Meyers Probably Own WB&A Right of Way

In Anne Arundel County’s long-running saga on whether to extend the WB&A Trail into Prince Georges County or build the northern detour suggested by the late Buz Meyer, people often bolster their case by talking about who owns the right of way.  Those who favor extending the WB&A often point out that Anne Arundel County owns the right of way along the Meyer property.  Those who favor the Buz Meyer trail usually say that the Meyers own the WB&A right-of-way.  When I recently suggested paying the Meyers at least $1 million for the WB&A right of way, one member of the Meyers family told me that he would not want to make such a deal; another Anne Arundel resident who favors the WB&A extension admonished me for suggesting that the Meyers should be paid anything, because "they don’t even own the right of way. "

Only a court can finally resolve the question of ownership.  But the Anne Arundel County land records tell enough of the story for WB&A advocates to take seriously the Meyers claim to owning that land­­.  They also help show why that claim­­­­­­­­—while strong­­­­—should not necessarily prevent building a trail along the WB&A right of way. 

The story is typical:  The owners sell the railroad an easment, and gradually forget that they still own the land under the tracks.  The railroad closes, and those who buy the right of way come to think they own the land, or at least come to think that they can have it because the true owners have gone.  They sell their claim to a locality that has already built trails on land with similarly cloudy titles.  But in this case, we have a surprise ending:  Some of the owners are still around, they realize that they are still part owners, and they tell the government to get off their land!

Jacob and Bertha Meyer bought their six-hundred acre farm on October 26, 1900.[1]  On November 20, 1901, the Meyers conveyed to the Washington and Annapolis Electric Railway an easement 66 feet wide for a railroad.[2]  The deed is in cursive writing and not easily decipherable.  (I am grateful to Aaron Marcavitch for help in preparing a print version that has most of the text, although there are still a few phrases we were unable to translate.)  The deed included a payment of 50 cents for each grape vine removed.  It also referred to the sale of some gravel lands, but their locations are unspecified.

The company changed its name to the Washington, Baltimore, and Annapolis Electric Railway in 1902, and began running trains from Baltimore to Washington via Odenton in 1908.  In November 1906, before the line opened, the railroad paid Jacob and Bertha Meyer $774 for a 15-year license to mine earth and gravel within a clearly specified 10.24 acre portion of the Meyer property, along the rail line.[3]  But in 1915, the railway agreed to terminate the mining lease; in return the Meyers conveyed 0.6 acres in fee simple to the WB&A railroad on the northwest side of the tracks.[4]

 

How the Meyers forgot they owned the land under the tracks

Jacob Meyer died in 1926 about a month shy of his 68^th birthday.   Following the wishes of her late husband, Bertha Meyer divided the land into six parcels, as shown in the left map[5], which I’ve annotated to make some of the smaller letters visible on the screen.  The six parcels were conveyed on April 24, 1928.

• Lot 1 went to Martin Meyer and his wife Hedwig Sophia Meyer
• Lot 2 went to Paul Henry Meyer and his wife Emma Wilhemina Meyer
• Lot 3 went to Charles Dewey Meyer
• Lot 4 went to Joubert Russell Meyer and his wife Gertrude Anna Meyer.  Joubert (also known as Schubert) was the father of Buz Meyer.
• Lot 5 went to Emma Meyer Simpson and her husband John Thomas Simpson
• Lot 6 went to Otto Jacob Meyer and his wife Anna Frederika Meyer .

For reference, the map to the right superimposes the lot boundaries over the site plan of the Preserve at Two Rivers. The rail line was the border between lots 4 and 6.  If you zoom into the original (or read subsequent conveyances of these lots) you can see that Bertha Meyer did not convey the land under the railbed to either Joubert or Otto.  So she continued to own that land, subject to the easement for rail line.  (Perhaps by mistake, she conveyed the 0.6 acre parcel to Otto, even though it had already been conveyed to the WB&A in 1915.)

As far as I know, Bertha Meyer and her children never thought about who owned the land under the tracks.  The railroad was still running so it did not really matter.  If it wasn’t mentioned in anyone’s will—which seems likely—then the ownership may have been split between her children, then her grandchildren, and lately to her great grand children.  But they didn’t know it.

