SCOTUS decision affecting rails-to-trails programs

← Back to Forums


JaySherman5000
Member
#

@edmonds59: “this property owner could certainly have come to some settlement short of relinquishing the property rights to allow this HALF MILE SECTION of a 21 mile trail…”

The NPR article stated this section of trail bisected Mr. Brandt’s land. I think waking up to a proposal that complete strangers will be allowed to meander across the middle of your property might not sit well with many land owners. Without some empirical evidence, it’s hard to say how many of those meanderers might cause problems for the property owner, but it’s probably safe to assume that the more meanderers there are, the more likely there is to be conflict with them. This could just be a simple case of a guy who likes his privacy wanting those damn kids to quit cutting through his yard.


Drewbacca
Participant
#

JaySherman5000 wrote:This could just be a simple case of a guy who likes his privacy wanting those damn kids to quit cutting through his yard.

Or even the potential liability that could result in the man being sued if someone got hurt on “his” property.


salty
Participant
#

Funny how I didn’t hear anyone claiming the lower courts were 100% incorrect prior to the supreme court decision… yet it’s possible to be completely certain of it now? If we’re so committed to delivering private property back to its “rightful” owners I suspect there are some very interested Native Americans.


reddan
Keymaster
#

Funny how I didn’t hear anyone claiming the lower courts were 100% incorrect prior to the supreme court decision… yet it’s possible to be completely certain of it now? If we’re so committed to delivering private property back to its “rightful” owners I suspect there are some very interested Native Americans.

No, the gov’t seems to be quite happy to hold onto property of which it’s actually taken ownership. In this case, the gov’t explicitly said “we don’t own this, we’re just using it according to the terms of this contract”. The SCOTUS decision said “fine, but that means you don’t have the right to do anything beyond what was covered in the contract.” Nothing is being “given back” here, because it was never taken away; no more than a tenant has to “give back” an apartment after they’ve vacated it.


jonawebb
Participant
#

While giving the land back to the Native Americans has a certain appeal, I’d prefer to give it back to the people of the late 19th century, when bicycles ruled. Then we could totally smoke ’em with our fancy lightweight bikes and gear.


reddan
Keymaster
#

While giving the land back to the Native Americans has a certain appeal, I’d prefer to give it back to the people of the late 19th century, when bicycles ruled. Then we could totally smoke ‘em with our fancy lightweight bikes and gear.

I agree wholeheartedly, although it is a shame about most of ’em being dead. Of course, that would make smoking them even easier…


byogman
Member
#

Most people of the 19th century did some kind of physical work all day. Most people today do not. No metaphorical smoking is likely, even with vastly better gear. Might be the other way around.


Pierce
Participant
#

Perhaps Native Americans affected by the Trail of Tears will come back to court seeking their land, which was taken somewhat against the court’s position in Worcester v. Georgia (1837)


Mikhail
Member
#

salty wrote:I suspect there are some very interested Native Americans.

And native americans came from Siberia… :)


helen s
Participant
#

And native americans came from Siberia… :)

And those Siberians evolved and migrated from Africa.


Marko82
Participant
#

^…who crawled out of the ocean – so give the land to the fish! no, wait…


Drewbacca
Participant
#

Don’t you need to plant a flag (or a Buick) to claim the land???

← Back to Forums

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Click here to login.

Supported by