I just found this quote from Friday’s Seattle P-I so amusing — and revealing — that I just had to share it before I headed off to bed:
Rick Schroeder said his support for Irons had nothing to do with policy issues relating to road building or construction.
“He’s a property-rights guy,” Schroeder said of Irons. “He doesn’t ramrod trails right through the back yard of people’s properties as Ron Sims does.”
Schroeder lives in Sammamish but is not, he said, one of the homeowners along the East Lake Sammamish Trail who protested the Sims-backed plan to reclaim the public right of way for the trail that they had encroached on.
Um… so by “a property-rights guy” Schroeder means supporting private landowners’ rights to public property.
What a putz.
Conservative without a clue. No surprise there.
This rail line that once ran on the East Side of Lake Sammamish, was part of the Seattle, Lake Shore, and Eastern’s vain attempt to compete with the Northern Pacific after NP bypassed Seattle. The line is known as the Burke-Gilman Trail now. Didn’t King County buy it from Burlington Northern Santa Fe? The only future that this line had was for the Issaquah Valley Trolley to eventually reach Lake Sammamish State Park.
http://issaquahhistory.org/trolley/vision.htm
I wonder, would the UW protest the conversion of the SLS&E right of way in the U-District into a trail? Students use it to get around campus. The line no longer had any freight customers, and in the case of the SLS&E, no excursion operators were around in those days.
“Property Rights Guy” (noun)
(1.) crackpot. The belief in the inalienable right for those who own property to establish a riskless rate of return on their holdings commesurate only with their individual level of greed, irrespective of economics, law, or the needs and desires of society in general.
(2.) Subsidy. Property prices are mandated by God to always go up, and it is the duty of the government to ensure this by a pro-active policy to constantly turn large parcels of land into smaller parcels thereby “creating wealth”.
Goldy, a right of way is not a deed to property. It is simply a right to use property that someone else owns and pays taxes on. In this case the right of way was granted for a RAILROAD that is now defunct. It is my opinion that unless Sims is going to put in a railroad (monorail ha ha) then a new right of way needs negotiated.
Land Use Attorney David H.A. CLOWNstein reporting for duty!
No property real rights guy would favor blasting a giant freeway through people’s property in the lush Snoqualmie Valley, as David Iron’s advocates considering.
It looks as though Irons has lost this race because he has actively supported Kemper Freeman’s wacky road building promotion. Freeman’s million dollar campaign for roads has backfired big time on the one Republican who may have had a chance to be county executive in about a dozen years.
Sims has earned the endorsement of every green in the urbanized areas and property owners in the more rural areas by making his campaign (on TV and mailings) about his effective advocacy for real transportation solutions as opposed to gigantic freeways designed that would forever corrupt the rural landscape and the lives of the people who live there.
Sims is getting donations from:
Developers, wanting to keep getting building permits
Indian casinos, wanting to keep non-indian casinos from getting building permits
Taxi Drivers, wanting to keep getting taxi permits
and his staff, wanting to keep their jobs (OK, that’s a no-brainer, esp. Logan)
Where is our Thomas Nast?
Once again, you need a truth button…
Lie: David Irons wants to build a four-lane freeway through the Snoqualmie Valley.
The Truth: Read Ron’s own sources, David has proposed studying all options to reduce congestion. However, he has seen no justification for building a freeway through the Snoqualmie valley. David Irons has proposed adding lanes to the most congested places on our existing freeways to help ease congestion and get our traffic moving.
http://www.kingcountyjournal.c.....html/11253
http://www.kingcountyjournal.c.....html/11810
Thhhhhhhhwa!
I wonder, would the UW protest the conversion of the SLS&E right of way in the U-District into a trail? Students use it to get around campus. The line no longer had any freight customers, and in the case of the SLS&E, no excursion operators were around in those days.
