to Trails existing and future?
Check out this recent court ruling..
#2
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: lower mitten
Posts: 1,555
Bikes: With round 700c & 26" wheels
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
It's a never ending war between US and THEM. "Bunch of bold, fat" bureaucrats are deciding how fit America must be, from behind their desks.
I do most of my yearly miles on Rails to trails in MI and surrounding states.
I hope someone smart will step in and shake their lazy asses lol
I do most of my yearly miles on Rails to trails in MI and surrounding states.
I hope someone smart will step in and shake their lazy asses lol
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 177
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Good. In the case mentioned here, the "trail" was destined for private property.
I wouldn't want somebody running a trail through my yard, if they thought a county sewer easement allowed them to build trails. Similar idea.
I wouldn't want somebody running a trail through my yard, if they thought a county sewer easement allowed them to build trails. Similar idea.
#4
Senior Member
Most of my summer miles are made on the local rail-trail. For the most part, the homes look newer than the trail around here.
The local kids seem to enjoy it, as they ride up and down the trail in the summertime like they own it. On the hottest days, its not uncommon to see a lemonade stand or two so it's proven that living near a rail trail can be profitable .
The local kids seem to enjoy it, as they ride up and down the trail in the summertime like they own it. On the hottest days, its not uncommon to see a lemonade stand or two so it's proven that living near a rail trail can be profitable .
#5
Senior Member
Green ways jack up property values...
They are a great investment just from the tax perspective.
They are a great investment just from the tax perspective.
#6
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: lower mitten
Posts: 1,555
Bikes: With round 700c & 26" wheels
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Yup, a lot of reading here: Trails and property values
The only problem with Greenaways/Rails-to-trails is privacy issue for people whos houses are next to it. That sucks to have an abandoned trailway on your backyard for years, and then bunch of people using it and watching your every move thru your back windows Most opponents wory about people having access to their previously secured backyards, and stealing stuff and their organic carrots lol I think that having direct access to a nice trail is always a huge plus.
The only problem with Greenaways/Rails-to-trails is privacy issue for people whos houses are next to it. That sucks to have an abandoned trailway on your backyard for years, and then bunch of people using it and watching your every move thru your back windows Most opponents wory about people having access to their previously secured backyards, and stealing stuff and their organic carrots lol I think that having direct access to a nice trail is always a huge plus.
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 548
Bikes: Too many
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Property rights have nothing to do with property values.
The tracks running over the private property does not provide runners and joggers or cyclists the right to use the landowner's property for recreation.
The tracks running over the private property does not provide runners and joggers or cyclists the right to use the landowner's property for recreation.
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 548
Bikes: Too many
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#10
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: lower mitten
Posts: 1,555
Bikes: With round 700c & 26" wheels
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
What the Marvin M. Brandt Case Means for America’s Rail-Trails
RTC TrailBlog » What the Marvin M. Brandt Case Means for America’s Rail-Trails
On March 10, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust et al. v. United States. The issue in this case was whether the federal government retains an interest in railroad rights-of-way that were created by the federal General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875, after the cessation of railroad activity on the corridor.
The Brandt property lies along the corridor of the Medicine Bow Rail Trail in Wyoming, a former disused rail corridor inside Medicine Bow National Forest that was converted into a public trail.
As the only national organization in America solely committed to defending the preservation of former railroad corridors for continued public use, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) filed an “amicus brief” in December 2013 supporting the established legal precedent that says the United States does retain an interest in the corridor.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of Marvin Brandt. While RTC is disappointed by the decision, after examining the details of its potential impact, we believe that the vast majority of rail-trails and rail-trail projects will not be directly affected. Existing rail-trails or trail projects are not affected by this decision if any of the following conditions are met:
The ruling only affects non-railbanked corridors that were created from federally granted rights-of-way through the 1875 Act. And we know that most railroad corridors created under this federal law are located west of the Mississippi River.
Because there isn’t a federal database on federally granted rights-of-way, it isn’t possible to answer exactly how many miles of corridor this applies to. What we can say is that, unfortunately, the ruling will likely increase future litigation over these corridors. We anticipate more cases in the future in which the federal government will be forced to compensate adjoining landowners in order to maintain public access to some well-loved trails.
This can be a significant challenge for the trail community. We need to ensure that fear of lawsuits does not deter people from moving forward with trails that communities need and have a right to build.
The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the 10th Circuit Court, where RTC’s legal team will work to narrow the ultimate impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Since 1986, RTC's legal program has fought to preserve rail corridors as public recreation and transportation assets at the local, national and federal levels in more than 50 cases, as well as before Congress and administrative agencies. RTC is the foremost, and often the only, legal advocate for rail-trails in the United States, work that is fully funded by RTC members.
