Catskill Mountain Railroad (CMRR) Discussion - 2018

lvrr325 wrote:They sell it as processed scrap, high quality material and it goes to a furnace somewhere, is what's in it for them. Every time I've bought out of the scrap yard I had to pay about double what they pay for the material based on the weight.

Except that still doesn’t explain why this scrap metal salvage company wouldn’t/won’t sell to the CMRR or DURR. The scrap yard is not legally obligated to oblige Ulster County’s request not to sell to the railroad. As long as someone is willing to pay the price they can sell to whom ever they want. So unless the owners of the scrap yard are hardcore trail supporters, why are they refusing to sell the rails back to the railroad?

Who knows, some places once it's in their yard it gets processed and that's that.

Because they want future scrapping business from the county. Because they don't want the county inspectors finding that their scrapyard is messy and violates some beautification ordinance.

We’ll this is interesting... seems like Ulster County is in a bit of a jam. I skimmed over the actual STB response and it seems to me like a split decision. The line was declared abandoned, but Ulster County doesn’t qualify for ANY federal funds for the trail. So I guess if Mr. county exec wants a trail he’s going to have to pay for it himself.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/ud-railw ... 719003834/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the link:

https://www.stb.gov/decisions/readingro ... enDocument" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In addition to what is discussed above,it raises the question of ownership of the ROW. If the County of Ulster purchased the line, where is the proof ? In addition, was proper procedure followed in regards to sale of the line after abandonment ? Often the time frame between abandonment and new owner takes years to settle. This means that notice has to be posted as well as hearings held regarding proposed ownership regardless of intended use. Then there are the property owners who must be given a chance to reclaim the parcel of land under the ROW.
There is a lot to this and many unanswered questions....

There is nothing in the STB decision which addresses the issue of easements vs in-fee-simple ownership of the railbed. It *does*, however, make it crystal clear that the railroad was abandoned and not railbanked, so that there is no escape from extinguishment of easements. Ulster County may have safely exited the pan by jumping into the fire.

And thus we are at the "Reversionary Clauses" that I mentioned in previous posts. This ruling essentially states like I said that the county cannot have it's cake and eat it too! County exec Hein and his small but well placed backers are now in a bit of a pickle. Yes, it has been determined that the line was abandoned, but, well before the "Rail-trail" act came into existence. Beyond this, the bicycle enthusiasts don't like to bring up the part of this act that specifically states that it is to "Preserve the right if way for FUTURE RAIL USE while allowing for trail use in the interim. If I was a NY state taxpayer, I would be furious when finding out that the very state government that is supposed to be working in the best interests of the voting/taxpaying public was actually being manipulated by a small group of self serving individuals instead.

Wake up! Denying or ignoring climate change does not make it non existent. We can't keep relying in fossil fuels forever and continue to pave our way out of increasing traffic on our highways. If people want to accommodate visitors to the Catskills without doing further damage, then they need to offer an ALTERNATIVE to crowding the existing highways with more cars. Also, why deprive handicapped and elderly people of the right to enjoy views like Ashokan Reservoir simply because they can't PEDDLE to see them. This sure sounds like a different type of Discrimination to me!

More importantly, if the railroad is abandoned, how does that bode for the CMR? Presumably all of it falls to reversionary clauses regardless of whether or not it's been used.

I wonder if they could turn around and look into squatter's rights over the rail right of way, being they've been using the two portions for so long. It would be ironic if they ended up owning it that way. Better still, if they could claim all the way to Glenford Dyke.

I am going to bet that in any location the property is owned in fee simple or by another government agency you will see a trail.

Due to the cost of re-acquiring the property elsewhere I think the County will throw their hands up and walk away letting the property revert.

lvrr325 wrote:More importantly, if the railroad is abandoned, how does that bode for the CMR? Presumably all of it falls to reversionary clauses regardless of whether or not it's been used.

I wonder if they could turn around and look into squatter's rights over the rail right of way, being they've been using the two portions for so long. It would be ironic if they ended up owning it that way. Better still, if they could claim all the way to Glenford Dyke.

Legally, squatters have no rights. Interesting question. That said, for adverse possession or an easement by prescription, the many years of use required must be among other things, adverse meaning under color of title, i.e., believing that the claimant owned the title or rights. CMRR clearly cannot claim it owned the easements since it was a tenant of the County. However, the County might be able to do so, but would at a minimum have to overcome the 5th Amendment's requirement that the government cannot take property without paying fair compensation to the owner. Arguably taking by adverse possession or easement by prescription means no compensation was paid.

Sorry, squatters have rights if they have been using the property for a certain amount of time - read years. Dates back to old English law and it was proved legal in NYS by the appeals court maybe a decade ago.

Seems some guy downstate had been using a portion of his neighbors property for a while and then the neighbor said no. Went to court and the neighbor lost. The man got to keep using the property as his own.

That's why you need a legal agreement or an easement or something. If you let your neighbor use a 1/2 acre in your back 40, you may lose it.

A group of community gardeners in Queens started squatting on a small piece of an old industrial spur. They didn't hide, set up a mailbox, held public events, etc.They were building legs to stand on in court should the need arise.

When the owner, the MTA, found out, they quickly decided it would be easier to sign a lease than try to get them off the property (which they have no other use for).

With the dirty politics up there I doubt this new fiasco will end as simply.

In New York State, adverse possession does not apply to municipally owned property. Just how that ties into the situation being discussed I'm not able to say, as I have not followed the complete history of the dispute.

New Haven 1 wrote: If I was a NY state taxpayer, I would be furious when finding out that the very state government that is supposed to be working in the best interests of the voting/taxpaying public was actually being manipulated by a small group of self serving individuals instead.

Oh, we got used to THAT years ago!