King County To Buy Rail Corridor For New Trail

[+Right Wing Wacko]

King County trying to buy rail corridor for new trail

[+willcall]

Saw it -- 47 mile multi-cache -- Sooooooo Coooooool!

[+AndrewRJ]

YEA!! More trails = more space for more caches!

[+evergreenhiker!]

YEA!! More trails = more space for more caches!

hat was the first thought to my mind when I heard the access was being opened!

[MarcusArelius]

Cool, and I can get to them all from my back yard.

[+TotemLake]

The trouble I have with this plan is they're not talking about keeping the Spirit of Washington dinner train. That is at the cost of almost 80 jobs, and about a $10 million per year impact to the economy at the loss of a favorite and popular tourist stop in a county that closed down parks because they couldn't afford to keep them up.

[+WeightMan]

According to The Times this morning they may also try to keep the dinner train running which would create some safety problems on any trail including problems placing caches.

 

Stay tuned... don't count your chickens before they are hatched and all that stuff.

[+Shop99er]

The trouble I have with this plan is they're not talking about keeping the Spirit of Washington dinner train. That is at the cost of almost 80 jobs, and about a $10 million per year impact to the economy at the loss of a favorite and popular tourist stop in a county that closed down parks because they couldn't afford to keep them up.

I saw this on the news this morning.

 

Closing the Dinner Train would suck in a major way. Along with the impacts TotemLake mentions, this would throw one of Mrs. Shop99er's and mine anniversary traditions out the window.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

The trouble I have with this plan is they're not talking about keeping the Spirit of Washington dinner train. That is at the cost of almost 80 jobs, and about a $10 million per year impact to the economy at the loss of a favorite and popular tourist stop in a county that closed down parks because they couldn't afford to keep them up. 

Apparently there is another motive that has not been disclosed by the county for this purchase...

 

The Rail Line runs right past the new Brightwater Sewage Treatment plant that King County is building in Snohomish County (dispite objections from SnoCo, but thats another discussion).

 

King County Needs a right of way to run their effluent lines South from Brightwater to the rest of the east side. If they can score the RR ROW, they will not need to purchase right of ways one lot at a time from individual land owners.

Edited May 18, 2005 by Right Wing Wacko

[MarcusArelius]

Apparently there is another motive that has not been disclosed by the county for this purchase...

 

The Rail Line runs right past the new Brightwater Sewage Treatment plant that King County is building in Snohomish County (dispite objections from SnoCo, but thats another discussion).

 

King County Needs a right of way to run their effluent lines South from Brightwater to the rest of the east side. If they can score the RR ROW, they will not need to purchase right of ways one lot at a time from individual land owners.

Very good observation! There is a RW conspirisy out there.

 

Or is this left wing (given it's Simms and all)?

 

Still it makes a lot of sense that would just make the trail more economically viable. You would never know if a sewer line ran under it. I know since then Renton interceptor runs under my back yard.

[+willcall]

Apparently there is another motive that has not been disclosed by the county for this purchase...

 

The Rail Line runs right past the new Brightwater Sewage Treatment plant that King County is building in Snohomish County (dispite objections from SnoCo, but thats another discussion).

 

King County Needs a right of way to run their effluent lines South from Brightwater to the rest of the east side.  If they can score the RR ROW, they will not need to purchase right of ways one lot at a time from individual land owners.

Very good observation! There is a RW conspirisy out there.

 

Or is this left wing (given it's Simms and all)?

 

Still it makes a lot of sense that would just make the trail more economically viable. You would never know if a sewer line ran under it. I know since then Renton interceptor runs under my back yard.

I thought something smelled funny They were pretty happy announcing such a big project for just recreational purposes. Still, I'd be happier seeing it go to these purposes than seeing the railroad sell pieces to different evil, greedy developers. Would be too much of a shame to see such a strip broken up.

 

Even if it limited caching opportunities, I'd vote for any county implementation that could keep the dinner train running. Unless they have to rip out the tracks for sewage lines, you'd think they could do something to structure shared use. (conductor's rule -- whistle twice before mowing down dog-walkers; once before mowing down joggers; NA for bicyclists).

Edited May 18, 2005 by willcall

[+pdxmarathonman]

Apparently there is another motive that has not been disclosed by the county for this purchase...

 

The Rail Line runs right past the new Brightwater Sewage Treatment plant that King County is building in Snohomish County (dispite objections from SnoCo, but thats another discussion).

 

King County Needs a right of way to run their effluent lines South from Brightwater to the rest of the east side.  If they can score the RR ROW, they will not need to purchase right of ways one lot at a time from individual land owners.

Very good observation! There is a RW conspirisy out there.

