Railcars Irk Developer in Muskegon

[NYCMan]

A developer does not like railcars parked on a siding near his property in Muskegon. The usual "NIMBY" baloney. When will these people ever accept the fact that the railroad was there FIRST?

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/inde ... r_home_pop

[Saturnalia]

This is the old Sappi Site. Now, I speculate that there is more than meets the eye here.

You see, the old Sappi site has been up for debate around MKG for almost a decade now. Nearby residents and the city council wanted condos and retail. But proponents of industry wanted the massive site for new industry. They fought and fought, with the city on numerous occasions shooting down industrial proposals.

In the meantime, the Michigan Shore RR had wanted industry, because they want customers on that spur. Sappi, after all, was a healthy customer they'd love to replace.

So here's where the speculation begins. The developers announce their new plans, devoid of industry. The railroad, who still owns and controls the rails on site, sees that they have a bunch of railcars on hand. So what do they do? Park them on the property. It blocks the view. Who wants to live behind a makeshift wall of railcars?

But you see, this may have a purpose. The developers may try to buy that old rail ROW. Makes sense. But they're going to want a good price. An "out of use, nearly abandoned spur" is going to fetch a MUCH lower price, that what is now an in-use, profit machine for the railroad. They can claim several hundred or even thousands of dollars per day in storage fees for those. So now, the price just went up.

The question I have is the use of imminent domain for this. Could the developers force the railroad out in this case?

[EWRice]

What I find interesting is that it looks like the rr purposely stopped the cars way short of the end of the track so as not to block the view. Any houses are well above the road and tracks, which there aren't many. And people are still female dog. Doesn't matter what you do, it will never be right.

From what I have heard, these are loaded sand cars from Lincoln. I was told that they will load X number of cars then shut the mine down. These cars will be stored in muskegon and shipped ad needed. So, it sounds like this is not long term storage.

[hoborich]

The question I have is the use of imminent domain for this. Could the developers force the railroad out in this case?

I'm not a lawyer, but I highly doubt it. I don't believe imminent domain can be used to take private property from one person for another private development. Imminent domain is more commonly used for public projects, parks, schools, etc.

[OwlCaboose2853]

The question I have is the use of imminent domain for this. Could the developers force the railroad out in this case?

I'm not a lawyer, but I highly doubt it. I don't believe imminent domain can be used to take private property from one person for another private development. Imminent domain is more commonly used for public projects, parks, schools, etc.

Same things, Pittsfield Twp and Developer upsets... can't force the railcars out.
Rail official: Tank cars will continue to be stored near Ann Arbor-area homes
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=33031&p=354450&hili ... ld#p354450

[PatAzo]

The question I have is the use of imminent domain for this. Could the developers force the railroad out in this case?

I'm not a lawyer, but I highly doubt it. I don't believe imminent domain can be used to take private property from one person for another private development. Imminent domain is more commonly used for public projects, parks, schools, etc.

An interesting bit on that. It's been argued before the Supreme Court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._C ... New_London

[OwlCaboose2853]

The question I have is the use of imminent domain for this. Could the developers force the railroad out in this case?

I'm not a lawyer, but I highly doubt it. I don't believe imminent domain can be used to take private property from one person for another private development. Imminent domain is more commonly used for public projects, parks, schools, etc.

An interesting bit on that. It's been argued before the Supreme Court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._C ... New_London

From that's link, down scroll to our Michigan...

Michigan[edit]
Michigan passed a restriction on the use of eminent domain in November 2006, Proposition 4, 80% to 20%.[43] The text of the ballot initiative was as follows:[44]

A proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private purposes
The proposed constitutional amendment would:

Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.
Provide that if an individual's principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of property’s fair market value.
Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of that property is for a public use.
Preserve existing rights of property owners.

[NYCMan]

As a general rule, Michigan law does not allow for railroad property to be taken by condemnation/eminent domain. Further, regardless of the state, federal preemption applies, as the Surface Transportation Board is the supreme authority. There was a recent case in Illinois where the Chicago Transportation Authority tried to take some of the Union Pacific Railroad Company's right-of-way.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1575321.html

[GreatLakesRailfan]

So here's where the speculation begins. The developers announce their new plans, devoid of industry. The railroad, who still owns and controls the rails on site, sees that they have a bunch of railcars on hand. So what do they do? Park them on the property. It blocks the view. Who wants to live behind a makeshift wall of railcars?

Any chance the railroad moved the cars onto the site to keep the developers from illegally removing the rail as part of their redevelopment plans?

[hoborich]

One exception I am aware of, was back in 1980s, when Detroit took thousands of homes in the "Poletown" area to allow General Motors to build the Poletown Assembly Plant.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-09-18/ ... 1_gm-plant

[CSX_CO]

Normally the track inside a customer facility is owned by the company and is on their land. Don't really care that much, but if that's the case at the Sappi site, then the railroad could be trespassing if someone else bought the property, and they're still using track "inside the gate". One would have to find the agreement that dictates the point of ownership line.

[Norm]

The Muskegon West topo map shows the track extending across Lake Shore Dr and going behind what is now a boat storage yard. That track is not likely to have been owned by Sappi. If you scroll Google Earth back to 1999 you can clearly see where the track was.

[Mark F]

One of the NIMBYs is my flakey aunt.

[wyrickj]

One of the NIMBYs is my flakey aunt.

LOL well just tell her too bad it ain't going hah

[hoborich]

Typhoon must be behind it. He likes to mess with people.

[EWRice]

I am disappointed to report that from muskegon lake, there was 4 cars blocking my view of the road. Who do I file a complaint with?