 

How the easement holders came to think they owned the land too

The WB&A ceased operating in 1935, and filed for bankruptcy.  The bondholders formed the WB&A Realty Corporation and bought most of the real property for $16,100.[6]   The next year they sold right of way between Odenton and Bowie to the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington Railroad Company, which was a subsidiary of the Pennsylvania Railroad.[7]  The WB&A Realty Corporation reserved for itself the right to convey utility easements.   In the case of the roadbed along the Meyer property, WB&A Realty had no right to convey utility easements, because all it owned was an easement to build a railroad line.  So for that parcel it was actually reserving a right it did not have. But it still sold an easement to Consolidated Gas Electric Light and Power Company for a power line a year later[8], and those power lines are used by Baltimore Gas and Electric even today. 

A series of railroad mergers created the Penn Central, which sold its interest in the old WB&A lands to Peppercorn Realty in 1988.[9]  After building the Piney Orchards Development, Peppercorn Realty conveyed the right of way to Anne Arundel County for $10, reserving for itself various utility rights that it did not really have (because WB&A Realty had already reserved such rights, which it probably did not have either) and including a covenant against using the right of way for a rail line.[10]

Anne Arundel County understood that it was not buying clear title to the land.  The deed was called a “quitclaim deed” with all sorts of disclaimers.  But that did not stop the County from building the WB&A Trail.  This is a fairly standard practice:  Localities build rail trails on land for which they do not have clear title, because the actual owners have abandoned their interest.  Neither the common law nor common sense wants property tied up forever just because it is technically owned by the descendants of an original owner when those descendants are uninterested in behaving like owners.  In the rare case when these owners do step forward, the locality pays them for their property.   As with the Meyer property, many old farms have been subdivided with lots that go up to—but do not include—a rail line.  By the time the railroad closes, often the original owners have sold all the parcels to strangers, and forgotten about their underlying ownership in the rail bed.  After the trail has been operating a few decades, the locality will have clear title through the doctrine of adverse possession.

These owners of the underlying land usually do not get a tax bill either.   At first, when the railroad is operating, the value of the land subject to the railroad easement is trivial, while the roadbed itself is valuable.  So the county focuses on taxing the railroad.[11]  If the underlying landowners got a tax bill, they would realize they own the land (and the county would collect more money).   After a few generations, without even getting a tax bill, the descendants have no idea they own the land.  The owners of the easement end up getting taxed as if they own the land in fee simple, which they may be willing to pay because they are happy to own the land in fee simple.  If they sell their interest to the county, then the county has no one to tax.  The tax assessment office generally does not do title research to ascertain the actual ownership.

  

Just in time, the Meyers realized they still own the land

That typical pattern is pretty much what happened to the Meyer parcel for the first 65 years after the rail line closed.  Bertha Meyer and her children did not reclaim their land.  They could have objected to the electric company putting power lines across their land without permission, but they allowed it as if the abandonned rail line was not their land.  Some highway maps showed the roadbed as a public road.    

But then in 2000, the prospect of the WB&A Trail got the Meyers interested in the old right of way.  Buz Meyer (co-owner of lot 4) opposed the trail.  Press accounts suggest almost a “Eureka” moment for Meyer when, after launching a campaign to stop the WB&A Trail from crossing the Patuxent, he realized that he was a part owner of the right of way.  An article in the Baltimore Sun said that the lawyers for Anne Arundel were sloppy and failed to do a title search before starting court proceedings to obtain clear title to the right of way.[12]  I’m not sure that’s the case—it seems possible that the county lawyers were simply following a standard procedure for settling title and paying valid claims in this type of a situation.

Before a court had the opportunity to decide the question, County Executive Janet Owens directed county staff to abandon plans for a bridge across the Patuxent along the old right-of-way, and drop the court proceedings.  I cannot rule out the possibility that the county has an arguable case for being the owner of the right of way; but I am not sure what that case is.  Adverse possession is possible; but it seems that if anyone had a claim for adverse possession it was the WB&A Realty Corporation for selling easements on the land, not the Pennsylvania Railroad which seems to have done nothing with the right of way.[13]  But the county never bought the interests of WB&A Reality.  Of course, Anne Arundel has a strong case for owning the 0.6 acre parcel within lot 6, now part of the Preserve at Two Rivers.

 

So What?

