Residents of eastern Montgomery County have been urging the Board of Supervisors to pass an ordinance designed to blunt Norfolk Southern’s power of eminent domain which would enable it to take private land for a proposed intermodal rail facility, but county attorney Marty McMahon told the board this week that such an ordinance “would be invalid and would be unenforceable.”
After hearing comments from residents who oppose the facility and representatives of a grass-roots community group called Citizens for the Preservation of Our Countryside urging the board to pass the ordinance, the supervisors asked McMahon to look into the matter and advise the board on whether the county has the power to pass an ordinance making it unlawful for any corporation (i.e., the railroad) to use its power of eminent domain to seize private property for a project such as the intermodal facility.
It is McMahon’s job to advise the board on legal matters involving the county government, and while he does sympathize with the concerns expressed by residents who oppose building the facility in Elliston, McMahon told the board, “The law is very clear on this.”
Just as the federal law and U.S. Constitution are supreme to state law and the state constitution, the state constitution and state laws reign supreme over local ordinances.
But what do you propose that the railroad do when it needs to expand? If every little local group can defeat any expansion plans - regardless of whether the larger population is in favor of the expansion or not - railroads could find themselves with NO locales willing to allow terminals or yards.
Needless to say, if a railroad has the ability to buy 400 acres of farmland, that will always be cheaper than trying to buy 400 acres of prime downtown real estate - whether eminent domain is used or not. And in this particular case, I get the impression that the land in question has no residential structures.
al-in-chgo wrote the following post at 03-06-2007 2:34 AM:
“Apparently we have gotten to the point in this country where it is no longer possible for a person who owns his house, takes good care of it and pays his taxes can live with the reasonable expectation that itwon’t be whisked away from him (or her) by some corporation that finds it more convenient to bully people out of their property than pay market rates for it.”
Better wake up. The Federal Supreme Court ruled last year that it is perfectly legal for the local government to sieze your property by eminent domain and give it to someone else if that government believes that by doing so they will be able to raise thier tax revenues. Fair? - no way. Ethical? Not on your life. Legal? Just another day in Washington DC. As Will Rodgers said, “We have the best government that money can buy.”
This is an interesting story on several fronts, which in of itself, is an update of an earlier thread. The first aspect is the connection between communities where railroad services were an intergal and needed if not required aspect of economic vitality. This situation has changed. This was noted in a recent case in Minnesota where a poster from Orr on this board said as much where a speed limit is to be imposed on trains. The second theme that also keeps reappearing with more frequency is the location of railroad facilities in residential areas and the consternation this causes, whether in recent cases in Illinois, Indiana, and now here. Formerly rural area at the so called city limits is now exoburpia…and generally no one wants these in their “backyard”…A third theme that on the surface does not appear to be related but I think it is, is the recent rash of derailments carried by national news causing an undertow of community concern over railroads as a safety liability…All three of these themes have one thing in common…the railroads are the general public are experiencing more friction in their relationship than a relationship of interdependence…I think this will continue to increase…look at the thread elsewhere on municipalities issuing tickets to trains…same theme. What can be done to stem this trend?
IIRC this case was about an elderly lady who lost her house to a CVS pharmacy in a residential area. The Illinois legislature promised to change our constitution. Does anyone have an update about this story?
“Council proposes $5 million plan to purchase neighborhood.”
The above is from the Burlington IA Hawkeye. Low income housing becomes blight for confiscation by a developer known to a local casino operator. Taxpayers city wide get hosed with a Tax Increment Funding grant.
This is not directly related to a railroad, but another example of eminent domain abuse that has become all too common. This has created a terrific public backlash against eminent domain for any purpose by a private firm.
Eminent domain used to be applied judiciously when there was proof of a public purpose. The last major transportation useage was the building of the interstate highway system. Railroads are just as much public need for transportation as highways.
