I was reading the newswire story about BNSF's quest to expand it's Hudson Colorado logistics center. Interesting, but the story seemed absent relevant details that would have made it seem more informative, and less the "teaser" that it was.
They mention the need to employ eminent domain to unseat "holdout" owners who were not onboard with their ambitions. It would have given a more meaningful experience if the story had given more particulars describing the "hold out" parcels. I mean are we talking about 100 acres smack dab in the middle, stubbornly holding out to take advantage of the situation? Or are we talking about competing interests? Or even perhaps big business ambitions to crush a family homestead? The story was woefully lacking in details.
At the very least the story could have quantified "most" as well as "remaining" in terms of the land area involved.
BNSF bought over $15 million in land (over 1440 acres) in unincorporated Weld County toward the end of 2020, with the intent of expanding the scope of the "logistics park" at Hudson. It is possible they did this even knowing that certain 'holdout' owners, as at Sanger, would try to hold up buildout of the expansion -- MC can discuss how eminent domain becomes easier for developers with extensive 'skin in the game' and ability to get things done.
It is also possible that BNSF would rather prefer not discussing strategy, and Newswire's source is doing some muckraking. I doubt the current standard of journalism at the Newswire would pick up on this.
You see what I'm saying though, right? The reality could be anything from soup to nuts. From a neighbor having legitimate interests who feels BNSF has not tendered a fair offer, all the way to some opportunist bent upon exploiting his "half acre" for unconscionable gain.
More specifics in the story would have made it more valuable to the reader.
The buyer frequently tends to discount the current value of land not contributing to their ambition. What appears to be no more than "50 acres of scrub" to the buyer, might be the only grazing land adjacent to the ranch from the seller's perspective.(just a generalization)
If being compelled to sell 500 acres of my land negatively impacts my ability to make good use of the remaining 1000 acres adjacent, then perhaps there should be an expectation that the buyer must pay a fair price on the entire 1500 acres, instead of leaving me "crippled" just to accomodate BNSF's masterplan.
Convicted OneThey mention the need to employ eminent domain to unseat "holdout" owners who were not onboard with their ambitions.
Who mentioned that? Was it BNSF or the article author? If it was the author, was the idea that BNSF might uese Eminent Domain just an opinion of the author? I cannot imagine BNSF going public with such a statement.
EuclidWho mentioned that? Was it BNSF or the article author?
The article states " 10 requests at Weld County District Court in Greeley". So, I anticipate this was gleaned from public records?
District court seems an unlikely place to initiate land purchase between consensual principals...although I admit that I am only speculating in a vacuum of better details.
Here's an analogous situation.
My father-in-law owned an apartment complex in suburban Cincinnati about 15-20 years back. The state used eminent domain to take about 40% of the complex to widen a road. My father-in-law went to court to make the state purchase 100% of the property as the 60% they didn't want for the road wasn't financially viable without the 40% they did. And he won.
CW
Convicted One If being compelled to sell 500 acres of my land negatively impacts my ability to make good use of the remaining 1000 acres adjacent, then perhaps there should be an expectation that the buyer must pay a fair price on the entire 1500 acres, instead of leaving me "crippled" just to accomodate BNSF's masterplan.
You touch upon an aspect that is of acute intrest to me. I read a book several years ago recapping the "Kelo" case. And personally I have less objection when the taker is a public entity, taking land to be used for public roads, or public buildings.
But, whenever you have a private, for profit, interest doing the taking, I believe that extra layers of caution need be set in place to assure that the entity able to afford the best lawyers does not corrupt the process to their favor.
Convicted OneYou touch upon an aspect that is of acute intrest to me. I read a book several years ago recapping the "Kelo" case. And personally I have less objection when the taker is a public entity, taking land to be used for public roads, or public buildings. But, whenever you have a private, for profit, interest doing the taking, I believe that extra layers of caution need be set in place to assure that the entity able to afford the best lawyers does not corrupt the process to their favor.
Personally - If the eminent domain action is being done for the benefit of a private business - the price should be 100% of the owners request - no matter how outrageous it is. The private business intends to make many times more money out of the property than the cost of the property.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD If the eminent domain action is being done for the benefit of a private business - the price should be 100% of the owners request -
I agree.
