Supreme Court deals setback to rails-to-trails movement (8-1)

[Newsjock]

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

[brett_jv]

1. I suppose this means that moving forward the Feds will have to keep a close eye on such sales ...

In order to ensure that their easements/RoW's are explicitly maintained across the process of selling land that previously had such rights carved out for them.

Then again, they likely don't really care, esp. if all that's to actually be 'maintained' is the right to build 'bike trails' on their easements. Not much 'in it' for the Feds, so ... I sadly would have to say that this decision likely spells 'The Beginning of The End' for the 'Rails to Trails' movement.

It's a worthy, great endeavor, but unfortunately ... well, I don't think I need to elaborate on how devastating this decision probably is for them. W/the right-of-ways no longer automatically conferred through the sale process, the people who would like to see the trails built on the lands have absolutely no recourse.

Personally, I'd much rather the Government NOT SELL any lands with RR right-of-ways across them. Given that Peak Oil is RIGHT NOW, we're very likely as a Nation going to be 'needing' such transportation resources in the not-too-distant future. Undermining a possible resurrection of our Rail system by selling off the lands upon which the tracks used to run across ... is a bad, bad idea, IMHO.

[elleng]

14. We DID.

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.

[Kolesar]

2. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy's Official Statement on March 2014 Supreme Court Ruling

http://community.railstotrails.org/blogs/trailblog/archive/2014/03/11/Supreme-Court-Hands-Down-Disappointing-Decision-for-Trails-in-U.S_2E00_.aspx

Today’s Supreme Court ruling is disappointing news for Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, rail-trail advocates and trail users around the country. The full opinion, which reverses and remands a lower court ruling, can be read at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1173_nlio.pdf.

At issue in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust et al. v. United States was whether the federal government retains a reversionary interest in railroad rights-of-way that were created by the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875, after the cessation of railroad activity on the corridor. In today’s 8-to-1 decision, the justices ruled in favor of Marvin Brandt, the Wyoming landowner whose property is crossed by one of these former rail corridors that is part of the Medicine Bow Rail Trail.

It is our belief that the original intent of the 1875 legislation was that these linear public spaces should remain of, and for, the people. Just like our national parks, these former rail corridors are public assets in which we all share and benefit. These federally-granted rights-of-way have played a key role in the nation's rail-trail movement, which has built thousands of miles of hiking, biking, equestrian, skiing and snowmobile pathways across America over the past 25 years.

There are hundreds of federally granted rights-of-way corridors across the country, many of which have been converted into publicly accessible trails. This erosion of protections for these public lands in the Supreme Court not only may block the completion of the Medicine Bow Rail Trail through the former rail corridor, but also threatens existing rail-trails, mainly in the West, that utilize federally-granted rights-of-way and are not railbanked.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the lone dissenter among the Justices. She wrote in her opinion that the decision "undermines the legality of thousands of miles of former rights of way that the public now enjoys as means of transportation and recreation."

Our legal team is taking a closer look at the decision—and its implications for other rail-trails—to determine next steps. This decision is likely to result in more litigation over rail-trails in federally granted rights of way. Those rail-trails that have been built on railbanked corridors or fee simple land purchases will remain safe. Railbanked corridors are preserved for future rail use by being converted to a trail in the interim.

The fight for these rail corridors is not over yet. The case of Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust et al. v. United States will be sent back to a lower court where we hope to have another opportunity to clarify and limit the scope of this Supreme Court ruling. More information in the coming days can be found on our website at http://www.railstotrails.org/SupremeCourt.

Please contact Amy Kapp at 202.974.5129 or [e-mail] if you would like more information about the Supreme Court ruling.

[elleng]

15. Thanks for providing their discussion.

[hatrack]

3. From the people who brought you Kelo vs. New London . . .

Which says that powers of condemnation and eminent domain, OTOH, CAN be used against private property to benefit private development.

[hughee99]

9. Not exactly the same people.

The majority in Kelo v. New London was Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Surprisingly, it was the usual asshats that OPPOSED that ruling.

[7962]

10. That ruling was the one that really pissed me off. No way that should be legal. nt

[hack89]

4. Sounds reasonable. nt

[happyslug]

5. Here is the actual opinion

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1173_nlio.pdf

[marshall]

6. My grandparents' farm was crossed by a railroad that almost became a trail

My grandmother and others fought against it. The lease agreement, which was decades old, said the deal lapsed if a train wasn't run every two weeks, or something like that. More importantly, while the lease was in effect the railroad was responsible for maintaining the fences. This wasn't as much an issue for land where the tracks were on the boundary between properties. But for properties like my family' sphere the tracks went down the middle it made a huge difference. The trails people had no intention of maintaining fences, insisting that the property owners pay up. But why should people pay for two parallel fences to cut across their property when it is not their choice?

[7962]

11. Thats a very good point. After the trains leave, you're supposed to be ok with strangers-

-wandering across your property? Not these days.
I remember my dad telling me that when he was a kid he and my granddad would walk the banks of a creek and even spend the night. They never even thought of it belonging to someone. But they also never left a mark. Today, that creek has a fence at the right of way and is posted. My uncle, who still lives in the area, said the same family owns the land but people were too often leaving trash or burning tires at night. You know what a mess THAT makes. So they had to fence it off to keep out the slobs

[Kolesar]

17. Cyclists don't burn tires on the trail

They are not there at night. You cannot find many citations of the vandalism you claim happens on bicycle trails.

[7962]

18. Of course cyclists dont burn tires. I'm merely telling a story of property that I know of.

This wasnt a bicycle trail, it was land with a creek running through it. You also would have no control over WHO was on the trails or when. You couldnt just say "cyclists only", or 8-5 only. People are known to throw trash on the ground. What about liability if someone gets hurt? It is your land, could you get sued?

[Kolesar]

19. Buy homeowner's insurance for that

I have a policy.

[CVN-68]

20. Or, put up No Trespassing signs.

We do have the right to keep people off of our property.

[dbackjon]

12. This is a different scenario

The Federal Government was the original owner of the land in this case. Not in your case.

[marshall]

13. But it demonstrates how haphazardly the government approached this project

The lands were in a number of different legal situations, but the project was approached as if the government had an absolute claim to all of it. Once they realized that was not the case, they tried to bully those who had land that wasn't legally available, because without all of it, none of it was any good.

The local rural community here which was initially behind the project regardless of owners's rights was surprised to discover they would be responsible for building access roads every few miles to the trail, some parts of which was not near a current road or highway. Farmers likewise discovered they could be held liable for injuries that occurred on their land, even if trail walkers climbed a fence to get on it.

It all sounded like a great idea at first. But then gradually it didn't to more and more people.

[Bandit]

7. Finally a good decision from the Extreme Court

I wonder who the one dissenting Justice was. If I had to guess I would say Scalia.

[brooklynite]

8. You would be wrong...

It was Sotomayor:

"Since 1903, this Court has held that rights of way were
granted to railroads with an implied possibility of reverter
to the United States. Regardless of whether these rights
of way are labeled “easements” or “fees,” nothing in Great
Northern overruled that conclusion. By changing course
today, the Court undermines the legality of thousands of
miles of former rights of way that the public now enjoys as
means of transportation and recreation. And lawsuits
challenging the conversion of former rails to recreational
trails alone may well cost American taxpayers hundreds of
millions of dollars.* I do not believe the law requires this
result, and I respectfully dissent. "

[elleng]

16. Thanks

[ForgoTheConsequence]

21. Trails are bad.

Imminent domain for the sake of a foreign oil corporation? Good.