Comment by EvergreenRailfan— 11/4/05 @ 12:36 am
Who is EvergreeRailfan? What do have to hide? If you are going to steal land from the people at least us if for something worth while. Like a light-rail or maybe a monorail, the rail beds are alredy completed and level. Plus the right a way or environ-mental requirements are already met. Instead of collecting tolls to ride a bike or walk, you lower clase socialist can ride mass transit to your goverment jobs. Now the other folks will not have to smell or watch that cloud of smoke coming out of the tail pipe of your YUGO park on the road. Headless Lucy you do us mass transit to get to work. Like the light rail from white center to Seattle? We all know the Wabbit hardley leaves his hole, and only travels in his tunnels around the city. Wabbit give Headless Lucy a big hug today she needs it.
folks the filter us up on this blog so don’t call anyone a SOCIALISTormissspelltheword wouldn’t want to stereotype a present day party with the correct name.
http://metrokc.gov/council/new.....bility.htm
Truth button again…
Comment by Chuck— 11/4/05 @ 5:19 am
“It is my opinion that unless Sims is going to put in a railroad (monorail ha ha) then a new right of way needs negotiated. ”
The county bought the right of way and “rail banked” it. This means that the property can be used for a trail, but they’ll dig it up and put in tracks again if there’s need for a rail road. I’m not sure if this includes light rail.
Here’s some more information on rail banking.
http://www.nps.gov/nts/legislation.html
From the P-I:
“who protested the Sims-backed plan to reclaim the public right of way for the trail that they had encroached on.”
I’m not sure these homeowners had “encroached” on the rail right of way. I do think better leadership from Sims could have mitigated some of the protesting from homeowners. So actions like the East Lake Sammamish Trail and the CAO make Sims the opposite of a “property rights guy” in the eyes of many voters.
Klake really is illiterate. Keep posting so we can see exactly how illiterate you are. Moron.
klake
What, you mean the SP USA?
What’s so wrong with a property owner having dominion, control and the right to enjoyment the property he or she owns?
Goldy, please opine on Supremes ruling this past year on emminent domain just to build a Costco? Touches same issue, which is, do i have unlimited right to my property, do i have to abide by zoning, neighborhood covenants, can you tell me what color to paint my house?, can i make my house a church?, can we all vote to take houses in favor of a green-friendly rail line, not a freeway?
What’s Ricky “Silver Spoons” Schroeder doing living in Sammamish?
Klake really is illiterate. Keep posting so we can see exactly how illiterate you are. Moron.
Comment by fire_one— 11/4/05 @ 7:53 am
fire_one did I hit a raw nerve? You forgot that I went to the same schools you did, but I didn’t learn to read untill the draft notice showed up in the mail. The one thing you shouldn’t do is judge the person by what and how they write, its an old Indian trick.(Sucker Play) Hey Wabbit you have another person to hug today.
klake
What, you mean the SP USA?
Comment by Dr. E— 11/4/05 @ 8:01 am
Dr. E you shouldn’t let that info lose on this web site, you would have to treat some of them for depression. At least you know what the word means, but have you been there?
libertarian: Lemme tell you a story, this probably isn’t 100% the same thing, but its the counterpoint to your statement.
I grew up close to three tree Point in Burien. Its a nice little area, pretty beach… all public. Or at least it was.
On the south side, since the ’50s the people who live along the street have been building along the public beach, putting garages up, making patios, just generally messing it up. Then, to make matters worse, they sued a few decades back for ownership… and won. So here you have landowners breaking the law, and being rewarded with beach property. Thats the kind of thing it looks like, goldy is saying is wrong.
I dunno how different the trail along lake Sammamish is, (right-of-way is different than public property of course)… but its the same “I don’t want anyone else to be able to get there!”
Actually, reading the above, its like the other side of the point. The beach is still public, and there used to be 5-6 public right of way access points from the road above. There are 2 left. The property owners shut them down because they want the beach to themselves… So that is the same.
Its wrong is So. King County, its wrong in East King County. Lakes and Beaches and Rivers are valuable, and the public should have access to them… especially when theres a pre-existant right of way
Private people can be just as avaricious and law bending as the gov’t, if not more so. And its just as wrong for them to take away public access routes as it is for the Gov’t to take their property.