Suppose I was one of those "selfish" land speculators.....as the interstate is built,.. I buy land adjacent to an overpass that I strongly suspect will become an interchange....."one day".
And I sit on that land paying property taxes for 25 years.....true the land lay in disuse for 25 years. But that's really immaterial to my strategy.
If forced to sell to a private end user, I deserve not just the current appraised value, but also a fair return on the property taxes I've paid to babysit the land for 25 years
(You're missing part of the driving reason behind what's going on here ....the railroads are being forced out of their existing hemmed-in yards in Denver. There are political forces in play in here with the railroads being forced to relocate by a severe pressure to declare 3 major railyards (CB&Q, DRGW and UP heritage) as "blighted" (plus another one that the planners now want)...the emminent domain is backed-up my political guarantees from the C&C of Denver to get what they want in downtown Denver... with the help of CDOT and developer money under the table - the newsworkers and the yellow press conveniently left that part of the story out) ... The emminent domain cases in Boulder and Denver counties are still fresh in the minds of many here)
Follow the money. (and some of the wonky non-railroad planners' assertions)
(The Weld County project largely replaces the ex-TOFC/COFC CB&Q Rennick Yard)
mudchickenthe C&C of Denver to get what they want in downtown Denver... with the help of CDOT and developer money under the table - the newsworkers and the yellow press conveniently left that part of the story out) ..
Of course you may feel free to elaborate in as much detail as you care to share.
Limited in what can be said. This has been evolving for 20+ years.
(Rennick/ Globeville-38th Street/ North Yard issues can all be found in the papers and UP-38th-Pullman is the newest addition to the circus. Developers and their political cronies have been lusting after the Denver railyards for expansion / re-development use for decades)
-And this is unrelated to CDOT buying UP/DRGW Burnham and the lead last year in one of the dumbest & misguided boondoggle exercises in Colorado history (maybe the history of earth)
Thanks! So I guess the thinking goes, since the relocation serves the intrests of Denver government, this taking is then deemed for the public good?
Know anything about how big the parcels of 'resistance' are at the new location?
Which can be found out pointed out by the resistance out in the open in the local papers:
(1) Light pollution
(2) Increase in traffic (ie - intermodal trucks)
(3) noise
and at least two of the locals bought land up there banking on something else rail related to happen, drinking the same funky kool-aid as the political hacks. It shows up writ large when you see the efforts to create a new state out of NE Colorado because of the idiots on an ego trip in charge in Denver. ) Denver seems to think that their POV is all that counts along with developers in the ski-resorts. You can see the resentment blossoming out in the flat half of the state. There is plenty more.
Parcels are not small, but they land in key places.
mudchickenParcels are not small, but they land in key places.
Okay, so there really is no "David vs Goliath" aspect, that's what I was really curious about.
Sounds like they need to get those Denver developers involved in covering the true cost of relocation?
Your comment about a state within a state tickled me. Having lived in both the San Francisco as well as LA areas, I recall how interesting sibling rivalry can be.
With 10 actions being instigated in the district court, it doesn't sound like just a small pocket of resistance that the railroad is facing.
BaltACD Convicted One You touch upon an aspect that is of acute intrest to me. I read a book several years ago recapping the "Kelo" case. And personally I have less objection when the taker is a public entity, taking land to be used for public roads, or public buildings. But, whenever you have a private, for profit, interest doing the taking, I believe that extra layers of caution need be set in place to assure that the entity able to afford the best lawyers does not corrupt the process to their favor. Personally - If the eminent domain action is being done for the benefit of a private business - the price should be 100% of the owners request - no matter how outrageous it is. The private business intends to make many times more money out of the property than the cost of the property.
Convicted One You touch upon an aspect that is of acute intrest to me. I read a book several years ago recapping the "Kelo" case. And personally I have less objection when the taker is a public entity, taking land to be used for public roads, or public buildings. But, whenever you have a private, for profit, interest doing the taking, I believe that extra layers of caution need be set in place to assure that the entity able to afford the best lawyers does not corrupt the process to their favor.
The Kelo case is an example of abuse of Eminent Domain. That was, taking private homes on desirable land, to build more expensive homes or other high end developement. Traditionally it had been used for public projects, or for private owned infrastructure such as utilities or transportation deemed for the good of the public. It would be hard to imagine that many railroads would have been built, if every landowner had the right to hold out for a $million per acre.