 

Or is this left wing (given it's Simms and all)?

 

Still it makes a lot of sense that would just make the trail more economically viable. You would never know if a sewer line ran under it. I know since then Renton interceptor runs under my back yard.

I thought something smelled funny They were pretty happy announcing such a big project for just recreational purposes. Still, I'd be happier seeing it go to these purposes than seeing the railroad sell pieces to different evil, greedy developers. Would be too much of a shame to see such a strip broken up.

 

Even if it limited caching opportunities, I'd vote for any county implementation that could keep the dinner train running. Unless they have to rip out the tracks for sewage lines, you'd think they could do something to structure shared use. (conductor's rule -- whistle twice before mowing down dog-walkers; once before mowing down joggers; NA for bicyclists).

Just swap the dogs with the bikes and it sounds like a plan.

 

They did mention in the initial article about being able to eventually return to a shared use. I wonder why ($$) the plan couldn't be implemented right away (right of way?)

[acmepinnacle]

"If a deal were struck, King County would acquire the corridor through "railbanking," in which railroads sell, lease or donate rights of way on routes they no longer operate to private organizations or local governments for use as trails. The corridors are often sold at reduced rates, sometimes at below market value, in exchange for a tax deduction for the railroad.

 

While the routes are then converted to trails, they can be returned to mass-transportation use in the future.

 

Without railbanking, it would be nearly impossible for the public to buy a similar stretch of right of way through the heart of the Eastside, because the county would have to negotiate costly purchases one lot at a time, said Rod Brandon, King County's director of environmental sustainability. "

 

What a scam. Private property rights loose again.

[MarcusArelius]

What a scam. Private property rights loose again.

Huh?

 

Are you saying that the property owner (BNSF) doesn't have the right to sell, or that a willing buyer (KC) wouldn't have the right to do what they want with it?

 

Or is your objection to the tax incentive given by the public to the public?

 

I don't want to start a flame but it sounds like a Win-Win to me.

[+LittleBlue]

What a trail it would be! If only they would pave it so I could skate it! It would make a great marathon route. Would we get to use the trestle?

[acmepinnacle]

What a scam. Private property rights loose again.

 

Huh?

 

Are you saying that the property owner (BNSF) doesn't have the right to sell, or that a willing buyer (KC) wouldn't have the right to do what they want with it?

 

Or is your objection to the tax incentive given by the public to the public?

 

I don't want to start a flame but it sounds like a Win-Win to me.

 

yes, that is what I am saying. If a railroad has a RIGHT OF WAY for railroad purposes, that is what they own, not the land itself, and not a right of way for other purposes, such as a trail or a sewer line.

 

win-win, except for the landowners. they loose. I hope they sue.

[+willcall]

I need to hedge first by saying that I haven't ridden the dinner train and don't know the environment (how residential the path is, how close to houses, how much screening foliage, etc.)

 

Presumably, the RR easement has already been reflected in property values. If the easement were released and the track taken out, it would be a positive boon to property owners.

 

If the usage shifted from occasional rail traffic (and no usage by property owners) to a public path (with recreational value to property owners), who knows which way the effect on property values would go (could differ property by property). Which is better (or worse), the occasional noisy train, or constant stream of weirdos on foot, bike, and skate (no slight there, LB)?

 

If we all promised not to peek in the windows, hopefully the change would be a pleasant one for everyone.

[MarcusArelius]

What a scam. Private property rights loose again.

 

Huh?

 

Are you saying that the property owner (BNSF) doesn't have the right to sell, or that a willing buyer (KC) wouldn't have the right to do what they want with it?

 

Or is your objection to the tax incentive given by the public to the public?

 

I don't want to start a flame but it sounds like a Win-Win to me.

 

yes, that is what I am saying. If a railroad has a RIGHT OF WAY for railroad purposes, that is what they own, not the land itself, and not a right of way for other purposes, such as a trail or a sewer line.

 

win-win, except for the landowners. they loose. I hope they sue.

I think "right-of way" is a traffic designation, not a legal definition of ownership. It is my understanding that the railroad owns the land themselves.

 

An easement is a specific use that a land owner grants to another party. They are usually paid for those rights. For example I was paid to let Metro use part of my lot to access thier sewer tunnel. That's an easment, I still own the land but they paid for the right to drive on it. That doesn't mean they could run a pipe through it though.

 

I do know there are a couple of parcels along the Sammamish trail where it is debateable wether the RR purchased the land, or an easement, many years back.

 

But as a property owner that abuts the tracks I can tell you that I have no more claim to that land than anyone else.

 

And I would LOVE to have it converted to a trail!!

