I'm just going to leave this link to an article at the libertarian magazine Reason:

reason.com/archives/2013/10/27/rails-to-trails-a-train-wreck-for-proper

Though it mostly deals with property issues, some of the issues are now relevant to rail preservationists--witness the whole Adirondack RR saga.

Are we absolutely certain that the "government" paid for the original right-of-way? Not that it probably matters, but it is possible the railroad company itself acquired the right of way. And in some cases of which I'm aware, property owners sold the right of way in fee simple rather than as an easement. I know of one railroad which includes a mix of both, including one fee simple sale with the stipulation that the original property owner and successors has access to a spring on the right of way, located less than 20 feet from currently active track. There is a whole lot more to this issue than just the nasty old government taking someone's private property.

The Rail Banking Act has been controversial since it was passed, depending on which side of the fence you are standing on. The purpose was not to create trails, it was to preserve right-of-ways, which are becoming extremely difficult to reestablish. The act is not limited to the government. When a railroad files with the Surface Transportation Board that they intend to abandon a line, a non profit can sign the required document to take over financial responsibility for the line. Then the railroad has to negotiate a transfer ownership. Railroad museums can acquire a railroad using this method. If a railroad ever wants the right-of-way back, they can have it for the original purchase price plus improvements.

Most of the right-of-ways I have seen the deeds on are purchased by the railroad with the original owner having the right to reacquire the property if the railroad abandons it. Under the Rail Banking Act, the Surface Transportation Board does not approve the abandonment, it just puts it on hold. This prevents the original owners from reclaiming the property. One of the issues is that there is very little railroad property where the originally owner is still around. In California the state put a time limit on revisionary property. There are probably no railroad revisionary property rights in California that are still valid.

It is easy to argue either side of this battle. But for railroad museums that acquire a railroad using the Rail Banking Act, they are in a different situtation that almost every other user. In the case of the Musuem the track is still there. The railroad is still in existence. They may still have to spend money defending their rights, but they should pervail. Any trail group that wants land acquired under Rails to Trails would find a rail preservation group as an outstanding partner in the endeavor.

Another take on the subject:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/10/24/su ... il-trails/



This is an excellent argument for trail groups to get real friendly with heritage rail organizations--and to quit being so antagonistic to them!!

Check this article out;

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059988179

Apparently the Forest Service sold him the land, then later turned around and sued him for it!

Well, as always, you have to read the case proper before screaming. It's certainly possible, if not likely, that the deed or the attached easements provided for the takeback, and remember this fundamental rule:

If the other party has a fundamental right to do a thing, it does no good to squabble about the manner in which they do it.

You can squabble that state law doesn't allow the landlord to evict you for minor repairs. However if you're not in a rent control city, he can evict you for any damn reason he pleases, so you're out all the same.

In this case, the government has the right to take land by eminent domain. Period. So you say "you can't take my land this way", they'll just take it "that way". It's gone in any case. The only difference might be money, or might not, depending on what their offer was. Any sensible government body is going to offer you market rates plus, or about what you'd get with eminent domain.

Michigan requires the government pay 125% of market value for eminent domain takings, but that almost never happens because sellers simply agree to a private sale at that point. Presumably for some "meeting of the minds" price that factors the legal fees or realtor commissions the seller would otherwise need to spend in another kind of sale.

I've always read about how the trail lobby fights to prevent the return of rails to a roadbed, which we all know was the original intent of the program to start with (that is, to keep the roadbed in place in case a RR wanted to lay tracks there again someday).
I have been wondering for a while how strongly this lobby really does fight the return of tracks, and how big a fight any RR has ever put up to tear up a trail in favor of putting tracks in again.
I can imagine the 'soccer mom' crowd would scream bloody murder at the loss of their Sunday-afternoon bike ride in the middle of nowhere, but how bad has any of these fights really gotten at the levels where change either occurs or is prevented?

Again, the lowest common denominator is the cost of a better trail. That is, the trail people cannot stop the railroad re-installation, the most they can hope for is to squeeze out a parallel or better trail as a concession.

On the cost of a new railroad build, the cost of a trail is conceivable. Remember the re-entering railroad also has power of eminent domain, and can snap up easements and properties as necessary to make the replacement trail better than the rail-trail.

Again, railroads + trail groups working together = win.

The irony (or law of unintended consequences at work) is that returning a trail back to rail use GREATLY strengthens the legitimacy of the original act which was, and remains 'interim trail use'. The only way that a trail project can stake claim to a right-of-way and prevent reversion is by effectively claiming it is still a railroad, just doesn't happen to have track on it at the moment.... So, converting any 'interim trail use' back to rail eliminates the argument by property owners that it is all just a smokescreen. Unlikely perhaps, but not impossible or unprecedented.

That can, and should, be at the truce between rails vs. trails, too, if it wasn't for interim trail designation they'd be absolutely nowhere with private property rights. There are a number of right-of-ways from the PC era in our area that have reverted and the trails guys 'just don't get it' that it is now PRIVATE PROPERTY again, stay out, go away.

I've been working now with two projects where the private property owners, in one manner or another, have sided with rail preservationists simply to prevent a trail from going in. I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate or deserved, I'm just saying it's happened to make strange bedfellows. If you want to see a rather similar situation played out in public, go on the STB website and follow the strange and convoluted demise of the Port Royal Railroad, where the private property owners put up an epic fight to prevent the railroad to be converted to an accessible trail, even if they had to invent an imaginary intrastate railroad to do it. (search hint: "Beaufort Railroad").

Just checked up on it, wow, it's still being fought in Federal court!
http://www.bjwsa.org/railroad-update/