MidlandMike It would be hard to imagine that many railroads would have been built, if every landowner had the right to hold out for a $million per acre.
Didn't the railroads themselves play that game against each other?
Here in Indiana I have some 19th century plat maps that suggest the PRR was buying parcels to strategically block the Wabash.
And didn't Southern Pacific dance a little suarez around the docks in San Francisco?
Convicted One MidlandMike It would be hard to imagine that many railroads would have been built, if every landowner had the right to hold out for a $million per acre. Didn't the railroads themselves play that game against each other? Here in Indiana I have some 19th century plot maps that suggest the PRR was buying parcels to straegically block the Wabash. And didn't Southern Pacific dance a little suarez around the docks in San Francisco?
Here in Indiana I have some 19th century plot maps that suggest the PRR was buying parcels to straegically block the Wabash.
Seems like there was no shortage of abuse to go around.
An additional factor may be in play: If your property is taken by Eminate Domain the owner may then reinvest their proceeds in similar property without an income tax payment. So some owners may force the condemnation process to have that opportunity.
It's interesting to hear that land is in high demand once again in Denver. I recall back when oil shale collapsed, some owners of large commercial properties practically chewed their arm off to get away from that market.
Convicted One It's interesting to hear that land is in high demand once again in Denver. I recall back when oil shale collapsed, some owners of large commercial properties practically chewed their arm off to get away from that market.
mudchicken30 years .
That's about the time I was there. "See thru" office buildings, office furniture auctions that no one shows up for,...etc.
mudchicken Limited in what can be said. This has been evolving for 20+ years. (Rennick/ Globeville-38th Street/ North Yard issues can all be found in the papers and UP-38th-Pullman is the newest addition to the circus. Developers and their political cronies have been lusting after the Denver railyards for expansion / re-development use for decades) -And this is unrelated to CDOT buying UP/DRGW Burnham and the lead last year in one of the dumbest & misguided boondoggle exercises in Colorado history (maybe the history of earth)
I recall recently a newswire article about the proposed Front Range corridor, that Denver was trying to figure out how they would access a line to the south from Union Station. It seems that ROW was open until only about ten years ago, but now there are new high-rises on it.
I recall that that Supreme Court ruling was trying to indicate to the states that they needeed to rethink their own eminent domain laws, and with the public outcries about 9 out of 10 states did try to tighten their laws.
diningcar An additional factor may be in play: If your property is taken by Eminate Domain the owner may then reinvest their proceeds in similar property without an income tax payment. So some owners may force the condemnation process to have that opportunity.
I don't think that's right. I believe that if you voluntarily sell your property under threat of condemnation, that counts as an involuntary conversion under tax law. (You can do a like kind exchange with property that you sell just for the fun of it, too, but the rules are more restrictive.)
In other words, if you get an offer letter from a DOT saying that they need your land for a highway project, and you accept that offer, tax law treats your proceeds the same as if they had actually filed an eminent domain lawsuit against you.
Dan
dpeltier Yes Dan, I should have been more elaborate with my explanation. Sophisticated owners know this but 'Mom and Pop" may tell their attorney to make them file. diningcar An additional factor may be in play: If your property is taken by Eminate Domain the owner may then reinvest their proceeds in similar property without an income tax payment. So some owners may force the condemnation process to have that opportunity. I don't think that's right. I believe that if you voluntarily sell your property under threat of condemnation, that counts as an involuntary conversion under tax law. (You can do a like kind exchange with property that you sell just for the fun of it, too, but the rules are more restrictive.) In other words, if you get an offer letter from a DOT saying that they need your land for a highway project, and you accept that offer, tax law treats your proceeds the same as if they had actually filed an eminent domain lawsuit against you. Dan
Yes Dan, I should have been more elaborate with my explanation. Sophisticated owners know this but 'Mom and Pop" may tell their attorney to make them file.
dpeltiern other words, if you get an offer letter from a DOT saying that they need your land for a highway project, and you accept that offer, tax law treats your proceeds the same as if they had actually filed an eminent domain lawsuit against you. Dan
quote user="dpeltier
[/quote]
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.