FEDS TAKE PROPERTY FOR A TRAIL; TAKE TAXPAYERS FOR A RIDE [Burlington, Vermont]

Mountain States Legal Foundation ^ | 3 June, 2002 | William Perry Pendley

[brityank]

FEDS TAKE PROPERTY FOR A TRAIL;
TAKE TAXPAYERS FOR A RIDE

William Perry Pendley
President and Chief Legal Officer

 

On May 22, 2002, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ordered the United States to pay J. Paul and Patricia Preseault of Burlington, Vermont, for the unconstitutional taking of their property, that is, without paying for it. The United States was ordered to pay: $234,000, plus interest from the February 5, 1986, date of the taking, for a total of $551,931.30; and $894,855.60 in attorneys' fees. The United States will be writing a check for $1,446,786.90!

The United States will be writing that check because, in 1983, Congress amended the National Trails Act, by enacting the Rails to Trails Act, which prevents railroad easements that cross private property from reverting to the landowners after railroads abandon rail service. Thus, the owners are denied the reversionary rights to which they are entitled by: their deeds, the contract into which they or their predecessors entered with the railroad, and state law. Instead, if the easements are sought for trail use, the United States instructs the railroads that they may abandon rail service only if they transfer the easement for that purpose.

That is what happened to the Preseaults. Their land near the shore of Lake Champlain in northern Vermont was traversed by the Vermont Railway. In 1981, the railway right-of-way having been abandoned, the Preseaults sued in state court for their reversionary rights under Vermont law. In August 1983, the court dismissed their case, ruling that the United States controlled the easement, a decision upheld by Vermont's Supreme Court. In 1985, the Preseaults petitioned the United States for a ruling that the rail line had been abandoned. Instead, in January 1986, the United States authorized the railroad to end its rail service and approved the transfer of the easement to the City of Burlington for use as a bicycle and pedestrian path. In 1988, the Preseaults' challenge to the constitutionality of the Rails-to-Trails Act failed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Then, in 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that while the Act was constitutional, the Preseaults' property might have been "taken for public purpose without just compensation," a determination that required the Preseaults to file a claim against the United States.

On December 26, 1990, the Preseaults did so, arguing that Congress had taken their property and they were owed "just compensation." The United States said, "No;" it owed the Preseaults nothing! In 1992, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims agreed, as did a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1995. Then, in November 1996, the entire Federal Circuit reversed both decisions, ruling that the Preseaults' property had been taken and they were owed "just compensation." Four and one half years later, a trial was held on the amount of compensation; on May 22, 2001, a ruling was issued. One year later, the court ruled regarding attorneys' fees.

As large as the check is that the United United States must write, it could have been worse; the $900,000 in attorneys' fees covers only the litigation that began in December 1990. But, as the late Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen once said, "a million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."

However, the taxpayers did not get the worst of it. Twenty-one years after the Preseaults went to court to regain their property and more than eleven years after they sought the "just compensation" to which the Constitution says they are entitled, they won. It took all those years for one reason: the federal government fought them every step of the way!

In 1995, a top official at Clinton's Justice Department gave a major speech against legislation then being considered by Congress to cut the time necessary for people like the Preseaults to obtain "just compensation." "There's no need to change the law," she argued, "we readily compensate anyone whose property is taken." Tell that to the Preseaults!

If you would like to help support MSLF in litigating against this type of abuse, click below. MSLF's sole source of support is the tax-deductible contributions it receives from people like you.

https://www.ifr-ors.com/wpr.cfm?wp=14&A=713

[brityank]

Well I found this FR Bump List NOTE :-

NOTE: This is being phased-out in favor of the new topic system. I have locked changes to bump lists. Soon they will be converted to topics, and threads bumped to these lists will be added to those topics.

NOTE NOTE NOTE

Wednesday, March 13, 2002

The bump list links below are all presently broken. You cannot view bump lists through this screen.
Last submitted by seamole on 2002-03-13 18:04:44

Guess we wait a while, and rely on keeping each other informed. Cheers. Mike.

[backhoe]

Want to tell lots of people about this? Go here:

Ignorance Making You Ill? Cure It!

for links, tools, & instructions about how to contact a pile of different people, and how to send a link to this story right here ( or anywhere else ) to a "mass email" using Outlook Express.

---

Do be advised that since I increased my volume of mass emails to letters to editors I have gotten return volleys of virus attacks- my ISP filters them out before the get to my PC, but if yours does not, take appropriate precautions to guard your PC.

I take this as a positive- my emails are simply links with no editorial content; so the other side must fear & loath the information even reaching the public.

[backhoe]

I noticed that "date problem" too while checking...???

[Maelstrom]

bump

[madfly]

ping! I knew I forgot someone!

[Free the USA]

Some freeper back before the register was shut down modified the list and so it has a new group number, new articles are Landgrab

[madfly]

I see. Then is there a "List" of the new links, ie; a new Bump list? I'm a little confused. lol

thanks

[Free the USA]

There where a couple of freepers who thought they could remove themselves from ping lists by putting their name or message in the description box and using the bump list name. All they did was create a new bump list with their message instead of the original discription and those who bookmarked or saved the old URL get the old list while new articles end up in the new list accessible by my general link.

[madfly]

uh, ok. What is your general link, sir. :o)

[Free the USA]

Bump list

[madfly]

So all is well with the BUMP LIST. I did see where someone tried to have his name deleted from the landgrab list.

Thanks for the explanation, F T USA!

[brityank]

Thanks madfly and FtUSA =

So if you put the *landgrab in the "To:" box, then it goes to the Group=382 -- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/involved?group=382 --

... ... Where do we acquire the Group Number List and Names from?

[Free the USA]

Where do we acquire the Group Number List and Names from?

The computer assigns a sequntial number as each list is created, the names were created by freepers with an interest in the subject and a desire to create a list. Can't create new list right now due to the problem of freepers changing existing lists.

[Libertina]

Hey, thanks for the name explantion on your homepage Brityank! I love it.
I feel irritated when I find I don't know a law, because for the life of me I thought that private property could only be condemned when it was a danger. This really ticks me off. Now I also have to check out your comment about about operating like a commonwealth. ???

I have friends (who own a golf course -"Waltz" ) in Limerick PA. Are you in that area?