City of Burlington seeks $1.34 million from Burlington Northern railroad

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

A small mountain of documents was filed Friday by both parties in the city of Burlington v. BNSF Railway lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

BNSF filed more than 140 pages of material, while the city filed 113 pages.

One railroad filing included BNSF’s proposed decision, and the other was a proposed order on BNSF’s request to refer some of the arguments to the federal Surface Transportation Board in Washington and for a stay of the entire action pending an STB resolution.

The city’s filing included its proposed findings of fact, conclusion of law and a proposed judgment of $1.34 million against the railroad, with all legal costs assessed to the railroad.

The city filed the suit against BNSF in March 2004. It alleges BNSF breached an 1858 agreement that stipulates the railroad could use the city’s riverfront property as long as it maintains its principal locomotive shops in Burlington. The railroad closed its local shops in 2003 and eliminated or transferred about 400 positions.

BNSF, in its counterclaim, alleges the city, by filing suit, breached a 1985 contract that states the railroad could use the riverfront property for its operations indefinitely. The 1985 agreement states nothing about BNSF having to maintain its principal shops in the city.

In BNSF’s proposed decision submitted Friday, the railroad states that, “even if the 1858 agreement survived the 1985 agreement, BNSF and its predecessors substantially complied with the 1858 agreement.”

After one of BNSF’s predecessor railroads entered into the 1858 agreement, “it acted in good faith by constructing facilities to service its fleet of locomotives, freight cars, passenger cars and other stock,” the BNSF proposed decision states.

"The railroad in substance did what it promised to do. For similar reasons, the charge of unjust enrichment that the city has leveled against the railroad has no merit. Iowa courts have hel

2

Case dismissed!

3

The city of Burlington should copyright its name and sue BNSF for infringement. It’s a can’t miss open and shut case![;)]

4

Why doesn’t the City of Burlington just use it’s power of eminent domain and take the riverfront property to build a casino or brothel, you know, something of a higher assessed value?[;)]

5

Dave,
Still looking for a job, or some place to go on vacation?
[:D]

6

Score so far: Ed 1, Dave 0

7

You haven’t been counting very long.[X-)] Or are we back to thread by thread? [?]

8

Sounds to me like the City has a point, even if they waited far to long. Oh well, as long as it has something to do with sueing BNSF, I’ll be watching.

9

Just this thread; I lost count on all the other threads [:D]

10

Busy work for the “Suits”… Too many lawyers with nothing to do.

Sam

11

The city does not have to take anything. They already own the property. Are you suggesting they kick out there current (freeloading) tenant and find one that will pay rent? [?]

12

I was being facetious.

Gabe can answer this one a whole lot better than I, but isn’t there a certain legal basis for landlords to have the right to terminate or at least refuse to renew a lease with a tenent whose behaviour is less than exemplary?

13

The document in question, circa 1958(20th century) says they can use the property for free as in NO RENT. Towns do this all the time to get business to stay put or relocate to their town. But now town is invoking a clause from a 1858 document(19th century) that says it is only free if your shops are here. BNSF says the 1958(20 century) agreement supersides there original agreement with the 19th century railroad. The BNSF shops have been gone for over ten years and the town just noticed? [?] Or it took 10 years for a sly lawyer to find a loophole to make him and the town some money. You tell me. I hope BNSF leaves and they have to go begging for an Indian Casino.[swg]