Re: Rails To Trails-- what are YOUR thought?

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : : : : : : ARMSTRONG COUNYY PROPERTY OWNERS WIN OVER TRAIL ADVOCATES. JUDGE RULES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS : : : : : : : : : The case of Moody et al. v. Allegheny Valley Land Trust, after over ten years and many appeals, Judge Carson V. Brown granted the property owners Motions for Summary Judgment. : : : : : : : : : The Court ruled that the property owners owned their property in fee simple and the railroad only obtained an easement to operate a rail road. which was abandoned by Conrail. Conrail abandoned the right of way in Armstrong County from Schenley at mile post 30, to Red Bank at mile post 63.4. : : : : : : : : : The case was filed by Attorney William Claney Smith. Attorney Donald Bartlett Smith argued the Motions for Summary Judgment. : : : : : : : : : Attached is the Court's Order and Opinion. : : : : : : : : : For more information: W, C. Smith. 412 366 0050. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ARMSTRONG QOUNTY PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : : CIVIL DIVISION SALLY L MOODY, ROBERT J, MOODY, ) : : : : : : : : : FRED J. BR1ENT JR.CYNTHIA L BRIEN ) : : : : : : : : : WILLIAM DUFF McCRADY, WILLIAM A. ) EQUITY : : : : : : : : : LUCAS, A.J. LUCAS, GLENN G. BEATTY ) : : : : : : : : : SHARON L. BEATTY. RODNEY J, ) No. 1995-0963 : : : : : : : : : DENARDO, MELISSA DENARDO, DENNIS ) : : : : : : : : : H, ISEMAN, WILLIAM R. ISEMAN and ) : : : : : : : : : Estate of MARY E. KELLER, DAVID J. ) KUSHON, AND JANIE B. KUSHON, ) Plaintiffs : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Vs. : : : : : : : : : ALLEGHENY VALLEY LAND TRUST, ) ARMSTRONG COUNTY CONSERVANCY ) : : : : : : : : : CHARITABLE TRUST. ARMSTRONG RAILS ) : : : : : : : : : TO TRAILS ASSOCIATION, ) : : : : : : : : : CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION. ) : : : : : : : : : JERRY F. LONGWELL, LEE J. CALARIE, ) : : : : : : : : : DAVID R. RUPERT. NORMAN KARP, and ) : : : : : : : : : WILHELMINADECOCK, ) : : : : : : : : : Defendants ) : : : : : : : : : ORDER : : : : : : : : : Re: Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment : : : : : : : : : AND NOW. December 30, 2005. following the filing of briefs and oral argument on the above-referenced Motions held on July 27 2005 IT IS HEREBY : : : : : : : : : ORDERED that said Motions be granted as follows: : : : : : : : : : (1) That Plaintiffs are the fee simple owners of real estate subject to a railroad right of way originally granted to the Allegheny Valley Railroad which is the subject of this litigation. : : : : : : : : : (2) That the railroad right of way in question was given as an easement only and not as a fee simple conveyance of the underlying right of way : : : : : : : : : (3) The Consolidated Rail Corporation abandoned said railroad right of way easement between Milepost 30 at Schenley and Milepost 63.4 in Armstrong County on or before June 16, 1989 without timely action being taken by any party or entity to petition the Interstate Commerce Commission for rail banking under the National Trails Systems Act. The railroad right of way is thus deemed to be extinguished by the Consolidated Rail Corporation's abandonment. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : (4) The remaining issues relating to injunctive relief, damages for tres- : : : : : : : : : pass, and libel and slander and disparagement of title and punitive damages shall be reserved for a non-jury trial as provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure. : : : : : : : : : This Order is being issued for the following reasons: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : (a) The Court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue of material fact relating to Plaintiffs' ownership of the real estate either traversed by or adjoined by the railroad right of way in question. Similarly the Court is satisfied that the interest held by Allegheny Valley Railroad was merely a right of way or easement interest. : : : : : : : : : (b) The issue of whether Consolidated Rail Corporation abandoned the railroad right of way has been the subject of acrimonious dispute between the parties over the life of this litigation both from a factual standpoint and a legal standpoint. After much review of the facts which are reasonably not in dispute, the Court concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact on this issue. Consolidated Rail Corporation intended to abandon the right of way on the basis it was no longer needed for rail service; service was in fact terminated; the property interest was marketed for sale after the abandonment; the track and other items were sold for salvage, and a rail banking agreement was refused by Consolidated Rail Corporation. The legal authorities cited by Plaintiff are more persuasive than those put forth by Defendants, and accordingly the Court deems a summary judgment to be in order. