Join the discussion on the following article:
Supreme Court to hear rail-trails case
Mr. Lampman’s question may be more significant than Mr. Norton’s comment.
Please: the plural of “Brandt” is “Brandts”, not “Brandt’s”!!
This could become very interesting. Considering the Supremes are generally split 4 original Constitutionalists, 4 Socialists for big government, and one loose cannon on deck. Of course as we have seen with Obamacare, one of the originals could flip and side with more big government power grabs.
Watch out for big government ever encroaching on its citizens!
The possessive of the plural of Brandt is Brandts’.
So what, exactly, did their 1976 deed say when they bought the parcel? Was it subject to a r/w or easement?
In my opinion if the Brandts owned the land before the railroad abandoned the right of way the right of way should revert to the Brandt’s . Not the US government.
Jim Norton’s comment was really helpful and on point.
I do volunteer work with the Willamette Shore Trolley based in Lake Oswego, Oregon. Keeping the line active keeps the Right-of-way active for future use of the ROW either as a trail or streetcar use. This looks like a very important case for many similar types of ROW conversions. Once the ROW is lost it will cost millions of dollars to resurect a ROW from the landowners, effectivly dooming a rail to trail project. England has fought similiar types of cases of public footpaths going though private land.
It depends on how the railroad filed the “abandonment” with the feds. If it was a true, by statute, abandonment, then the land reverts back to the Brandts. If it was not filed as an abandonment, but merely left alone or filed in another manner (I forget the legal term here), the land could be reacquired by the government.
Rails to trails in rural areas have the potential to wreak havoc on farming and ranching operations. in a number of instances farmers and ranchers have been refused access across the trail to their land on the other side. Also, there are way too many well-meaning but unknowledgeable people who would want to pet a cute baby calf whose thousand pound mama would not appreciate. Almost no farmer or rancher could afford the ensuing lawsuit. Rails to trails are a nightmare come true for most adjacent landowners.
As Jerrery notes, people in Illinois as I am, don’t like any court in the land messing with what makes common sense. Any court including the Supreme Court can make mistakes, they are not known for common sense as they claim to be human which leads to opinion not based on fact! Read Dred Scott, the Supreme Count sided with the KKK’s contentions, that would not fly today… Property correctly is on Loan from the government, if the railroad of the day just walked away, it goes back to ordinary land that was purchased for other than the use of a company… Like the intolerant people that made liquor illegal, intolerant TAX SUPPORTED Forest Service people are doing just a tad of overreach. As has been said, ask, if not, go around… Purchase, don’t demand what is never been yours though legal purchase
The land in question (about 50 miles west of where I live) is conifer forest that is not suitable for farming or livestock grazing. There may be legitimate arguments against public access to this abandoned railroad right of way, but those arguments would not include any possible interference with agricultural use of the land.
It appears a bunch of you may not realize that back then whole swaths of the US were not owned by anyone and it was just Federal Territory. Claims were made for the land and the railroads got land grants just like future farmers got land grants. That’s the rub on this situation because the land can’t “revert” to the present owner because the present owner never owned the land the railroad runs on to begin with. As for present farm land owners worrying about being sued because some idiot decided to pet their cattle the state should do the same thing we do here in NH. I have my land in current use which lowers my tax rate and in return I allow people to cross my property for hunting and recreation. I’m allowed to block powered vehicles from crossing my land and ripping it up. In other words hunters , fishermen , hikers , snowshoers or cross country skiers can cross my land. Several years back some idiot hunter tripped and fell and shot themselves and sued the landowner saying they did not keep pathways safe. The state changed the law and the land owner can’t be sued if they have allowed someone to cross their property under the current use manadate.
Does anyone know when the supremes will decide this?
I agree that the Supreme Court has made mistakes, Dred Scott being a case in point. The KKK, however, was not formed until the Reconstruction era and Dred Scott was decided in 1857.
Rails to Trails inherently cloaks itself in a costume…
Let’s give the idea, concept, legal judgement that when you bought the property with a railroad running through it, that you owned it…the railroad had relinquished right’s to the land under its rails. They were given up…and could be grabbed by RTT…when the railroad stopped running or abandoned their rails.
But, it’s your, as the property owner’s land…the railroad ran through it…how can “rails to trails” demand that you first: allow any person on your home land. second, how can they suggest that the property owners be responsible for injuries incurred on land upon which the trespassers are trespassing?
I’m no lawyer, but it seems if someone has a right of way across your land and says “I surrender/abandon that right of way” it goes back to whoever the owner is now. If RTT wanted the right of way, they should have bought it from the holder, i.e. the railroad, which they would have known about when the railroad filed to abandon it. Looks like RTT wants something for nothing.
This is a tough call … the current landowners might not have bought the property had they known about the possible reversion. Maybe the real estate agent pointed this out, maybe they didn’t. ( That could be a separate suit in and of itself, unless the agent was the govt., which is what this is all about.) Usually abandonment is abandonment. This happened here in Ohio in several instances, along the old B&O and NKP. The rights reverted back to the property owners. Would you want strangers walking along your property when your kids were out playing? If the state wanted first refusal it should have written that into the law, or any agreements. If the language ain’t there, you can’t assume anything. In Ohio it is referred to as the Statute of Frauds, and applies to most real estate transactions.