Comment by Libertarian— 11/4/05 @ 8:04 am
“What’s so wrong with a property owner having dominion, control and the right to enjoyment the property he or she owns? ”
That’s the point, the people who live by the East Lake Sammamish Trail didn’t own the land, BN&SF owned the land. They sold it to some conservancy group, who then sold it to King County. I assume you’d agree that BN&SF has the right to sell land they own to whomever they choose.
I do think it’s funny Goldy linked to this particular piece, since the title is “If dollars were votes, Sims would win big”.
klake @ 19 Hey moron, this is a blog. The only thing we CAN judge you on is how you write. And don’t try telling anyone you passed the third grade, because it just makes you look foolish…
Buh
Bye
“Um… so by “a property-rights guy” Schroeder means supporting private landowners’ rights to public property. ”
vs the public’s right to private property (without compensation).
Keep up the good work, wackos! The narrow interests need your help to line their pockets!
Tom DeLay aide Mike Scanlon:
“The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees,” Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. “Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them.”
I also love the commercial of Sims talking about paving the valley (shot in the valley I presume). I’m surprised he found a spot without an Irons sign in the background.
Try and Find a Sims sign in the Snoqualmie Valley.
drool:
You shouldn’t call east King County’ers stupid like that!
Its damn rude!
Everyone:
I really don’t have an agenda for King County and the trails issue. My comment above simply means I think private property rights are sacred. That recent Supreme Court case where the greed-head developers managed to get the city of New London to condemn some private property is what I’m talking about. The city said they should be able to seize private property and sell it to private developers since the development would bring in more tax revenue. The totally insane thing about this whole deal was the SCOTUS voted IN FAVOR OF THE GREED-HEAD DEVELOPERS AND THE GREEDY CITY!
So, just some average folks lost their homes they had owned for decades so that some real estate developers could make a buck and the crappy city leadership of New London could get some more taxes. Of sure, you’re all thinking, “But the city paid them a fair price!” Does anybody out there really believe that?
Private property is SACRED! No government entity – federal, state, or local – should be allowed to seize ANY private proerty unless there is a VERY, VERY, DAMN GOOD REASON! And taking land to increase tax receipts ain’t a reason that even comes close!
lib:
I agree with you. 100%, in fact.
I just find that all too often people use ‘property rights’ to claim property that they have no rights to. Thats not right either.
Chuck E. Cheese @4
“Goldy, a right of way is not a deed to property.”
Mr.Cyn-Irrelevant @5
“Land Use Attorney David H.A. CLOWNstein reporting for duty!”
See #4.
@6
“It looks as though Irons has lost this race because he has actively supported Kemper Freeman’s wacky road building promotion.”
No, he’s lost it because 6 out of 10 county voters don’t want our county government run by a psychotic with a violent temper who’s a pathological liar and a mother-beater.
“Freeman’s million dollar campaign for roads”
Freeman, a Republican, wants taxpayers to invest in roads so he can get richer. Republicans get rich by investing OPM* (*other people’s money), just like they fight their wars with OPS* (other people’s sons). They never risk their own money or sons. Republicans are
F R E E L O A D E R S
Josef the Dinocrite @8
“David Irons has proposed adding lanes to the most congested places on our existing freeways to help ease congestion and get our traffic moving.”
So has Christine Gregoire, but wingnuts are trying to repeal it.
flake* @10
(* This is NOT a typo)
“We all know the Wabbit hardley leaves his hole, and only travels in his tunnels around the city.”
But … but … I don’t take up any freeway space, use any oil, and my emissions are limited to a bunny fart now and then.
“Wabbit give Headless Lucy a big hug today she needs it.”
I’ll be happy to give HL a soft fluffy hug — and whatever else she needs — as long as she’s a cute female bunny.
flake* @11
(* This is NOT a typo)
This is a test
testing 1,2,3 SOCIALIST testing
There’s nothing wrong with Goldy’s spam filter. You may want to check your brain filter.
@16
“What’s so wrong with a property owner having dominion, control and the right to enjoyment the property he or she owns?”
What’s so wrong with the county having dominion, control and the right to use of the property the county owns?
