Washington Rail to Trail threatened with closure

[Rand Man]

I've posted a few time on this thread asking the question: How did the railroad obtain the right to lay their tracks where they did? I'll ask again: Anyone know the answer? I expect that the facts would show that the easements were placed on private lands, and that now full control has been returned.

Apparently and in broad stroaks, 35 years ago when the railroad 'sold' the land to the state, the land owners sued based on easement laws. They lost. However, the courts don't always get it right, this federal holiday being a poster child -- perhaps thee poster child -- of that.

In the intervening 35 years, similar disputes over railroad easements have arisen, numbering in the thousands. SCOTUS has weighed in. Rail-to-trails have been forced to pay land owners compensation, totaling far into the millions, possibly breaking the billion dollar mark.

Essentially, various rail-to-trail groups throughout the country are federal criminals for having ignored, for their personal gain, our Constitution: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I expect that if the 35 year-old lawsuit was instead pursued today, the state would either revert full control, or use eminent domain law to take the land with compensation.

[Rand Man]

WA State, May 31st 2016:

https://www.law360.com/articles/801582/ ... high-court

[Aimless]

However, the courts don't always get it right, this federal holiday being a poster child -- perhaps thee poster child -- of that.


Leaving aside from your obvious animus toward Dr. King, why would the courts have anything to say about the ability of Congress to designate federal holidays? It isn't exactly under their jurisdiction.

[miah66]

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Rand Man]

It is the domestic analog of Veterans/Memorial day. A day to honor those Americans who have put their lives in harms way in their own country for democracy. That they were compelled to do that is extraordinarily clear evidence that our courts don't always get it right. It is perhaps the clearest evidence of all that courts don't always get it right.

"I wanted to be sure the image created by using the term "poster child" has evolved to something positive without diminishing the "picture" of the people portrayed as a part of a marketing tool. In other words moving away from the disease image more to the story and inspiration image..."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poster%20child

[Rand Man]

http://english.stackexchange.com/search?q=%22poster+child%22

[Aimless]

Thanks for the clarification. Your train of thought was not very obvious in your previous post.

By the way, I think most of us are familiar with the meaning of the phrase "poster child" already.

[Rand Man]

appeal of suit by landowners:

http://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1996/62217-5-1.html

Justice Sanders wrote a lengthy dissenting opinion.

[Waffle Stomper]

The answer to who the easement belongs to lies in the county where the property and the easement is recorded. It does not automatically revert to the original owner. Every easement document is different and the rights transferred is clearly outlined in the easement document and could very well be transferred to another owner depending on the terms.

Everything here is speculation without looking at the terms of the easement. It's public record and can be acquired at the county where the easement is recorded.

[Waffle Stomper]

I've posted a few time on this thread asking the question: How did the railroad obtain the right to lay their tracks where they did? I'll ask again: Anyone know the answer?

Go to the county where the easement documents are recorded.