If MC and I could find an appropriate opportunity (sucker ) who thinks he knows what the law is - like some of the trails people or revert-to-private-ownership bunch - without a good understanding of what's really going on, and then figure out a way to take a contrarian position with a large amount of money at stake, we could clean up pretty good and retire.
Lest someone draw the wrong conclusion: Both of us - and the law - are generally philosophically and professionally neutral in the results of these kinds of controversies. It depends much on the specific situation, the facts of the case at hand, and the law at the time, and let the chips fall where they may, one way or the other. The fun is in predicting the outcome. Consider that real estate never goes away, large sums of money are usually involved, a little thing called the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the taking of property without just compensation, and people depend on the meaning of the same words and prior legal rulings over a long period of time - a lot of these railroad ROW cases go back to the 19th century - even (and especially) state courts are mindful that these precedents should be upheld.
Here in Pennsylvania, a municipal government can "vacate" (abandon) a street or road and thereby turn it into a private road or driveway. It's a routine procedure set forth in the state laws, and common enough as we have over 2,500 local governments ("home rule" carried to its political extreme). However, it can also happen that a road is "un-abandoned" when the township routinely plows the snow, fixes the potholes, puts up signs, etc. I've seen that happen a few times, even once in the township where I live . . . (over some years, the road crew - after quite a bit of personnel turnover, including the foreman and Public Works Director - either forgot or was never told about the abandonment, and so treated the road just like any other !).
- Paul North.
Firelock76 tree68 Still running, I believe. Vote now! I did! Yesterday afternoon. Can we all take the late Al Capone's advice and "vote early and vote often"?
tree68 Still running, I believe. Vote now!
Still running, I believe. Vote now!
I did! Yesterday afternoon.
Can we all take the late Al Capone's advice and "vote early and vote often"?
Thought that was just a Chicago thing - but then Capone came to fame in Chicago.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Anyone know how that Adirondack Enterprise poll turned out?
ChessieCat123We cant expect people to bike year round
(1) Nothing in the New York Case involved grant R/W.
(2) Two federal court judges (Washington & Idaho) have already discovered the flaw in Robert's blanket Statement. (flawed, misinterpreted opinion in 1942 case is at the heart of it all)
(3) The Brandt case was not a rails to trails case, it was more of a takings case (and the feds lost) ...1247(d) vs 1247(e)...Uncle Sam (Forest Service/ the sovereign trying to take land back into the federal inventory) tried to take the land back instead of letting it go back to the heirs and assigns of the adjoining patent holder. Had Forest service just done a regular NITU/CITU under 1247(d), there would not even have been a case.
(4) We have tons of dimestore lawyers running around now saying all railroad R/W is an easement, no matter the color of title because of Brandt. ... to quote another Queen City native: "El Toro poopo!" (It's getting smelly and deep quick, folks) the rumor, wive's tales, hysteria and local legend stuff just skews the facts (applies to adverse possession and condemnation law as well which plays into the hands of the nutcases at NARPO.....reality, what a concept!)
ChuckCobleigh mudchicken Be careful what you ask for. Cuz you might get Brandt v. United States (2014).
mudchicken Be careful what you ask for.
Cuz you might get Brandt v. United States (2014).
mudchickenBe careful what you ask for.
Bingo! ( and there are a few other fun parts thrown in, like parts of other USRA line codes and other later abandonments that survived just long enough just to screw it up some more )
PDN: Your second paragraph is the Peoria Heights case writ jumbo large.
...and Daddy big bucks may wind up with new neighbors, not of his choosing if he isn't as on the ball as he thinks he is. (Color of title and restrictive covenants can go other directions that NOBODY planned on.) If he has some of the easement happy clowns that are out there representing him, another sharpshooter might just turn the tables on he of the arrogant ego.
Where's the brain-damage emoticon when you really need one? (three really)
mudchicken Unfortunately, there is a very good chance that STB has absolutely no say in the matter. This is another Peoria Heights case in the making. Go back and look at how NY State wound up with the line and the USRA decisions made in the 1970's. The state may yet regret its decision.(and nobody will "win", not even the lawyers) Once an attempt is made to remove the track, all of the title issues will come spilling out of the closet. Fibber McGhee will never get that door closed. Ugly. Be careful what you ask for.
The state may yet regret its decision.(and nobody will "win", not even the lawyers) Once an attempt is made to remove the track, all of the title issues will come spilling out of the closet. Fibber McGhee will never get that door closed. Ugly.
Be careful what you ask for.
Then the latter scenario would raise the question of: Can an abandoned railroad be deemed to have been un-abandoned by the subsequent purchaser continuing to run rail service for many years ? Probably depends on the type of service offered - is it just an arm or alter ego of 1 large shipper, or is it open to as many customers as want to use it ?
Title issues are of the sort where the land or easement was granted to the railroad "for railroad purposes or uses" or "for as long as the trains run", etc. When that stops, the land may revert back to the adjoining owners. That would fragment the right-of-way, which may well play into the hands of the supposed rich fellow who's allegedly playing puppet-master here with the real (but unstated) goal of killing off the trail - and thereby frustrate those well-meaning folks who are naive enough to think that a trail is what they'll be getting after the railroad is gone.
Just voted, "Upgrade entire railroad."
Looks like the poll at this time (4:40 PM) is running 45% for upgrading the railroad, 40% against. A little to close for comfort. Go get 'em railfans! FIX BAYONETS! CHARGE!
Me too - no problem.
I voted. No log-in required.
Norm
ChessieCat123 tree68 Poll going on right now (Tuesday) by the Saranac Lake newspaper (a known supporter of the trail issue). You might have to create a login to vote. http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/polls.detail/id/423/ Tried logging on page was down and wasted 20 min of my time
tree68 Poll going on right now (Tuesday) by the Saranac Lake newspaper (a known supporter of the trail issue). You might have to create a login to vote. http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/polls.detail/id/423/
Poll going on right now (Tuesday) by the Saranac Lake newspaper (a known supporter of the trail issue).
