Landowner blocks rail trail access, getting sued by state of ME.

Bangor Daily News ^ | 02/22/2009 | Eric Russell

[tj21807]

"Dale Henderson, a prominent Maine landowner who owns two pieces of land that the new trail runs through, is challenging the state over ownership of parts of the new Sunrise Trail. About 50 miles of the project recently was opened to hikers, bikers, cross-country skiers, snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles.

But Henderson isn’t waiting for the courts to decide his fate. He already has taken matters into his own hands.

The landowner recently erected barricades to stop users from traversing his property. In the town of Hancock, Henderson put up a berm on the tracks at one end and a stone wall at the other end. On a smaller piece of land in the Washington County town of Steuben, he built berms on both ends of the 50-acre property where the tracks run through."

[tj21807]

I say good for this guy, the second someone gets hurt on that proposed trail they will sue him, the state needs to get the property owner's permission!

[Past Your Eyes]

“Virgil Bliss was the dirtiest man in Hancock County”.

[omega4179]

Good for him.the state has no business putting bike/skimobile trails on his land.

[Londo Molari]

It is a former railroad right-of-way, though. Is it his property? Did he purchase it from the former railroad?

[Mark was here]

Trails are covered by insurance policies purchaced by the towns, just as regular parks are.

[bert]

It is more than likely that he may own the land but it carries an easement or right of way for a railroad that is long gone. The railway route is now a trail and may be very legal.

The land owner is likely not aware of the old right of way ownership. A real estate agent may have told him the old easement no longer applied. When the rail road ceased, it might have been ceded to the state for back taxes.

[Realism]

Old railroad property is commonly turned over to local municipalities which then in turn can either hold on to the land or put it up for bid. If this landowner does not hold the deed he clearly is in the wrong. As for people getting injured, Im not sure what the law in his state is but here in N.Y. a land owner cannot be sued if they open their land up for recreation free of charge. Unless the landowner clearly goes out of their way to endanger people entering the property they enter at their own risk.

[from occupied ga]

Is it his property?

from the article

“Based on our research, we’re confident he owns that former rail bed and therefore has a right to post his property."

[tj21807]

True, but not if that person wanders off the trail (chasing wildlife, to find a scenic view, use the restroom, etc.) into his property and then gets hurt.

This guy wanted a fence built alongside the trail to prevent that from happening.

[Obamageddon]

If someone gets hurt on his barriers, the State will have more than just a trail thru that property - they’ll have a park.

[driftdiver]

Never read the article.

[nicola_tesla]

Or it may be that his deed carried a reversion clause that upon abandonment by the rr, the right-of-way would revert back to the deedholder.

I know for a fact that the rail-to-trail fanatics would like to make you believe otherwise.

This same thing happened to me. I fought the trail successfully because the rr had abandoned the property a decade before and my deed said I recovered the right-of-way. The County did everything short of eminent domain, then abandoned the idea when it was pointed out to them how much it would cost to buy 15 miles of former right-of-way.

[GonzoGOP]

"It is a former railroad right-of-way, though. Is it his property?"

I don't know the specifics of this case, but here in Illinois is was not unusual for railroads to leas in perpetuity land from farmers with the condition that if they ceased operation the land reverted to the original owner. It became a big issue when all the railroads were abandoning there track in the 1980s and wanted to use the land to run power lines. The farmers didn't mind a seldom used siding on their land, but objected to giant high tension towers and wouldn't sign new leases.

[bert]

.....it may be that his deed carried a reversion clause .....

I know. It may also be, as it locally occurred, that at some point the state acquired the right of way as creditor of the railroad and the route was never abandoned.

It causes never ending hard feelings.

[omega4179]

Some rail easements ceded land back and some did not. Sounds like his lawyer did the research and will not allow his land to be torn up by atv’s

[Mark was here]

For the Macomb Orchard Trail, many local governments had to work together and buy the property from the railroad. If they failed to purchase it, the land would have reverted back to the original plots. Having long right of ways under public ownership may be a big plus if some future technology makes them useful for transportation use again. In the meantime trails and parks will be a good use.

[1rudeboy]

Sounds like his lawyer did the research . . . .

That was the point of erecting the berms and barriers. If the landowner simply tried to negotiate with the State of Maine, the process would've been unending. Now, it will be resolved one way or another in court.

It also looks like the landowner would settle for the State springing for some fencing.

[from occupied ga]

Personally I hope he wins.

[from occupied ga]

In the meantime trails and parks will be a good use.

Says who? If people want to tramp over country land let them buy farms and tramp over their own land. Otherwise go to existing parks or stay home. The last thing this country needs is an expansion of government ownership of property.

[thinking]

“A real estate agent may have told him the old easement no longer applied. “

Who, in his right mind would consult a real estate agent over legal properity matters.....