[HR][/HR]Posted Mon, Mar 17 2014 1:45 PM by Amy Kapp
Filed under: supreme court, Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust
What the Marvin M. Brandt Case Means for America?s Rail-Trails - RTC TrailBlog - Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
RTC TrailBlog » What the Marvin M. Brandt Case Means for America’s Rail-Trails
On March 10, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust et al. v. United States. The issue in this case was whether the federal government retains an interest in railroad rights-of-way that were created by the federal General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875, after the cessation of railroad activity on the corridor.
The Brandt property lies along the corridor of the Medicine Bow Rail Trail in Wyoming, a former disused rail corridor inside Medicine Bow National Forest that was converted into a public trail.
As the only national organization in America solely committed to defending the preservation of former railroad corridors for continued public use, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) filed an “amicus brief” in December 2013 supporting the established legal precedent that says the United States does retain an interest in the corridor.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of Marvin Brandt. While RTC is disappointed by the decision, after examining the details of its potential impact, we believe that the vast majority of rail-trails and rail-trail projects will not be directly affected. Existing rail-trails or trail projects are not affected by this decision if any of the following conditions are met:
- The rail corridor is “railbanked.” (This is the federal process of preserving former railway corridors for potential future railway service by converting them to multi-use trails.)
- The rail corridor was originally acquired by the railroad by a federally granted right-of-way through federal lands before 1875.
- The railroad originally acquired the corridor from a private land owner.
- The trail manager owns the land adjacent to the rail corridor.
- The trail manager owns full title (fee simple) to the corridor.
- The railroad corridor falls within the original 13 colonies.
The ruling only affects non-railbanked corridors that were created from federally granted rights-of-way through the 1875 Act. And we know that most railroad corridors created under this federal law are located west of the Mississippi River.
Because there isn’t a federal database on federally granted rights-of-way, it isn’t possible to answer exactly how many miles of corridor this applies to. What we can say is that, unfortunately, the ruling will likely increase future litigation over these corridors. We anticipate more cases in the future in which the federal government will be forced to compensate adjoining landowners in order to maintain public access to some well-loved trails.
This can be a significant challenge for the trail community. We need to ensure that fear of lawsuits does not deter people from moving forward with trails that communities need and have a right to build.
The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the 10th Circuit Court, where RTC’s legal team will work to narrow the ultimate impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Since 1986, RTC's legal program has fought to preserve rail corridors as public recreation and transportation assets at the local, national and federal levels in more than 50 cases, as well as before Congress and administrative agencies. RTC is the foremost, and often the only, legal advocate for rail-trails in the United States, work that is fully funded by RTC members.
[HR][/HR]Posted Mon, Mar 17 2014 1:45 PM by Amy Kapp
Filed under: supreme court, Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust
What the Marvin M. Brandt Case Means for America?s Rail-Trails - RTC TrailBlog - Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: The Great Pacific NW
Posts: 162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I haven't bothered to read the opinion because I'm lazy.
That said, the only people America cares about is the Forbes Four Hundred.
You must be new here.
That said, the only people America cares about is the Forbes Four Hundred.
You must be new here.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 2,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Here though the vote is 8 to 1. It's pretty safe to say that the decision was a straightforward application of law without any gray areas.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: St. Pete, Fl
Posts: 129
Bikes: Trek 700 (2000ish), 88 Schwinn Voyaguer, late 80's-ish lugged Spalding mountain bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The decision may be legally proper, but can't his property still be forcibly purchased through eminent domain? Or is that just for cagers and highways?
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 548
Bikes: Too many
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
See the difference?
Sort of like the difference between a Thief/Squatter and a Renter.
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: St. Pete, Fl
Posts: 129
Bikes: Trek 700 (2000ish), 88 Schwinn Voyaguer, late 80's-ish lugged Spalding mountain bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes I see the difference. It costs money to make and maintain a bike trail no matter what. My main concern is that we continue to improve bike infrastructure, and that we don't loose bike trails that are currently in operation. Also after I saw this thread I listened to a podcast interview on the Outspoken Cyclist that helped explain the issue a bit.
Show #186 ? March 15, 2014 | OutspokenCyclist
Show #186 ? March 15, 2014 | OutspokenCyclist
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: The Great Pacific NW
Posts: 162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
On a more serious note though, yes, I was referring to abominations like Citizens United when I made that statement. See also Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, AT&T Mobility, Inc. v. Concepcion and others. And yes, it is the same five virtually every time.