@17
“do i have unlimited right to my property”
no
“do i have to abide by zoning”
yes
“neighborhood covenants”
depends
“can you tell me what color to paint my house?”
generally no, unless there’s a valid contract (i.e., covenant) under which you agreed to paint it a certain color (or not paint it certain colors) in exchange for a valuable consideration, in which case the agreement is enforceable like any other contract
“can i make my house a church”
depends; you certainly can pray in your house, and you can invite a group of family members and/or friends to pray with you and conduct whatever other religious practices are appurtenant to your faith (including kinky sex); but you cannot turn your house into a public place of worship for 1,000 people without complying with land use laws (e.g., providing parking for 500 cars; abiding by restrictions on night-time use of outdoor p.a. systems, etc.)
“can we all vote to take houses in favor of a green-friendly rail line, not a freeway?”
apparently yes, thanks to your shitass Republican-controlled Supreme Court
@19
“You forgot that I went to the same schools you did”
This seems highly doubtful. It’s illogical that the same schools could produce both fire_one and … you.
@22
“That’s the point, the people who live by the East Lake Sammamish Trail didn’t own the land, BN&SF owned the land. They sold it to some conservancy group, who then sold it to King County.”
Not only that, they KNEW the right-of-way was there when they bought their homes, because the railroad existed before any of them were born.
@24
or, conversely, as noted above, vs the private landowner’s right to public property (without compensation).
@37
Remember! to the righties, their words define reality!
The land is theirs, and there’s no question of right-of-way…
Because they say so!
Republican psychic powers of reality-editation at work!
@28
“Private property is SACRED!”
Bullshit.
All property rights come from the king, or whoever currently has an army big enough to protect the property from encroachers and keep it for the king and his subjects (or, substitute for “king” the word “dictator” or “sovereign” or “government”).
In the American colonies, the original property rights flowed from charters granted by the Crown.
Furthermore, “property rights” are meaningless without a government, its laws, and courts, sheriffs, and in some instances a National Guard or Army to protect and enforce them. You are totally, completely, 100% dependent on GOVERNMENT for your property rights. Property claims or rights to land couldn’t possibly exist in the absence of government.
The government — whether headed by a king, despot, or democratically elected leader — is SOVEREIGN. That means it is the source of all rights, and the ultimate authority. Under our system, restrictions on the sovereign’s exercise of power over us were embedded in a Constitution (until the neocons came along) that our forefathers agreed to; under other systems, the sovereign’s ability to exercise domain over its land and subjects more typically is constrained by practical limits on its wherewithal and ability to control obstreperous vassals and subjects.
Having said all that, it appears that NOBODY on this site — whether Republican, Libertarian, Green, or Democrat — likes the recent Supreme Court ruling — so why are you beating on this horse? You are preaching to the choir.
Amendment V
No person shall …be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….
So what is due process? The Supremes have upheld homeowners covenent clause, no matter how stupid (remind me to tell you about the condominium association and the screened door).
But without zoning laws, what is to prevent your absentee next door neigbor from thinking that burying hazzardous waste in his backyard is just peachy?
Hey Lib — if “property rights are SACRED” — as you claim — how would you answer this one?
Years ago, I read a story in the newspaper about a midwestern farmer (of liberal bent) who attempted to donate his 50-acre farm to the U.N. for creation of an “International Peace Center.” The federal government stepped in and said, “no, we won’t allow foreign control of land within the borders of the United States and its territories.”
So, Lib, whose side would YOU take — the farmer’s, or the government’s? How about if, instead of donating the land to the U.N., the farmer wanted to lease it to the U.S.S.R. for use as a missile base?
Do you still want to argue that property rights are absolute, and the private landowner’s wishes supersede those of the government’s, in any and all circumstances?
@42
The Supremes have also struck down covenants as void and unenforceable, e.g. racial covenants.
Roger @ 41:
I was making my point clear, that’s all. I believe government exists for people, not the other way around.
BTW, I’m actually glad for your comment that I’m preaching to the choir. I’m happy you all agree with me that the New London decision was a very, very bad SCOTUS decision.
