Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Newsjock

(11,733 posts)
Tue Mar 11, 2014, 01:42 AM Mar 2014

Supreme Court deals setback to rails-to-trails movement (8-1) [View all]

Source: Los Angeles Times

The Supreme Court dealt a setback Monday to the popular redevelopment trend of transforming abandoned railroad lines into public bike paths, ruling that buyers of such lands are not required to continue granting a federal right of way.

Legal experts said the decision would make it harder to build bike or hiking trails in areas of the West where railroads were often built on former federal land. In some instances, local governments may be forced to pay compensation to owners whose land is now crossed by bike paths or other government-built trails and parks.

In an 8-1 decision, the justices ruled in favor of Marvin Brandt, a Wyoming man who controls 83 acres of land that was formerly used by the Wyoming and Colorado Railroad, located near the Medicine Bow National Forest. When the U.S. Forest Service told Brandt that the government retained the railroad's right of way across his land and planned to use it for a bike trail, he filed suit.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the Railroad Right of Way Act of 1875 gave the rail lines a temporary easement across the land, but once the rail line was abandoned and the property was sold, the government no longer had a right of way.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-rails-trail-20140311,0,6389222.story

21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I suppose this means that moving forward the Feds will have to keep a close eye on such sales ... brett_jv Mar 2014 #1
We DID. elleng Mar 2014 #14
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy's Official Statement on March 2014 Supreme Court Ruling Kolesar Mar 2014 #2
Thanks for providing their discussion. elleng Mar 2014 #15
From the people who brought you Kelo vs. New London . . . hatrack Mar 2014 #3
Not exactly the same people. hughee99 Mar 2014 #9
That ruling was the one that really pissed me off. No way that should be legal. nt 7962 Mar 2014 #10
Sounds reasonable. nt hack89 Mar 2014 #4
Here is the actual opinion happyslug Mar 2014 #5
My grandparents' farm was crossed by a railroad that almost became a trail marshall Mar 2014 #6
Thats a very good point. After the trains leave, you're supposed to be ok with strangers- 7962 Mar 2014 #11
Cyclists don't burn tires on the trail Kolesar Mar 2014 #17
Of course cyclists dont burn tires. I'm merely telling a story of property that I know of. 7962 Mar 2014 #18
Buy homeowner's insurance for that Kolesar Mar 2014 #19
Or, put up No Trespassing signs. CVN-68 Mar 2014 #20
This is a different scenario dbackjon Mar 2014 #12
But it demonstrates how haphazardly the government approached this project marshall Mar 2014 #13
Finally a good decision from the Extreme Court Bandit Mar 2014 #7
You would be wrong... brooklynite Mar 2014 #8
Thanks elleng Mar 2014 #16
Trails are bad. ForgoTheConsequence Mar 2014 #21
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court deals setba...