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 548
Bikes: Too many
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes I see the difference. It costs money to make and maintain a bike trail no matter what. My main concern is that we continue to improve bike infrastructure, and that we don't loose bike trails that are currently in operation. Also after I saw this thread I listened to a podcast interview on the Outspoken Cyclist that helped explain the issue a bit.
Show #186 ? March 15, 2014 | OutspokenCyclist
Show #186 ? March 15, 2014 | OutspokenCyclist
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Spokane/Tri-Cities WA
Posts: 1,385
Bikes: mountain bike, road bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Also, I can't believe a Mod hasn't bounced this thread to the politics and religion forum.
__________________
"I've been dropped a lot of times, but it's never been because of my bike." DXchulo
"I've been dropped a lot of times, but it's never been because of my bike." DXchulo
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Catawampus
Posts: 306
Bikes: Sirrus, Midnight Special (almost there)
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 550 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Check out this recent court ruling..
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 548
Bikes: Too many
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Assuming you agree with the above statement I think this can be a sticky situation. If it had been done correctly at first the compensation would probably have been much less. Going back later it is difficult to get it right, because if it is a successful trail and has added value to the property then price is higher. Add to that the property owner has leverage in that he now owns something that someone else developed and the developer (state/county) has to secure the property or lose the entire trail system. I can't image a trail would be useful if it isn't continuous.
Also, I can't believe a Mod hasn't bounced this thread to the politics and religion forum.
Also, I can't believe a Mod hasn't bounced this thread to the politics and religion forum.
#21
"Fred"--is that bad?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 214 Represent!
Posts: 512
Bikes: Felt f85 (11); Trek 7.3 FX (07); Schwinn Super Sport (86); Specialized Rockhopper (87)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Many trails fall under this provision so the land does not go back to the 'rightful owner'. The railroad would be the rightful owner.
I may be incorrect, but I think in the course of the presentation, the person explaining it said that the railroad could come back at some point in the future and reclaim the land and reinstall rails. (Don't quote me on this part though--it had been a long day and I was waiting for him to get to the pictures of bikes and trails.)
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,238
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18415 Post(s)
Liked 15,545 Times
in
7,329 Posts
Once abandonment authroity is granted and steps are taken by the railroad to effectuate the abandonment (such as ripping up the tracks), what happens to the real property the rail line occupied depends on the type of property interest the railroad has. In many cases, especially in the east and midwest, the railroad purchased fee titles to their rights of way. In such cases, the railroad continues to own the real poperty post-abandonment. It can, among other things, sell the real estate, in whole or in part, or donate it to an organization for trail development. If, on the other hand, the grant to the railroad created only an easement, that easement is extinguished upon effectuation of the abandonment and the railroad loses all right to occupy or use the real estate. There are variations on this. For example, a railroad may have purchased a fee interest subject to reverter, which means that it owns the property (as opposed to having merely an easement) but that its ownership reverts to the original property owner (or his or her successor in the chain of title) once the line is abaondoned.
What interest the railroad originally received is, in most cases, determined by the law of the state where the subject rail line is located. In the recent case before the Supreme Court, the land for the right of way was granted pursuant to federal law, so federal law determined what interest the railroad received.
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,238
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18415 Post(s)
Liked 15,545 Times
in
7,329 Posts
It almost certainly can be condemned through eminent domain. He would be entitled to compensation.
As noted, this opinion is limited to a very distinct set of circumstances, and the decision was driven in large part by the fact that a long time ago, the government argued in another case that land grants under the statute at issue only conveyed easements, not fee titles. It did so because the raillroad there was asserting fee title and the government wanted title so it could exploit the mineral rights. In that case, the Supreme Court agreed with the government that a land grant under the statute only conveyed an easement. In this case, the government took a contrary position, arguing that a land grant under the very same statute granted fee title to the railroad and that when the railroad left, title reverted back to the government, giving it the right to maintain the trail through the petitioner's land.
What puzzles me is why the government decided to pay lawyers rather than use the money to condemn an easement to continue the trail use. According to the opinion, the right of way was 200' wide and ran for nearly a half mile through petitioner's property, making a total occupation of about 10 acres. I am no land valuation expert, but I have to wonder what sort of compensation would be "just" in that area. I would be even more puzzled if they did not need the entire 200' in width for the trail. That's a very wide trail.
Personally, I don't buy the petitioner's claim the trail ruined his view. I think he simply wanted to get paid. That is certainly his right, but be honest about it. My thought is that he didn't want to seem like a jerk by saying "Yep. This is all about money."
P.S. Memebers of the Supreme Court of the United States are called "justices," not "judges."