Railroad rights-of-way are pretty darn durable, indeed, railroad operations themselves are very hard to do anything about at the local level.
If I recall correctly, the national “Rails to Trails” program has as one of its goals the preservation of future rights-of-way for existing rail lines. That way we won’t find ourselves in the same pickle we are now when the gigantic automobile factory (or whatever is a republican dream industry) gets build near the 70-story condo towers of 2050 Issaquah and needs rail service.
As RR points out, these idiots on East Lake Sammamish are no different than the people who buy a sheap house near an airport and then complain about the noise.
True, but that is part of a larger issue, violation of civil rights laws.
I’m talking about covenents that apply to individuals who have owned the property in a developement for years, and then are confronted by covenent because a majority of the neighbors decided to impliment them. You have no choice if your property is part of the development. Or am I mistaken?
By now, in this discussion of property rights, governmental powers, and sovereignty, some of you must be wondering about the Native American tribes and their legal status, yes?
Well, here’s the legal answer.
In popular lore, the Native Americans are a conquered people. That’s not exactly correct. In pre-contact times, there was no individually owned property on the continent; tribes roamed and used their traditional grounds as communities, and sometimes in common with other tribes. Although it’s true the N.A.s were displaced from their traditional lands by white encroachment, and usually forcibly, it’s not true that Native Americans unconditionally surrendered their traditional lands to whites. In most cases, the N.A.s and encroaching whites entered into agreements (the “Indian treaties”) which, while definitely favoring the white settlers and certainly offered to the Indians on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, nevertheless conferred certain rights and guarantees that the federal government felt bound to honor. Many of these treaties remain in effect today.
To summarize current Indian law in the United States,
1. Individual Indians have no special legal rights; all rights under treaties or granted by Congress belong to tribes as entities, not the individual members thereof.
2. The rights, lands, and guarantees conferred by Indian treaties are more than contracts, but less than sovereign rights (despite the fact tribes like to speak of “tribal sovereignty”); they have the legal status of federal statutes, which Congress can repeal or abrogate at will. As long as they remain in effect, however, like other federal statutes they supersede state laws, and courts will enforce them against states, local governments, and individuals.
3. The “tribal sovereignty” and self-governance that tribes and Indian advocates proudly point to today, in fact is a broad autonomy granted to tribes by Congress at its sufferance, which as noted above can be withdrawn or encroached upon by Congress at its will, at any time; and is less than true sovereignty because it is subordinate to other federal interests (such as national security). For example, the federal government will not allow an Indian tribe to lease land to a foreign government for the purpose of stationing foreign troops on reservation soil; nor will it allow tribes to use their reserved lands for purposes in conflict with federal laws, such as unregulated hazardous waste dumps.
4. Because tribal desires often conflict with state wishes (e.g., selling tax-free cigarets on Indian land), states often negotiate with the federal government over what tribes will, or will not, be permitted to do, both on and off designated Indian lands. Most recently, in our state, Governor Gregoire completed negotiations with the Spokane Tribe of a controversial gaming compact that will allow an expansion of Indian slot machines in Washington.
5. Federal grants of rights and privileges to tribes are not necessarily limited to Indian lands. Many of these rights and privileges extend off-reservation. Indian water rights under the Winter Doctrine (this refers to an early-20th-century U.S. Supreme Court case), for example, may limit the ability of off-reservation landowners to take water from a source utilized by Indians. (Under the Winter Doctrine, tribes are entitled to all the water needed to effectuate the purposes of the reservation; and these rights are considered aboriginal in origin, prior in time to, and superior to any water rights granted by states or under other federal laws. And, unlike water rights obtained under other laws, they are not quantified; and can expand in the future at the expense of other water users.) Indian gaming is authorized and regulated by a federal statute, which Congress may modify or repeal at will; the policy behind this statute is to aid tribes in becoming economically self-sufficient and reduce their dependency on the federal treasury by granting them a more or less exclusive franchise to an activity that will generate jobs and income for tribes.