You might have to create a login to vote.
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/polls.detail/id/423/
Tried logging on page was down and wasted 20 min of my time
Up at 0111 on 11/11
Firelock76 Tree68's comment about how the trail advocates want everyone out of "their" woods reminds me of how I lost my respect for the Sierra Club when they seemed to change their focus from environmental activism to environmental snobbery, i.e. seeing the wilderness areas of this country as their own private playground and trying to keep the "riff-raff" out.
Tree68's comment about how the trail advocates want everyone out of "their" woods reminds me of how I lost my respect for the Sierra Club when they seemed to change their focus from environmental activism to environmental snobbery, i.e. seeing the wilderness areas of this country as their own private playground and trying to keep the "riff-raff" out.
They even go after fire towers up here. They're so desperate to keep outsiders out of their woods that they, and the groups that people like Keet's funds, target these classic structures that most value for their heritage and the sightlines they make possible when they're restored and opened to the public.
To everyone else, they're assets. To people like Keets, they provide a destination to draw people into their backyards and so they actively seek to destroy them just as we're seeing with the Adirondack Scenic.
I still can't believe that this nonsense has gotten as far as it has. This rail line is only an asset and the ASRR has done such a good job handling it, that it's hard to believe that anyone has fallen for this.
I'll give them this much, if you don't mind benefiting through deceit, the principals behind this are good salesmen. Each and every one of them could make fine money selling used cars...
Hey, the Durango and Silverton does drop-offs for people that do things that end in the letter "N."
You know, huntin', fishin', campin', hikin', canoein', and so on.
MidlandMikeI did not see anyhing in the story that indicated the preserve would not be open to the public as they usually are.
For the Adirondacks, that's part of the "back story," I believe.
The "trail advocates" have been pushing a hiking and biking trail, with snowmobile use in the winter. So if you want to see the wilderness, get out your hiking shoes (and forget about finding a place to eat or attend to "other needs").
Unsaid, because if it was said, the efforts of the "trail advocates" would go for naught, is that there are forces out there who will work to block snowmobile access to the corridor, and no one has come up with a way to pay for the building of the trail. The "trail advocates" don't want you there in the first place, so they aren't going to help.
The end result will be the corridor being reclaimed by nature - and many feel that is the goal of the "trail advocates" in the first place.
Far better to provide access to all via the railroad. Arrangements can be made to drop folks for hiking, biking, and camping (think Alaska RR), there will be comfortable seats, food, restroom facilities, and little worry about the trash left behind.
Sausage making? Reminds me of something Otto von Bismarck said a long time ago...
"Those who love laws and sausages shouldn't watch either one being made!"
ChessieCat123 http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030507&slug=vineyard07 Know about this for years
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030507&slug=vineyard07
Know about this for years
Half the land was saved as a preserve, while the other half want for restricted development. There was some sausage making in the deal, but other wise all the land probably would have been developed. It was a pragmatic solution to save a good chunk of land. I did not see anyhing in the story that indicated the preserve would not be open to the public as they usually are.
ChessieCat123he Nature Conservitory has also leased land to have mansions built on them but keeping the poor guy far away from them
Source for that?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
In the same vein I lost a lot of respect for Greenpeace when they changed their focus from saving the whales to political activism, but that's another story.
Unfortunately, there is a very good chance that STB has absolutely no say in the matter. This is another Peoria Heights case in the making. Go back and look at how NY State wound up with the line and the USRA decisions made in the 1970's.
Thar's a more compelling rationale. A good argument could be made that use of part is a use of all, particularly since it's all 1 line - not like multiple branches, of which only 1 is being used.
I don't have the time or resources to research this thoroughly, but there have been some fairly recent STB decisions blockading attempted abandonments. mudchicken is familiar with some involving the A&K rail people, who wanted to buy a southern shortline (Louisiana ? Mississippi ?), and then abandon it, mainly to remove and resell the really good rail it had, and likewise in Colorado. As I recall, those decisions weren't based on the alleged bad history and evil intent of the A&K entity, but instead on preserving the possibility of future service. I would not take a bet against the railroad here.
To my way of thinking, "regularly" operated also includes the seasonal tourist operation that currently covers not quite half the distance that is proposed to be torn up. Some days there are two trains a day, so that some may take the train between the two towns, spend some time in the other town and take the later train back to their origin.
schlimm And how many years is it since the line was regularly operated?
And how many years is it since the line was regularly operated?
Quite a few - but when it was last run end-to-end, it was hosting two round trips per day, with over 100 people on each trip (1980).
The basic issue here has nothing to do with industrial uses - those dried up years ago. No one disputes that.
The line's history as a passenger carrier for a Class 1 is of no consequence, either. The only reason scheduled passenger service continued until 1965 was the regulatory process at the time.
The line's value now is as a tourist line - much like the Grand Canyon Railroad.
The summer of 1980 - well after the Olympics - the line carried over 16,000 passengers, strictly on the basis of being a tourist attraction. Rail advocates feel those numbers can be matched, and even improved upon.
As I've probably said before, it's my opinion that the "trail advocates" simply want everyone out of "their" woods. Reasons range from the railroad (and snowmobiles) interfering with their placid enjoyment of the woods to folks who would love to see the entire Adirondack Park turned into wilderness - sans trains, cars, and people.
Cutting the Adirondack line back to Tupper is not much different that cutting the Grand Canyon back to Valle. Tupper Lake is a nice community, but it doesn't have the name recognition of Lake Placid.
The STB may be more deferential to the state since it's the state that owns the track, not a private concern.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.