Comments on: The Dark Secrets of Rail Trails http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-dark-secrets-of-rail-trails/ Ideas on Liberty Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:25:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Jeff http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-dark-secrets-of-rail-trails/comment-page-1/#comment-46336 Jeff Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:18:43 +0000 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/uncategorized/the-dark-secrets-of-rail-trails/#comment-46336 THE NIMBY ATTITUDE NEEDS TO STOP. Rail trails are not a problem. Rail trails increase economic activity to communities, actually LOWER Crime rate, because more people are around and crooks are less likely to break into someones home or business when bikes are riding by or joggers are going by. And rail trails are good for our environment. The people against rail trails should accept them. THE NIMBY ATTITUDE NEEDS TO STOP. Rail trails are not a problem.
Rail trails increase economic activity to communities, actually LOWER Crime rate, because more people are around and crooks are less likely to break into someones home or business when bikes are riding by or joggers are going by. And rail trails are good for our environment. The people against rail trails should accept them.

]]> By: wmedward http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-dark-secrets-of-rail-trails/comment-page-1/#comment-5857 wmedward Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:43:03 +0000 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/uncategorized/the-dark-secrets-of-rail-trails/#comment-5857 It is interesting to note that people on both sides of these issues have trouble stating the facts. This article states that, "In the end, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had little trouble holding, under state law, that when the railroad ceased operating, its easement was extinguished. That meant the electric company acquired nothing and therefore could not allow the Conservancy to construct a rail trail." Thst issue was not before the court and that was not the court's holding in Rowley V Massachusetts Electric Company. The court did not address that issue. In fact, it commented, "(8) The question whether the railroad's easement was extinguished by its abandoning the use of the railway was not decided by the judge and is not before us. Nor do we consider the issue whether Mass. Electric has any rights in the railway. Our decision is limited to whether the plaintiffs have standing to claim title pursuant to § 58, and whether two specific plaintiffs (Sherida and Alfred Cone) have other grounds on which to claim title." Kirk Testa was way off the mark in his comments. You can read the case at the link provided. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=sjcslip/sjcMar03e&invol=1 It is interesting to note that people on both sides of these issues have trouble stating the facts. This article states that, “In the end, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had little trouble holding, under state law, that when the railroad ceased operating, its easement was extinguished. That meant the electric company acquired nothing and therefore could not allow the Conservancy to construct a rail trail.” Thst issue was not before the court and that was not the court’s holding in Rowley V Massachusetts Electric Company.

The court did not address that issue. In fact, it commented, “(8) The question whether the railroad’s easement was extinguished by its abandoning the use of the railway was not decided by the judge and is not before us. Nor do we consider the issue whether Mass. Electric has any rights in the railway. Our decision is limited to whether the plaintiffs have standing to claim title pursuant to § 58, and whether two specific plaintiffs (Sherida and Alfred Cone) have other grounds on which to claim title.”

Kirk Testa was way off the mark in his comments. You can read the case at the link provided.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=sjcslip/sjcMar03e&invol=1

]]>