Edited May 19, 2005 by MarcusArelius

[MarcusArelius]

If we all promised not to peek in the windows, hopefully the change would be a pleasant one for everyone.

Warning, Don't peek in my windows if you have just eaten!

[acmepinnacle]

I think "right-of way" is a traffic designation, not a legal definition of ownership.

 

wrong. a right of way is an easement. that is legal terminology.

 

It is my understanding that the railroad owns the land themselves.

 

I don't know; I am just basing my comments on what I have read here, and reading the 100 year old deed for the RR right of way that crosses my property (in Calif, and not part of this abandoned line). "for 50 dollars gold coin paid in hand, a right of way for railroad purposes, 16 rods in width"

 

a trail is not only NOT "railroad purposes", it is in clear contravention of any railroad use.

 

a sewer line is NOT "railroad purposes".

 

The original owners received a sum of money for a right of way for a specific purpose, and with the understanding that if the purpose was no longer to be used, the right of way would be extinguished. That was the bargain struck, and the amount of money was based thereon. That is the bargain that should be adhered to.

 

Theft, no matter how noble the purpose, is still theft.

[+TotemLake]

They did mention in the initial article about being able to eventually return to a shared use. I wonder why ($$) the plan couldn't be implemented right away (right of way?)

It's political rhetoric. Don't think for a minute if they're going to shut down the dinner train they will start it back up on the same right of way if at all. It would cost way too much.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

I think "right-of way" is a traffic designation, not a legal definition of ownership.

 

wrong. a right of way is an easement. that is legal terminology.

 

It is my understanding that the railroad owns the land themselves.

 

I don't know; I am just basing my comments on what I have read here, and reading the 100 year old deed for the RR right of way that crosses my property (in Calif, and not part of this abandoned line). "for 50 dollars gold coin paid in hand, a right of way for railroad purposes, 16 rods in width"

 

a trail is not only NOT "railroad purposes", it is in clear contravention of any railroad use.

 

a sewer line is NOT "railroad purposes".

 

The original owners received a sum of money for a right of way for a specific purpose, and with the understanding that if the purpose was no longer to be used, the right of way would be extinguished. That was the bargain struck, and the amount of money was based thereon. That is the bargain that should be adhered to.

 

Theft, no matter how noble the purpose, is still theft.

The railroad only owns a "Right Of Way". The Landowners have a "Right of Reversion" should the rail line ever be totally abandoned.

 

They get around this by putting the trail into a "Rail Bank", meaning the ROW is reserved for some future rail line, even though the current line is inactive.

 

Sound Transit may have some interest in using this in the future after they are done spending the billions they are already taking from us.... but I regress..

 

What I don't see is how KC can get away with using the ROW for a sewer line, since the original ROW did not allow such a use. I have been told by someone who should know in Sno County government (and who shall remain nameless) that the Sewer line is the REAL reason Ron Sims wants to purchase the ROW.... something about using Park Money to pay some of the costs for his $400 million dollar sewer plant which somehow is now just shy of a billion dollars.

[MarcusArelius]

It will be interesting to find out if the RR actually owns the land or just has an easement.

 

But you are right that if it is just an easement they should not be able to place a sewer line in it without purchasing a separate easement from whomever is the landowner.

 

IF it is just an easement finding the true landowner will be a nightmare. My development was platted in 1957 and my title definately does NOT include the property under the RR tracks. I doubt that the developer had title to it either. Even if they did, and platted around it, the company no longer exists.

 

It would make a good history/civics lesson.

 

I hope the lawyers don't take TOO much of our money over this. No offense intended, you know who you are....

[+willcall]

I hope the lawyers don't take TOO much of our money over this. No offense intended, you know who you are....

Doubt you meant me, but (as a lawyer) no offense taken. As my wife reminds me, I'm the kind that doesn't take enough of anyone's money.

 

On the sewage lines, it's certainly possible for the county to go get its own easement-like rights. This might just be an easier and cheaper way to set up a continuous path.

 

I'm not a real estate attorney, but one of the core principles is that you can't convey to someone else more rights than you have. If BNSF has such rights in its easements, maybe the county can negotiate just once. If not, I think it may still need to pursue negotiations and condemnation proceedings with multiple property owners. Having control over the RR easements might make it easier for the county to prove this is the most reasonable path for the lines (and it might be cheaper to condemn iand already subject to easements than to pay for a new swath across everyone's yards).

[+willcall]

(sorry for repeats - trying to do this on PPC creeping down 520 in rainstorm - not a lawyer-like thing to do)

Edited May 21, 2005 by willcall

[+willcall]

Ooops

Edited May 21, 2005 by willcall