| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| Also on Trainorders https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17817 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | bobyar2001 [ Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Also on Trainorders |
More on the Supreme Court eminent domain decision:http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,945795 |
|
| Author: | doowoppie [ Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Also on Trainorders |
My Question is this.Would this allow a developer to tear down a historic Depot or Scrap an old park Engine to gain access to the property for development if the local government agreed.??Even if said Structure or engine was being taken care of??Andrew Martin |
|
| Author: | Trainlawyer [ Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Also on Trainorders |
Apply this to something specific such as Belfast and maybe we can discuss it here. I still need to read it and I will bet that ninety percent of the commentary on the railfan boards is based on news reports which need to reduce a very technical 58 page set of commentaries into a 13-second sound byte. GME |
|
| Author: | Erik Ledbetter [ Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Also on Trainorders |
Trainlawyer wrote: Apply this to something specific such as Belfast and maybe we can discuss it here. Precisely. Well put.If the topic has a direct application to railway preservation, that's what we're here for. But in a world where policital discussion is everywhere, we strive to keep this place reserved for railroad preservation. So I gently ask people to discuss the latest doings of the Supremes elsewhere--unless there's a direct, immediate application to our field.
|
|
| Author: | johnacraft [ Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Also on Trainorders |
doowoppie wrote: My Question is this.Would this allow a developer to tear down a historic Depot or Scrap an old park Engine to gain access to the property for development if the local government agreed.??Even if said Structure or engine was being taken care of??Andrew Martin This decision doesn't permit that - what's permissable now has been for decades. This decision doesn't make it easier (despite what you're reading in the papers) - and the concurring opinion may make it more difficult."Historic?" In someone's opinion, on the National Register, in a Historic District? There are many gradations of "Historic" in property law. Many are ceremonial and offer no protection (National Register of Historic Places, for example).This case wouldn't apply to Belfast, where the City bought the land. It would not need to condemn and seize it.JAC
|
|
| Author: | Trainlawyer [ Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Also on Trainorders |
johnacraft wrote: This case wouldn't apply to Belfast, where the City bought the land. It would not need to condemn and seize it.JAC Actually it does in a sideways sort of way. It appears that there was never an abandonment of common carrier service on the line, so if somebody really wanted to put up a fight and force the city to institute an adverse abandonment proceeding, then the public use v private development issues raised in Kelo may well apply. GME
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|