“Redvelopment” in hope of increasing the local tax base and tax funded yuppie wonderlands local employers may offer up in lieu of higher
That would bother me less, of course, but what’s wrong with brokering a direct sale with a willing seller after agreeing at a fair price? It’s hard for me to believe that one and only one site exists in rural Mongomery County that is suited to NS’ operation, or that it needs to invoke the powers of government to get what it wants. They’re playing with fire: consider that the county decides real-estate assessments. - Oh, but wouldn’t that be “antidemocratic”? If the RR is on the receiving end, I mean. - a.s.
At any rate, I’ll see if I can find whatever kind of justification the NS uses.
We live in a technocracy and if people won’t be quelled by invoking “progress,” there’s always “economic growth” to worship.
Please understand I am not advocating “mob-ocracy,” but when people’s toes get stepped on consistently and brutally enough, and the perpetrator doesn’t feel he (it) owes a responsibility, that’s when things get really sticky. - a.s.
But that’s exactly what does happen. Eminent domain only comes into play if there is someone who wants to play hardball and insists on getting well above market value for the property. (Well, and to handle those situations where someone wants to stay for “sentimental” reasons.)
Since when do corporations have the right to exercise “eminent domain”?
I have always been under the impression that eminent domain is limited to governing bodies. Apparently this is not so in Virginia, which has sold its soul to certain corporations including railroads.
But even if that is true, there remains the qualifying criterion of land being taken for the “public good”. Maybe this was apt in the times where railroads still ran passenger trains as a service and needed ROW. But that is no longer the case; maybe it’s time to reform those laws, especially if they’re being abused to take land for intermodel facilities.
It should be borne in mind that while the power of eminent domain, though it is inherent in organized governments, may only be exercised through legislation or through legislative delegation, usually to another governmental body, the power may be delegated as well to private corporations, such as public utilities, railroad and bridge companies, when they are promoting a valid public purpose. Such delegation has long been approved.
Aye…theres the rub…a valid public purpose…again corporations muscle their way into the reserved seating for the public good and taking a nearby sledgehammer to a fly to increase their profit margin…for a valid public good. We should go back in time and go to a meeting of The Granger Movement…or dodge the bullets of private muscle in The Pullman Strikes…or the Credit Mobilier negotiation talks with President Grant…corporate profit margins are the public good… and are sanctified as valid in all cases?..not necessarily…here we go again…the same battle over and over…capitalism versus democracy…and who gets to write the rules.?..the victor…don’t worry, it’s already happened…Is’nt American Idol almost on?
Munn v. Illinois
Munn v. Illinois, case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1876. Munn, a partner in a Chicago warehouse firm, had been found guilty by an Illinois court of violating the state laws providing for the fixing of maximum charges for storage of grain (see Granger movement). He appealed, contending that the fixing of maximum rates constituted a taking of property without due process of law. The Supreme Court upheld the Granger laws, establishing as constitutional the principle of public regulation of private businesses involved in serving the public interest.
I would put your question another way. Do any other states not allow this for railroads? My guess is their are none if they have a railroad in their state.
The U.S. Supreme Court case I recall was up in New England, Connecticut IIRC, that involved a town using eminent domain to acquire the property in a several block area to sell to a developer. Their public purpose was that the area was run down and this would improve it. While most people accepted it and moved, a few did not more for sentimental reasons than cash (at least that was the claim). The U.S. Supreme Court basically said that it was up to the states to determine what was acceptable public purpose since they were closer to the situation, as long as there was just compensation.
Afterwards there was a scramble by several states to change/add laws on the subject. I don’t know which states, if any, actually enacted laws. Virginia currently
This intermodal terminal is a condition of the NS getting money from VA as part of a project for a new double stack corridor corridor between Hampton Roads and central Ohio. If may get to a point where everybody is happy to forget about a new intermodal terminal for the Roanoke area and just high ball through town on the way to Ohio. There are lots of places along the I-81 corridor to locate physical distribution infrastructure the leaves Roanoke out in the cold. Front Royal and Harrisonburg are eager to attact all the Big Box distirbution centers they can find.
Yes. Illinois passed a bill to aid property owner in comdemnation. One provision is that the government pay all the legal fees of the propery owner if the case goes to trial.
If someone “insists on getting well above market value for the property”, aren’t they just letting the market decide the market value, based on supply and demand?