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

elleng

(141,926 posts)

14. We DID.

Reply to brett_jv (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 05:09 PM

Mar 2014

I worked at Interstate Commerce Commission, and abandonments were in our jurisdiction, and then, rails to trails conversions, which often included complex 'ownership' issues, as many rail lines had been 'deeded' by the feds MANY years before. The rules are probably now under jurisdiction of U.S. Department of Transportation/Surface Transportation Board.

Property rights are complicated.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court deals setback to rails-to-trails movement (8-1) [View all] Newsjock Mar 2014 OP

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