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : (c) Plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial has been considered in the context of Pa. R.C.P. No. 1038.3. The Court considers the case to fall within the guidelines of Plaintiffs' seeking equitable relief and the use of a jury being discretionary with the Court with the jury's verdict being advisory only The remaining issues can be handled by the Court without the assistance of a jury. : : : : : : : : : BY THE COURT : : : : : : : : : ___________________________ : : : : : : : : : Carson V. Brown S.J. : : : : : : : : : Specially presiding I : : : : : : : : : 25th Judicial District of Pennsylvania : : : : : : : : : Assignment No. 95 R 1176 : : : : : : : : : Also, as seen in the LEADER TIMES: : : : : : : : : : Portions of rails-to-trails remain open to users : : : : : : : : : By Michael Miller : : : : : : : : : LEADER TIMES : : : : : : : : : Thursday, February 9, 2006 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Allegheny Valley Land Trust's completed trails remain open, even as it is still weighing its options for appeal of a recent ruling in favor of landowners, according to its executive director. : : : : : : : : : Ron Steffey, executive director at the trust, said there has been some confusion among trail users about whether the trail was still open after visiting Judge Carson Brown recently ruled that former rail beds should revert back to the original property owners, rather than the Trust, which was setting up a trail along the former rail lines. : : : : : : : : : "The court's decision does not affect the sections of the Armstrong Trail which have been improved by AVLT," the trust said in a statement. "The improved sections continue to be open to the public." : : : : : : : : : Brown ruled on Dec. 30 that a group of landowners did in fact own the former railroad beds, and that the trust, which had converted many of the 33 miles of abandoned railroad lines into trails, did not have the right to cross their property without permission. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Steffey said he had been receiving calls asking if the trail was still open. The AVLT's Web site, www.armstrongtrail.org, has maps of the sections of trail that are open to the public. : : : : : : : : : Open portions of the trail, which are either paved or have crushed stone surfaces, include sections in Kittanning, Manor Township, Ford City, Crooked Creek, Rayburn Township and north of Templeton. The trust legally owns those sections through purchases or arrangements with landowners there for use, according to Steffey. : : : : : : : : : The status of the court case is still not resolved, he said. No damages were awarded in the ruling, and Steffey said that portion of the case has not yet been addressed. : : : : : : : : : Brown's ruling may be appealed, Steffey added. : : : : : : : : : The trust said it was "disappointed" in Brown's ruling. : : : : : : : : : Steffey said the trust is concerned with the safety of trail users, and stressed that people should obey "No Trespassing" signs along the trail and should use only the finished portions of the trail. : : : : : : : : : There have been no reports of confrontations between landowners and trail users since the ruling, Steffey said. : : : : : : : : : "That's what we're trying to prevent," he said. : : : : : : : : : He said the AVLT's Web site is the best place to get up-to-date information on the trail. : : : : : : : : : "We're in the process of updating our Web site," Steffey said. : : : : : : : : I assume you are one of the petitioners since you have the info. I use the trails as do many other people and would hate to see them go away. They provide a safe place for people to walk, ride bikes etc. The people suing used the land as their own from day 1 which proved out to be theirs and I think deservedly so. Everyone seems happy now so why push to get rid of all the trails, it is something people enjoy and is not bothering you if they walk in Ford City, above Manorville to Mosgrove. : : : : : : : : Another question when people live on both sides of the trail , who decides where the property line is? What if both people make a claim on the land? I am sure some feel they