6. At the conclusion of the Indian Wars, the federal government assumed the role of guardian and protector of Native Americans, and historically has assumed responsibility for their social and economic needs and protected them from a hostile predominant society. This is a useful oversimplification; if you know any history at all, you know the federal government has often been less than a beneficial benefactor. Nevertheless, it’s important to understand the practical fact that historically the tribes and individual Indians have been regarded and treated as wards of the federal government. In the closing days of the frontier, reservations were established to protect the Indians from hostile settlers, as much as to protect the settlers from hostile Indians; and the U.S. Army guarded Indian settlements to protect them from attack by whites.
7. Consistent with 6) above, some federal laws, primarily protective in nature, extend off reservation and confer protections and rights on Native Americans wherever they happen to be. Pre-eminent among these laws is the federal Indian Child Welfare Act. In the early years following the close of the Indian Wars and establishment of reservations, federal policy focused on assimilation (i.e., the integration of Indians into white society and destruction of their cultural identity as Indians), and to foster this policy, Indian children were taken from their families and put in government-run boarding schools whose mission was to convert them (culturally, at least) into whites. They were taught English, and punished for using their native language; their hair was cut, and they were compelled to wear clothing conforming with the white school fashions of the day; and they were forbidden to practice their native religions, and were schooled in the white man’s religion. This policy was a disastrous failure. When Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act, its purpose was to keep any government — federal or state — from removing Indian children from their Indian homes, and to guarantee them the right to live in their own culture with their own language and religion. The practical effect of the ICWA is that it prevents state welfare workers from applying state child welfare laws to Indian children in ways that are inconsistent with federal objectives and protections. If a child is Indian as defined by law, he or she must be identified as such, and then there are things state caseworkers must comply with — and can’t do — because the child is an Indian.
Public Notice: The “Roger” posting at #46 is NOT Roger Rabbit, it is a different Roger.
Commandr Ogg @ 47:
Fox News.com has a bit about Oakland seizing a tire shop’s land & buildings for “the public good,” (read: more taxes for us clowns in city government!).
Makes ya wanna puke, doesn’t it?
47
I don’t know the answer to that. I’ve wondered myself — but have been too busy and/or lazy to research it.
Off the top of my head, it seems to me that a covenant would apply to you if it was part of the property deed when you bought the property, but if not, it could not apply to you if you didn’t sign it. Covenants are contracts; and all contracts are voluntary in nature. No contract can be imposed on anyone who does not wish to be a party to it, or bound by its terms. Consequently, if I lived in a subdivision of 50 houses, and 26 of my neighbors voted to impose a restricton or requirement on the entire subdivision (e.g., everyone must plant rhododendrons in their front year), I believe that I would prevail in a court action to enforce that restriction or requirement against me if I didn’t agree to it.
@49
That depends. If the tire shop’s land is needed for a freeway, the needs of the many supersede the rights of the individual. Many houses were condemned and taken by the state through eminent domain when I-5 was built through Seattle; and I-5 wouldn’t exist if the state didn’t have the power to do that.
Agreed Libertarian, but the Supremes have ultimatly said, if you do not like the way your local government is administering eminent domain, kick the rascals out.
Who gives a damn about the law that says a property owner can be FORCED to give an easement to a railroad but when the railroad abondons the tracks, the easement reverts to the property owner.
Hey, were are talking about the “common good” here and the law and private property rights be damned.
Off-Topic: Has Dean Logan released the results of next week’s election yet?
Goldy, this is so unlike you.
Actually putting something out there that is not just a snivelling smear.
John425: Now that’s funny!
Off-Topic: Has Dean Logan released the results of next week’s election yet? -Comment by John425— 11/4/05 @ 11:59 am
SURPRISE! King Ron of Corrupt Sims County retains his crown by 129-390 votes!
Roger-
Take your medicine (read: kool-aid)
Irons has not lost this election, unless your pal Deano has let you in on something.
ProudAss: In this election double that range and more people will vote and the fruitcakes like dj will say more absolute votes so more chance for relative error since the absolute number of voters increased.
Roger Rabbit @ 51:
The land was being taken for privte developers to build upon. No public “need” at all.
