The North Coast Rail Authority (NCRA) met at the Humboldt County Supervisors Chambers today. Let me quickly summarize what went on.
When public comments started on subject not on the agenda, Environmental Protection Information Center Executive Director Scott Greacen let the NCRA Board know that he was not happy with the lack of transparency that he felt was lacking from staff. He outlined his grievances. Others thanked the board for showing up to Humboldt.
Discussion on whether to allow the Timber Heritage Association (THA) to have it's speeder on usable NCRA track for Samoa to Manila runs and Eureka runs for the Jazz festival and Blue's by the Bay became convoluted over liability issues and questions over the THA's motive for running the speeder. After much discussion, the board voted to allow the continued running of the speeder.
When discussion turned to Rail banking, Eel River Trails Association leader Chris Weston announced that he has signatures of 9,420 people who support the project of Railbanking and using the Eel River canyon as a trail! 6,000 of those signatures are from Humboldt County. He gave out his phone number and went around lobbying critics around the room after his three minutes. Many spoke in favor of the trail and trains in the future. Some landowner discussed the problems of people having access to their properties and the trash, environment and safety concerns.
Some confusion happened after Arcata City Councilperson Alex Stillman brought forward a letter (As did Arcata Councilperson Shane Brinton) to the NCRA about their Arcata to Bracut Rails & Trails project. It seems neither the NCRA Board or Legal Staff could agree on the definition of a proper Railbank. It seems the board felt it was an either or and never a combination of the two. That would once more cause a split in the community and have people having to take sides. Both Stillman and Brinton said they were pro-rail and wanted railroad rights protected for the future, but were open for railnaking discussion.
Sounds like the NCRA Board and Staff need to go back to the drawing board on this issue.
Railbanking is for the Hippies Richard.
ReplyDeleteYou one of us now, right?
You forgot about "neither."
ReplyDeleterailbank it already! get a trail there. then when pigs start flying bring the train back.
ReplyDeleteIt isn’t as simple as people are making it out.
ReplyDeleteIf I was one of the many ranchers and land owners that didn’t want a trail on my property. I would make them have to invoke eminent domain. Until then, no trail can be built on your property, even if the railroad has an easement.
Depends on the wording of the easement Cap. And since there is already an easement, the most government would have to pay is the diminishing of the value of their land due to the presence of bicyclists as opposed to trains. I'm not sure what that would be exactly, if anything. Serious bikers and hikers aren't known for leaving a lot of trash.
ReplyDeleteA Sonoma to Humboldt bike trail would be a huge tourist draw, just like the Pacific Crest trail.
A good deal of them are listed as for railroad use only. I've checked. This also includes the Arcata to Eureka section.
ReplyDeleteNow if they do not want to sell, the government agency that has the ability to invoke eminent domain, has to pay full price of the land. Trails are not limited to "serious" users. Expect court battles on this matter.
They also said there was 63 miles on the south side of the rail ready to go. The next step was to complete the 140 miles to Willits in the near future, then tackle the north end of the line.
ReplyDeleteWho said what was ready?
ReplyDeleteRAPIT people said 63 miles on the south was ready to go. Nobody refuted the claim.
ReplyDeleteOk, it was too vague for me.
ReplyDeleteThe south end from Windsor so the interchange is ready to run. It has been inspected by the FRA. It only needs FRA approval, EIR certification, and depending who you talk to SMART agreement. FRA approval should come this month, or so. Agreement with SMART is mostly hammered out, but has been in the works December or so. Not sure about EIR. Sorry don't know everything.
Up here, rumor is cost for Samoa to South Fork about 16 million.
Also for those who don't know SMART is the voter approved commuter rail with trail that is supposed to run from Larkspur to Cloverdale. However due to a shortage of money, the initial phase looks to be from downtown San Rafael to downtown Santa Rosa.
ReplyDeleteThis is a huge waste of time and potentially a massive waste of money. Neither rail nor trail is practical, or affordable. If any money is available for biking, its much MUCH better spent on making our urban areas more bike friendly. Perhaps extending the hammond trail down through Arcata into Eureka on the West side of the 101 would be affordable, but that's about it.
ReplyDeleteTypical California mentality. Just dream it. Who cares if its affordable or practical. Taxpayers will be left with the bill.
Now if they do not want to sell, the government agency that has the ability to invoke eminent domain, has to pay full price of the land. Trails are not limited to "serious" users. Expect court battles on this matter.
ReplyDeleteThey only have to pay full price of the land if it amounts to a "taking" which deprives the property of the bulk of its value. I hardly think that's the case.
And since the vast majority of the trail would be well out of walking distance of any urban center, most of the trail would only see use by serious users.
Cheer up Cap. This could be a good thing for your community.
So is Eric Kirk the Marijuana Attorney going to fork up any of his dope money to pay for this trail system?
ReplyDeleteEric I'm so glad, what you think is law. Yeah right.
ReplyDeleteIt's the law. There are takings and "partial takings."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.propex.com/C_g_edomain.htm
And this one confirms the formula.
ReplyDeletehttp://wraltechwire.com/business/tech_wire/news/blogpost/6578338/
Most Takings will involve the acquisition of only a portion of your property. When that occurs, your just compensation typically is measured by comparing the fair market value of your entire property just before the Taking with the fair market value of the portion of your property retained by you just after the Taking.
Since the easement already exists, the measure will be the difference in the impact on value between the two easement uses. That's really not all that much money.
You're going to have to fight this one in the political realm.
Tisk tisk Eric. There is more up the sleeve to come. A blog post isn't law. How come you didn't deal with funding? I will still guarantee you there will be court cases to decide the matter. But keep in your mind that I'm unhappy.
ReplyDeleteEric you don't know shit from shinola. Its actaully embarassing to read you dude. Hoe do you support that big head on your shoulders? Your practice is? Your clients are? Good god.
ReplyDelete