have as much right as their neighbor to the property. : : : : : : : : But somehow I have a feeling that a few are going to use their clout to ruin things for many, sure they will have their land but they want to make sure the Land Trust pays dearly, even it it makes for the ruination of all the trails, it is the Armstrong County way, only Christians when it suits, otherwise money and power are the Gods. : : : : : : : : I have heard the arguments also how the people on the trail throw trash in peoples yards and bother people and I say bull to that. The trash is from neighbor kids and will always be there, walk along our highways and streets, trash everywhere not just the trail, some people are pigs and will never change. Most people on the trail are their for the enjoyment of it, try a walk from Kittanning to Mosgrove , it is beautiful, or from Manorville to Kittanning, quite a sight to see the Kittanning bridge lit is sunlight while you are walking in the shade, hopefully things will stay as they are but I have a feeling they won't, some people never have enough. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : This is not a battle against the trail, but a battle for rightful ownership of the land. : : : : : : : Many of these people couldn't care less if people go across their land on the trail. : : : : : : : It is THEIR land however. : : : : : : : It's not just the 10' swath that people walk and ride on that is involved. In many cases, the "right of way" is 100' wide or more and the AVLT is attempting to claim legal ownership of all of it. : : : : : : : The AVLT tries to make it look like these people are all just out to stop the trail, when all they really want is the land that is rightfully theirs. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Didn't this ruling say it is theirs? I don't recall any part of the trail that is 100' wide .If they have the land you and I both know, there will be no trail. I can see people that have deeds that says the property reverts back to them but do all people have these deeds? Really I could care less, I can walk on the road, give everybody back what is theirs so Armstrong County can again take another step forward. Better yet lets keep the trail and offer these landowners millions of dollars for their property, isn't this what it really is all about?? : : : : : : : : : : Yes, the ruling says it's theirs but if you read the article you can see this Steffey guy is still acting like it is "up in the air". : : : : : No, there is no place where the TRAIL is 100' wide, but the AVLT was trying to take the ENTIRE "right of way", which includes much more land than just were the trail is (or would be), or where the tracks used to be for that matter. : : : : : There are many places where this "right of way" was wide enough for 2 sets of tracks plus an access road running next to them and the AVLT wanted it all. They didn't just want "permission" to run a narrow trail through, they wanted tall the land. : : : : : Less people passing by = less trash. As you said, look at the highways. : : : : : On the dollar side of it. I don't think the people are looking for any money at all, just their land. : : : : : The AVLT has wasted tons of money on the trail, spending on things they didn't need to, while raping the campers up in Mosgrove to pay for it all. : : : : Like I said , you won, if you choose to ruin something for all to enjoy so be it. You have you land , if that is not enough, so be it. Luke 12 , 13-21. : : : : : : "I" didn't win anything. : : : As for the rest, that is up to the AVLT (or to a more direct point, Steffey). : : : Like I said, he is the one acting like the matter is still, in some way, unresolved. : : : The land owners don't care about the people walking across their property, but if Steefey keeps acting like a jerk, they're liable to just post their land "no tresspassing". : : : : : : If the landowners did post their property, they wouldn't be "ruining" anything. : : : If the some "non-profit" (there's a joke in itself) group started parading people through your living room, and it took the courts 10 years to stop them, would you consider it to be "ruining" anything when they finally did? : : : If it was never their land to begin with, they are not taking anything away from the community. : : It is the railroad tracks not someones living room. Admit it you are hateful and want to take it out on someone. Do your little gogs run on anyone else's property? : It's still their property, not the AVLT's. : No, I am not hateful. : What's a gog?

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: