Supreme court decision on rails-to-trails case

[bcm119]

Family Trust Wins Supreme Court Fight Against Bike Trail : The Two-Way : NPR

I'm not really part of the cycling demographic that uses rails-to-trails paths, but I love the concept. Build a network of safe paths for anyone to use-- show families and esp. kids that bicycles can take you places, that bikes are transportation/freedom, not just toys to wheel around your cul-de-sac.

The decision sets a shitty precedent. What landowner would be okay with a freight train crossing their property but not a bike path? The best part of rails-to-trails is that they serve as connections between towns or access points. Start allowing whiny land owners to break those connections and the entire effort becomes futile.

[David Tollefson]

I've always wondered why they need a 150-200' wide swath of land to build these things...

[vertical_doug]

I don't see an issue with this ruling.

The local gov can still use eminent domain to take the land for the rail trail. They just need to compensate the property owner. Since it appears the original property owners swapped lands for this, it seems fair to me.

On a side note, this is essentially the same court which ruled on Kelo v. City of New London which greatly increase the powers of abuse for eminent domain. Ironic

[j44ke]

It is ironic. However, the conservative majority on this Supreme Court seems to feel that they can make "spot-light" decisions that are limited in scope and do not affect related issues. They've done it several times. Only through additional adjudication does some clarity begin to evolve, though the time it will take to clarify all these sorts of decisions exceeds the lifetimes of the current members. They are a make-work Supreme Court.

Just guessing, but if Justice Sotomayor is correct, the problem may be that interested parties will feel emboldened to challenge whether requirements of the original easement is being honored by the holding party in situations that were otherwise viewed ironclad. The court may have created a wide enough crack that parties to easements with limited funds for legal defense may find themselves forced by the threat of extended litigation to make some split the baby decisions. A developer sees land bound by a conservation easement against subdivision in a different way now perhaps. Even if the party might eventually win the battle and maintain the easement, they may not be able to afford to take the battle up. And that is another common thread with this court - money wins.

[j44ke]

Closer reading of a few more articles suggest that this issue may actually be limited to situations where the federal government holds the easement. Still it would affect situations where federal easements governing railroad right of way that had been transferred to organizations like Rails to Trails might actually be in jeopardy. It might affect other similar easements as well.

[Vancouverdave]

I can't wait to see what the lawyers for native American tribes do with this idea.......................

[Dallas Tex]

I love Rail-to-Trails paths. I don't like the courts decision, but I don't necessarily disagree.

The original intent of these intrusions into private property were based on the gross, obvious, indisputeable betterment of all. We / They were growing a country's infrastructure. First rail, and later the interstate highway system. Without the ability to go through private property, both would have failed AND looked like spaghetti spilled on the floor.

I believe the need for a cool rail trail for joggers & cyclists cannot be compared to the nations need for Railways & Highways.

Basically the agrument is does the 'greater good' of rail trails equal the 'greater good' of Railways & Highways of a prior century.

[prolix21]

I echo the feelings about the 'spotlight' decision above. Perhaps the decision in this case was appropriate, perhaps it wasn't but either way it has some far reaching implications. I believe its been referred to a lower court to fine tune, so this isn't completely over yet.

On some other site someone made a comment about the abuse of eminent domain, to paraphrase - its ok to take peoples homes to build a mini mall but trying to re-use an abandoned railway as a bike path is wrong.

We have some strange priorities in this country.

[PGSmith]

Basically the agrument is does the 'greater good' of rail trails equal the 'greater good' of Railways & Highways of a prior century.

While it might not be in this case, Rails-to-Trails have been used to expand cycling infrastructure for commuting in/out of a lot of Rust Belt cities. With motorists eager to keep us off the roads, a well-designed bike path can be very helpful in making bike commuting safer for average Jane and Joe.

[Dallas Tex]

While it might not be in this case, Rails-to-Trails have been used to expand cycling infrastructure for commuting in/out of a lot of Rust Belt cities. With motorists eager to keep us off the roads, a well-designed bike path can be very helpful in making bike commuting safer for average Jane and Joe.

I hope so. i love rails-to-trails, and i'd like to see a enourmous expansion of the system.

OTOH, I'm not the guy who was 'ok' with a train running through my private property, BUT now has questions about people walking and riding bikes across my private property.

[Jonathan]

I bought our house that sits on two acres just because a trail and its easement is my back property line. The trail has improved property values and has given my area more of a sense of community. In other parts of Central Florida the trails have completely changed what were once agricultural towns on the verge of blowing away. There are few better investments we can make in our infrastructure to improve our direct quality of life IMHO.

[Dallas Tex]

I bought our house that sits on two acres just because a trail and its easement is my back property line. The trail has improved property values and has given my area more of a sense of community. In other parts of Central Florida the trails have completely changed what were once agricultural towns on the verge of blowing away. There are few better investments we can make in our infrastructure to improve our direct quality of life IMHO.

I can see this being 100% accurate.

I can also see a grumpy landowner, saying "Wait, our original deal was to let trains to traverse my land, NOT to let folks walk, hang-out, and ride bikes across my land". People leave trash and spray graffiti in State Parks, there is no reason to believe they won't do the same on a rail-trail.

Though, I'd like to see more rail trails, i believe this is going to become a more common problem.

