Cachehouse Lawyer: The Cost of Rails-to-Trails

[+Alkhalikoi]

In 1983, the US Congress passed a law to allow for railroad rights-of-way to be repurposed as recreational trails. The point was, in part, to promote recreation. But more importantly, Congress wanted to preserve these contiguous rights-of-way because putting them back together would be impossible. It's almost guaranteed that if you cache in the US, you've cached on one of these rails-to-trails conversions.

 

So I thought I'd pass along this interesting article in today's National Law Journal that goes to an interest side issue: are landowners entitled to compensation from the government for the rights-of-way being converted from rail easement to a trail easement. The answer is a rather resounding yes. When the railroads bought up easements, they only bought an easement for the use of the land as a train track, not a recreational opportunity, so their use has now been changed by the law. So now the federal government is getting sued here and there for takings, to the tune of up to $1M per mile.

 

Now, I happen to think as a legal matter, the result is entirely correct -- the landowners, and their successors, never signed up to have a bike path in their backyard and the railroads didn't buy anything more than the right to run trails. Sure, bikes are less annoying that trains (although I prefer train enthusiasts!) but that's all the railroad got. And now it's been changed. But whatever your thoughts on this, I think it's important that we -- as geocachers -- really understand the land use issues at least as well as any other recreational interest group: bicyclists have a good command of this stuff and get taken very seriously at city council and planning commission meetings. Hopefully, this article will get you thinking about some of the underlying issues.

 

(If there's interest, I'll try to flag these sorts of articles from time to time).

 

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202617646798&RailtoTrails_Program_Costly_to_Taxpayers

[+The_Incredibles_]

I think people should spend more time living and less time suing.

[+cheech gang]

I don't see this as a geocaching topic, maybe it needs to be moved to the Off Topic where arguments of this nature reside.

[+Alkhalikoi]

Land use issues and access are indispensable -- sine non qua, if you will -- to the well-being of this thing of ours.

[+K13]

Having been involved in the ownership research of many Railroad rights-of-way in Texas & Louisiana, I can assure you that the ownership of that property is determined solely by the exact words used in the conveyance. MOST of these were fee conveyances, where the RR bought the property outright. Seldom if ever have I seen an occurence where the landowner conveyed the use of the property "for railroad purposes only".

Things may be different in other areas of the country.

[+edscott]

Having been involved in the ownership research of many Railroad rights-of-way in Texas & Louisiana, I can assure you that the ownership of that property is determined solely by the exact words used in the conveyance. MOST of these were fee conveyances, where the RR bought the property outright. Seldom if ever have I seen an occurence where the landowner conveyed the use of the property "for railroad purposes only".

Things may be different in other areas of the country.

 

Agree, the devil is in the details. We have a local situation where a rail trail was blocked because some agreements contained a clause that if the RR no longer owned the right of way it would revert back to the landowners ( who have been dead for about a hundred years) or the current owner of the original property from which it was taken. Sorting it out has been a problem, but the trail in those areas will probably never happen.

[+Teese]

Having been involved in the ownership research of many Railroad rights-of-way in Texas & Louisiana, I can assure you that the ownership of that property is determined solely by the exact words used in the conveyance. MOST of these were fee conveyances, where the RR bought the property outright. Seldom if ever have I seen an occurence where the landowner conveyed the use of the property "for railroad purposes only".

Things may be different in other areas of the country.

 

K13 is absolutely correct, the text of the granting document is extremely important. Here in Washington, these old (1890-1910) conveyances have at times been accorded status as grants of an easement, of a right-of-way and of fee title. One local line which is the subject of trail establishment efforts (Bay-to-Baker Trail from Bellingham Bay to Mt. Baker) --already hosting a large number of caches on noncontroversial portions-- has stretches sporting all three variants and the vision behind the trail effort is becoming increasingly problematic. As best as one can tell, the railroad organizers went door-to-door in teams to solicit assembly of the right-of-way route ... but each team carried a pre-printed pad of "deed" forms bearing differently worded text!).

[+HomeStyle]

When the railways here were abandoned (many, many moons ago), surrounding landowners were given the opportunity to buy the land back. Most landowners figured that nothing could be done with the tiny little strip tracts in the middle of their property. They elected not to purchase it, assuming it as 'free land'.

 

Btw, only 2 landowners bought their portions back. Those 2 landowners are now the main ones (so many years later) blocking an almost completely open 64 miles of rail trail. It's their right, though. They own it.

[+wimseyguy]

This may be national case law, but each state, probably each affected property will be handled on a case by case basis.

The main rails to trails property here is the American Tobacco Trail. I doubt it will be affected by this new development.

[+hukilaulau]

I don't see this as a geocaching topic...

It is absolutely a geocaching topic. In some areas these "repurposed" strips of land provide the only opportunity to place some non-urban caches. I'm glad Cachehouse Lawyer brought this up. The battles going on to preserve these spaces are real and expensive. Geocachers who want to learn more about what they can do to help can also google "Rails-to-Trails"

[+Packanack]

This is hardly a new topic, it does however get trotted out from time to time as some abutting owner seeks to be compensated for some imagined reversionary interest. Those cases are relatively rare. (Walkill Valley Rail Trail by way of example in New Paltz NY)

 

The proffer is not a universal as has been pointed out. Much depends on the nature of the grant and in many instances the right of way was not purchased by the rail line, but rather was purchased by government for use by the rail line.

 

There are reversionary clauses in some right of way acquisition recorded documents. however they are few and far between, I believe that Kansas has such reversionary language.

 

Familiarize yourself with the entire topic, through the Rails to Trails Conservancy. This group assist in setting up local trails and does extensive title research in most instances so that there is no question of the title to the right of way.

Rails to Trails

 

Having just returned from a vacation on Cape Cod, and having ridden the Cape Cod Rail Trail and the OCRT, I can assure you that homeowners enjoy a premium from being close to the rail trails, their homes have increased values. More than 1 million tourist per year use the trails, bringing in amounts estimated to exceed 50 million , just to ride a bike path.

 

In the present planning stage is a 90 mile path in the Adirondak Mountains in NY, which may bring in even more money to the local economy. Last October a group of cachers rode the C&O Canal Towpath from western MD to DC, a parallel rail trail is located in Hancock Md, a town which now caters to bicylist on the Western Maryland Rail Trail and the C&O. Camping, B&Bs, hotels and restaurants have all benefited. An active bike caching community exist around the area enhancing further the interest in the trails.

 

Why walk,when you can ride ?