10
I actually have used the Burke Gilman Trail to get to University Villiage from where the 43 and 48 have dropped me off rather than wait for connecting buses that take forever to get there. The last time I had to take my computer there to get repaired, I noticed that there were a lot of people using it.
The UW is a tough neighbor to please. They are even opposing the replacement of the Montlake Interchange for SR520.
LRT has worked in San Diego(First of the new systems in the USA), been a survivor in San Francisco, and a development boom for Portland. LRT and Trackless Trolleybuses do not run on fossil fuels(at least up here). We have to start somewhere, and by the way, you got your lines mixed up. The Green Line Monorail(which I am voting agaiinst) will run from W. Seattle to Ballard. Light Rail will come from the Airport to Seattle in 2009, and U-District by 2018. Hopefully once we avoid building more tunnels, costs will come down, and construction time will come down.
The username I use is one I use on railfan boards. It is interesting what some from the East Coast that have the benefit of working bus and rail systems, think about our slow pace.
The fact that Goldstein cites a journalist as some sort of land-use expert is laughable. The fact that Goldstein cannot differentiate between a railroad right of way and a public right of way is naive.
The actual caveat on railroad right of way deeds said that the corridor was to be used as a railroad line and only as a railroad line and, at such a time that a railroad line is not running on it, the ownership will revert to the owner. The concept of encroachment is questionable considering an equally compelling argument could be made for adverse possession. This was not a public right of way at any time until it was sold to the Land Conservancy and then subsequently to King County.
In 1983 the Rails to Trails act was passed and it basically allowed for these rights of way to be preserved under the pretense that, at some future time, these corridors will once again be used for a railroad. Anyone buying a piece of this real estate, for all their diligence, could not have foreseen that the corridor abutting their property would be sold for use as a walking/biking trail. If they purchased their real estate after 1983 then it is possible they could have foreseen this eventuality but that is still a stretch. The bottom line is that the Rails-to-Trails act subverted established real estate law and undermined the titular rights of owners. It has nothing to do with people’s expectations of property values going up without regard to some “public use” that they should have somehow presciently foreseen. Schadenfreude toward the owners of the land in question is adolescent, spiteful and in poor taste.
@45
“I was making my point clear, that’s all.”
Ahhhh … so, you are backing away from your assertion that property rights are absolute.
“I believe government exists for people, not the other way around.”
We agree! We agree! We agree! I don’t think a farmer, tribe, or anybody else should be allowed to lease their land to Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or China for use as a missile base.
@53
I was under the impression that the railroads were here first, and received vast grants of vacant public lands to subsidize the building of the rail lines, which was thought to be in the public interest; and that communities, farms, and industries grew up around the railroads and in many cases bought land originally part of the railroad grants from the railroads that the latter were not using for railroad purposes; so that, there is at least a chance that, in the case of a particular parcel of land adjacent to an abandoned or disused railroad right-of-way, the right-of-way is not an “easement” but rather a fee simple retained by the original property owner to take title from the government, and the abutting private landowner is the owner of land that was originally owned by, and acquired from, the railroad.
But don’t let facts or history get in the way of ideology or polemics, Bob.
Now let’s see a show of hands — how many of you think railroad rights-of-way are mere “easements” and not land to which the railroads hold title in fee simple absolute?
I’m just curious to know how many ignorant fucks like Bob we have on this board.
@54
Off topic: Have you stopped beating your children yet?
@56
Yes, Puttybutt, I can see where someone with your twisted mind would think that’s funny.
@57
Glad you put yourself on record like that, ASS. Trust me, I’ll remind you of this post after Sims kicks Irons’ ass by 10 points, you fucking paranoid conspiracy-theory UFO-kidnapped alien-raped freak.
@58
OK, don’t read the polls. And keep telling yourself Rossi won, and Bush enjoys a 90% approval rating. Go ahead, walk out on the freeway and stand in front of that truck, it won’t hit you.
But if that truck does hit you, it won’t hurt. I promise.
Because you won’t live long enough to feel anything.
@60
In that case, I’m against it.
