DM&E to start land acquistion

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

Railroad nears land acquisition stage
(The Associated Press circulated the following article on July 6.)

GILLETTE, Wyo. – The president of the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad says the company is ready to begin acquiring land in eastern Wyoming for a proposed rail line that would carry coal east from the Powder River Basin.

Kevin Schieffer says it is possible the railroad could begin building track next year. Plans call for annual transport of up to 100 million tons of coal.

Completion of the line hinges on the company getting a $2.5 billion loan from the federal government. A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Transportation said the agency must collect environmental information about the proposal before considering the loan request.

The rail line would run east and connect to an existing main line in South Dakota that extends 1,100 miles to Chicago.

Opponents of the line, which would enter Wyoming in Campbell County south of the Black Hills, say the railroad is underfunded and has done little to communicate with local landowners. Landowners would be compensated for their land through the condemnation process.

“The fact that he says he’s going to move forward … is ridiculous,” said Nancy Darnell, a Newcastle resident who would lose land if the line is built. Darnell is head of the Midstates Coalition for Progress, a group that has challenged the railroad.

“It’s like the Wall of China running through your ranch,” Darnell said. She said she doesn’t accept a DM&E survey that reported 70 percent of the roughly 100 landowners along the proposed line favor the project. She said a recent survey by the coalition states that fewer than a quarter of the affected landowners support it.

Another opponent, Weston County rancher Joe Simmons, projected he would lose about two miles of land through his central pasture if the rail line is built.

"I’m not sure, because they haven’t done any surveyi

2

LOL! That Schieffer is little more than a suit and tie terrorist [oX)]

3

LOL. Good one. He actually is kind of a gangly soft spoken guy in a midwestern sort of way…

LC

4

Where is Stalin when you need him? Since day one small minded hicks have always got in the way of progress. If we kow towed to there every whim there would be no railroads no interstate highways and no industry…Stalins solution was “No man No Problem”

5

If he built the part from the mines to where the new line would cross the old CNW between Colony, WY and Dakota Jct, NE, he at least could get revenue started. That would help imensely

I fully understand why he doesn’t wi***o go North to Rapid City to goe east – all those ups and downs would require a helper imbeded in each train South of Rapid City. Straight East down the Cheyene River (as now planned) would be better (big time better) operationally and a good deal shorter.

6

LOL, so was Dennis Radar

7

I dunno about Stalin, but I do agree that NIMBYs (in this case, quite literally!!!) tend to be the “squeaky wheel” and get most of the attention…

That’s a rather oddly-worded sentence. [?] Wouldn’t it make more sense to start building from the existing rail line? Shouldn’t it be:

Maybe I should have a job in copy editing… [swg]

Anyways, it’s good to hear of some progress on this project! I can’t wait till I see DME SD70ACes!!!

8

The other side of the coin is that all too often the condemnation is done to benefit someone else or some other entity (the politically connected). Unless the landowner is also politically connected, the condemning body wants to pay so little that it amounts to theft of land the owner has sacrificed in order to keep, and paid taxes on for years and years. Also, the way the road or rail line is laid out can render the remaining property virtually unusable. Been there, done that, and it ain’t no fun.

9

Unfortunate though it is… a friend lives in a “blighted area” in a small nearby town, and eminent domain abuse is a hot topic for him. On the other hand, most landowners on the “business end” of eminent domain do seem to be compensated fairly, at least from what I have heard.

10

Eminent Domain is critical for railroads and even in the days of the post New London fears of condemnation for economic development (I.e. Walmart is gonna take my house for their parking lotitis). Most new eminent domain statutes exempt railroads and other transportation projects.

LC

11

So what you are saying then is that the city of Rochester needs to partner up with Walmart, and build a Wallyworld in the path of the DME?

12

Don’t give em any ideas.[;)]

13

Oh, Aunty, your quaint humor is funny, but, NO, that is not what I’m saying. Governments should not make the mistake of taking away the power of eminent domain from railroads. It ensures a stagnant and useless rail system. The railroads must be able to both shrink and grow as the needs of our country dictate.

LC

14

go DME GO!!!

I suggest they use eminant domain to take over the Mayo clinic…

Okay that was inflammatory. [:D]

15

Ouch man, that was low…[V]

But the picture I was really trying to paint was, now that the feds see the promotion of ANY commercial interest as worth prostituting emminent domain, WHAT IF two deep pocketed entities were willing to lock horns and use these provisions as a tool against the (adversarial) other?

For instance, suppose Wal mart tried to use this as an instrument to pry Target out of an ideal existing location , to build a new Walmart supercenter to take it’s place? What would stop them?

Then, for that matter, once the Walmart center is built, then suppose Trammel Crow decides a 40 story office building belongs there more than a walmart.

Where does the insanity stop? Because I’ve heard there’s no such thing as an insanity clause to prohibit these things from getting out of hand?

Then along comes some okie doke artist who wants to transport coal…[8D]

16

I think there might be a few court battles in your hypothetical example.

Your basic premise, I actually think is valid. Eminant domain is something that has been abused in the past and I am sure will be abused again in the future. Two corporations duking it out by condemning each others’ properties would be a good example of abuse. Another good example is a city condemning and obtaining through eminant domain property in order to sell it to an entity that will build a business on it to increase the tax levy. This practice should be illegal. Everyone’s property is at risk in this scenario.

In the case of railroads, it is impossible to build a railroad (or a highway for that matter) without crossing private property. I honestly believe that this is the situation were eminant domin is a useful t

17

The U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Kelo v. New London ruled last year that a City could take private property for economic development purposes unless the states had laws prohibiting it. This was what I was talking about above. It caused many states to enact laws protecting homes and other properties from various takings by eminent domain. In many places this can still be done. The trick is to keep this from causing RRs to lose the power of eminent domain for right of way and related structures.
Check out the Kelo case by Googleing it…
LC

18

LC: A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Some of those squaking here are clueless (and then there’s old nemisis brainwashed whatshisface).harping on a term they heard somewhere and never bothered to study…oh well[V][V][V]

(The term condemnation is getting butchered about as badly as adverse possesion does)

19

LC I checked it out and the opinion is really kind of scary. Essentially a city can have an economic plan and take your property if the city feels it needs it to acheive that plan. What really gets me is that the stated reason for this is economic developement and an increased tax levy. So, if the city can think of a use for your property that will pay more taxes into the coffers it’s condemnation time baby! Anyway, thanks for the reference, it was interesting (and discouraging) to read how our Supreme Court interprets the fifth amendment.

I suppose the question could be asked if it is wrong for the city to seize the property for the greater economic good, why should a railroad be given a pass in the same situation?

20

MC -

I agree that the general knowledge of the basic legal terms on this forum are seriously lacking. www.findlaw.com or the Cornell university Legal Information Institute (LII) have excellent resources reachable online without charge.

LC