The land records support the assertion that the descendants of Jacob Meyer own the WB&A right of way near the Patuxent River.  Anne Arundel owns a 0.6 acre parcel within lot 6, and would have an easement by necessity along the right of way if it wanted to make that small parcel a park.  But such a park seems unlikely.  Although most of the Meyer descendants are still in the area, a few have moved out of town and it is possible that some of them either like trails or would sell their share if offered a fair price.  If a trail conservancy or government agency became a part owner of the rail bed, it could probably negotiate a partition of the land to facilitate a compromise trail:  for example, a trail that crosses the Patuxent along the old right of way, but stays away from those areas where a trail would be most problematic to the Meyers. 

To be sure:  It currently seems administratively easier to build a bridge connecting the Buz Meyer detour trail to the Patuxent River Trail near Bowie State University, than to work out an arrangement with the Meyers for  a bridge along the WB&A right of way.  But the direct trail is worth more and costs less.  How much less?  We don't know, so no one really knows whether the better trail is worth the hassle of pursuing it.  That's why we need a study. 

 (Jim TItus lives in a house in Glenn Dale, Maryland, whose main floor is supported by salvaged rails from the WB&A electric railway, with the inscription "Carnegie 1901".) 

---

[1] Anne Arundel County Land Records, Liber G.W. 19, p 248-251 (1901)

[2] Anne Arundel County Land Records, Liber G.W. 24, p 213-214 (1902).  Additional width for the right of way was also conveyed where the railbed surface had to be above the grade of the land, assuming a slope of 1:2.

[3] Anne Arundel County Land Records, Liber G.W. 56, p 348-349 (1907)

[4] Anne Arundel County Land Records, Liber G.W. 117, p 7-9 (1915).  That small parcel is 736.1 feet from the old Patuxent River Bridge, along the rail line, and to the northwest side of the rail line, and within the area that had been mined under the 1907 deed.

[5] Originally filed as Anne Arundel County Land Records, Cabinet No. 1, Plat 5, Page 41. 

[6]  FAM 147, p 368-370.  The assets were sold off on a public auction at the doorstep of Anne Arundel County Courthouse on June 14, 1935 (though the deed was written 3 March 1936).

[7]  FAM 153, p 23-28.   The conveyance specifically referenced the 1915 transaction between the Meyers and the WB&A. Parcel B included the railroad’s real estate interests from a Ft Meade spur to the Popes Creek Line just southwest of Bowie.   This would have made it possible for trail traffic headed to Popes Creek, Waldorf, and Indian Head from Baltimore to leave what we now call “the Penn Line” as far north as Ft. Meade, rather than having to stay on the main line until Bowie.

[8] F.A.M. 166, page 59-64 (1937).

[9] Book 4660, page 24-28.  (July 6, 1988).

[10]   Anne Arundel County Land Records.  Book 6829,  p. 651-657.   Strictly speaking, since the right of way across most parcels was nothing more than the right to build a rail line, the covenant against building a rail line meant that Peppercorn was conveying nothing in those areas.  But the County clearly took ownership of whatever lands the WB&A had acquired in fee simple, such as the 0.6 acres bought from the Meyers in 1915.

[11]  In fact, the decision not to exempt the unprofitable WB&A from property taxes finally led to its demise.  When the railroad closed, the bill kept getting sent to the subsequent owners of the abandoned railway.  When the County bought the right of way, it stopped sending bills to anyone because it does not tax itself.  No one has explained whether the County is not sending a bill to the Meyeres because it wants to preserve its claim to the land, or the tax office simply overlooks some properties.

[12] Candus Thompson.  Anne Arundel Grabs First, Thinks Second.  June 3, 2001.  Baltimore Sun.

[13]  At least one old State Highway map shows that the railbed along the Meyer property was part of a public road called Bragers Road, but I have not found anyone who recalls it actually being used that way.   A few web sites say that Bragers Road actually crossed the Patuxent River as a means of access to Bowie Race Track.   But Meyers Station Road actually did cross the Patuxent River to Bowie Race Track several decades ago; so it seems likely that those web sites have confused the two roads.