@62
Okay, if it’ll make the neighbors happy, shitcan the trail and run trains on the Burke-Gilman right-of-way.
A story in today’s Seattle Times says Clallam County voters will decide next Tuesday whether to impose a 1/2% tax on real estate sales to finance a farmland preservation program.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....rm04m.html
Typically, these programs buy out development rights to farmland in the path of urban growth. The farmer continues to own and farm the land, but accepts a sum of money in exchange for a deed restriction limiting the land’s future use to farming. The farmer, in effect, is being paid for giving up the profit he might have made by selling the land to developers.
Whether this tax should be passed is a local matter. As a King County resident, it’s not for me to tell Clallam County voters whether to tax property sells to pay for farmland preservation. But if I lived in Clallam County, I would vote no. In short, I side with the Realtors who are fighting the proposal.
Here’s why.
The cost of housing is the greatest financial burden and problem most of us face. This burden is most crushing on young families and lower-income wage earners. I’m not necessarily opposed to EVERYTHING that makes housing more expensive. However, sellers and buyers of real estate can withstand only so much taxation, and I’m against loading more taxes on real estate transactions than already exist.
Regardless of whether this tax hurts buyers or sellers, I’m against it. However laudable the goal of preserving farmland from development, if they can’t pay for it from general revenues, then maybe they can’t afford it and shouldn’t proceed with it. Backers of the tax say they’ve tried everything else and this is the last resort for funding. While, my answer to them would be, if the people of their county can’t afford to pay for it through property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, or other general taxes, then they can’t afford to pay for it through a real estate transaction tax, either.
Burdening real estate sales with more taxes will make it harder for younger buyers — especially first time buyers — to get into a home. For some, it’ll make it impossible.
It’s no easier to justify this tax by dumping it on sellers who are trading up, or selling out. Things really are not much easier for the midlife family trading up from their first home to a larger home because they now have children and need more space, or simply because they want an upgrade — don’t people deserve a better home after working hard for ten or twenty years to earn it? We shouldn’t take that away from them just because there’s a warm-fuzzy feel-good program we want, no matter how laudable the program may be. Farmland preservation is a luxury, not a necessity.
Nearly all people selling out of home ownership and moving to non-owned housing are senior citizens. Most of them depend on the proceeds of their home equity to provide income for their basic necessities. To take money away from them that they need to pay for rent, nursing care, medical expenses, or food because some of us want to preserve farmland is just wrong.
Although I’m a Democrat, I don’t support all taxes, or all spending — even for purposes I consider worthy. I think affordable housing, and keeping home equity in the hands of the senior citizens it belongs to, is a higher priority than the plethora of programs that various advocates would like to pay for by taxing property, or taxing real estate transactions. There are limits to everything. I’m not against preserving farmland in Clallam County, but if they can’t find some other way of paying for it, they can’t afford it.
socialist……i just had to try it.
wow…klake is right! my husband and i were laughing trying to figure out just which words goldy would use as a filter. we knew it couldn’t be anything foul…….it seems to be soc ial ist.
ohmygod…too funny. klake is right. so much for free speech eh, goldy? so why soc ial ist? i KNOW why you didn’t choose fascist….we all know that. very interesting.
Is there any sharper demonstration of ignorance than someone who shouts “free speech!” while using a privately run and held property like this?
Xmasghost is a fascist
You’re right, Ghost, the word “fascist” doesn’t trip the filter.
Tacoma Rail is a big operation, at least 200 miles of track operated, most of it except their Capitol Division(which they switch cars on three branches for BNSF) they own, and a branch of the Tacoma PUD. It pays TAXES on it’s profits as any utility would. I am not sure if they pay property Taxes, because their website does not say which ones they pay.
http://www.tacomarail.com/home/aboutus.asp
As for the Burke-Gilman Trail, it’s U-District routing will never be a viable rail corridor, wether freight or mass transit again, too many curves, and curves restrict speed. Although the streetcars in use in Tacoma and Portland are articulated, they might be able to handle them.
Here is one chronology of the Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern.
http://issaquahhistory.org/depot/chronology.htm