[j44ke]

Okay, before everything gets out of whack here, my wife (lawyer) and I have been reading the decision. The basic principle of the case is whether the easement is an easement (fee limited) or whether the easement is a fee simple. Hah!

The land in question was originally owned by the federal government. The federal government held an easement on that land for the purposes of creating a right-of-way for the railroad. The goal at the time was to encourage a railroad to build a line through the area that would then hasten/encourage development in the area and beyond.

The Brandt family owned another larger piece of land. Later when the federal government was setting up a national forest, they arranged with the Brandt's to do a land swap. The Brandt's original piece of land was contiguous with the fed's land being set aside for the national forest. The fed's land with the easement was closer to town. So the Brandt's took the federal land with the easement and the feds took the Brandt land to create the national forest.

While the Brandt's got the federal land, they were not the holder of the easement. The easement was still held by the federal government to be assigned to a railroad company to be developed, which at one point or another it was. However, the railroad was no longer using the right-of-way.

The Brandt's land swap contract contained a clause that said if the easement was not used by the federal government or its assignees for over 5 years, the easement would revert to them. However, the Supreme Court has several decisions in which they say these easements for the purposes of railroad development are limited fees - that is they have a implied reverter whereby after the railroad ceases to use the easement, the ownership reverts to the original holder of the easement - in this case, the federal government.

Fee is a strange property ownership term. It doesn't mean payment. There are fee limiteds and fee simples. As my wife explained it, the difference is whether the land reverts to the original holder of the easement or if it reverts to the current holder of the underlying property, in this case the Brandts.

The court decided that while the clearest decisions by the Supreme Court in the early part of the century said that these easements were in fact limited fees with implied reverter to the original holder of the easement, the current case was more directly related to another case in which these sort of easements were in fact "easements" and that once they were extinguished, the easement reverted to the owner of the underlying property. And they did so by an 8-1 supermajority, with Sotomayor as the lone dissenter.

The decisions that come out of the Supreme Court are very well written, and they have, in recent years, taken great pains to write them in clear language so that they are readable by anyone with a little time and energy. You can read the Brandt decision here->PDF of Decision Contained in the decision is Sotomayor's dissent.

[Dallas Tex]

j44ke,

Your facts are making it difficult for me to elaborate on my predetermined notions and baseless assumptions.

[Jonathan]

I can see this being 100% accurate.

I can also see a grumpy landowner, saying "Wait, our original deal was to let trains to traverse my land, NOT to let folks walk, hang-out, and ride bikes across my land". People leave trash and spray graffiti in State Parks, there is no reason to believe they won't do the same on a rail-trail.

Though, I'd like to see more rail trails, i believe this is going to become a more common problem.

I only know what's around me but I think just the opposite. Areas that were blighted now have 500k homes.

[j44ke]

j44ke,

Your facts are making it difficult for me to elaborate on my predetermined notions and baseless assumptions.

Right? I hate when the facts get in the way. But this decision interested my wife (she has clients involved in land, resources, etc.), so we had a family moment of exegesis to get it all sorted. She said that in the last several years, because perhaps of the tendency of the current court to make spotlight decisions, the dissenting opinions have become almost as important as the majority decision. After the recent decision by the court on DOMA, state attorneys general have been using the dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia (if I am remembering what she said correctly) to validate their decisions NOT to actively defend state law against gay marriage in court. She predicts that even though the super majority in the court decided for the Brandts in this case that courts would be more interested in the idea of "implied reverter" as put forth by the cases underlined by Justice Sotomayor. And that may be a good thing for Rails to Trails.

[Matthew J]

I only know what's around me but I think just the opposite. Areas that were blighted now have 500k homes.

Not the only reason for sure, but it is no coincidence that early in its evolution from a dying fishing community to an Island playground of the rich Nantucket established a comprehensive bike and walking path system.

The only sorry place on the Island IMO is the airport. Might take a generation, but I expect that as Massachusetts rebuilds rail service from Boston the Island will opt to revert the airport to open land and housing.

[Nierman]

Little chance of this decision canceling out any potential for real estate development in that area. It's not blighted, it's remote (according to the map I saw). And the land owner probably likes it that way and felt he'd already made a concession with land in the past. My wife's Grandfather was a great man but held grump towards German and Japanese peoples because of WWII. Some men you just can't reach...

[j44ke]

Little chance of this decision canceling out any potential for real estate development in that area. It's not blighted, it's remote (according to the map I saw). And the land owner probably likes it that way and felt he'd already made a concession with land in the past. My wife's Grandfather was a great man but held grump towards German and Japanese peoples because of WWII. Some men you just can't reach...

And my experience is that these men are often a boon to wildlife even if they are a thorn in the side of those of us who would like to use the out-of-doors. Plenty of ranches and lands out west that have been locked away from the public and endangered species like prairie chickens, curlews and various other species have benefitted immeasurably from the solitude. The Nature Conservancy has figured out ways to make sure these families can remain stewards of the land without being taxed-out by development strategies, because it recognizes the importance of private preservation. And you know, I don't need to go there. If the prairie chickens or sage grouse or whatever like it better when I am not there, I can go elsewhere and leave them alone.

[prolix21]

The rails to trails conservancy has put out a statement explaining the impact