Google maps have quite a bit of misinformation in this area.  Until recently, it showed Bragers Road actually crossing the Patuxent River.  And it shows lot 6 to be "Patuxent River Park."  That latter error was also in Mapquest as early as 2001, and it was commonly "known" among WB&A trail advocates that the Meyers went hunting in this "publicly owned land."  The USGS 1:24,000 topographic map, which is a few decades old, also shows that fictitious park, and is probably the source of the common error in web-based maps.  Although this post suggests that Anne Arundel does own 0.6 acres of that parcel, that is probably a coincidence.

Comments

[Greenbelt]

At some point the state of MD needs to just declare that the railroad right of way is needed for an important public transportation corridor, compensate the (disputed) owners at a fair rate, and build the trail. The railway right of way is needed for efficient transport for an increasingly important mode, as well as for recreational and tourism purposes. Enough stalling already.

[Contrarian]

If they haven't paid taxes on the land since 1901 they have a problem.

[Jim T]

@Greenbelt: MDOT staff tell me that existing legislation allows SHA to condemn land for motor highways but not for trails. I have not had time to verify the basis of that assertion. Clearly localities have the power to condemn land for trails, but as far as I know they rarely if ever do so, with the possible exception of obtaining full ownership when they have part ownership.

@Contrarian: Do you have anything to back up that assertion? Of course, if they had been sent a bill and failed to pay, they would be subject to a tax sale--but you seem to be making a different point, since there was clearly no tax sale.

By the way, if you are mainly trying to stretch for the best argument that the county could have made, one might pursue the argument that the right of way for "said road" does not limit the easement to the railway, because they meant the entire roadbed, not just the railway. I think that's a losing argument thought, because "said" means something one has already said.

[think a little]

Kelo v. New London. Bad law used for a good reason....done

[Contrarian]

Jim --

I'll amend my comment to say they "might have a problem." Without knowing the intricacies of AA County and MD tax law, plus the history of assessment and attempts to collect, it's impossible to say with certainty.

However, I'll say it's unlikely that the heirs of Buzz Meyers have an unencumbered title to the property simply because their great-grandmother owned it 85 years ago. Since she did not mention it in her will we have to look to Maryland estate law to see how it treats an intestate estate. That will determine the division among the descendants of Bertha Meyer, and will probably require a trip through the Meyer family tree. The heirs of Buzz may get a very small piece, or they may get nothing, if there is a time limit on how long an intestate estate can sit before it escheats to the county. Once the division is settled, then there is the issue of offsetting liabilities -- property tax, and also estate taxes potentially. Probably there will be dozens of heirs who will become co-owners of the property, and it is not inconceivable that many of them have no interest in keeping their share. The land does not sound like it can be divided, so any one of them can file a suit to force the property to be sold and the proceeds divided.

Now, this is all conjecture. To settle the matter definitively would require litigation. The Meyers family has no interest in litigating the matter because it would only expose how tenuous their claim is, and a definitive resolution would almost certainly result in the land being sold, legal bills and not much else. As it is, the Meyers' get the best of all possible worlds, where they enjoy the use and control of the land but pay no taxes on it.

What's clear to me is that AA County should assess the land for at least a million dollars and start trying to collect. That would bring the speediest resolution.

[Jim Titus]

@COntrarian. I'll first address your second paragraph, which is similar to my argument. I realize that this is a pretty long post so you can not be expected to remember every detail, and I do appreciate your thoughts. But please note that my assertion is that the land is owned by the heirs of Jacob and Bertha Meyer, not Buz Meyer, who was one of (I think) 9 grandchildren. But he co-owned lot 6 with his brothers and together (I think) they had a 25% intestate interest. Most of his living first cousins were also still around the area, and probably generally supportive of his operations.

I didn't find a time limit for intestate interests in land, though I have not looked very hard. I think my penultimate paragraph speculated a bit on the same issue you are discussing: the county or a trail conservancy could attempt to acquire some of the interests and then negotiate a partition. Of course the threat of a judicial sale would be lurking behind such negotiations. Because most of descentants of Jacob and Bertha Meyer are still in the area, I think they would have alot more unity than in the typical case you are imagining. A judicial sale would be just as likely to result in the local Meyers buying out the out-of-state Meyers as the government buying the property. But a partition would be feasible if one of the buyers was a trail-building government agency.

We are basically in agreement on your last two paragraphs. The right of way is a valuable asset because the replacement cost of a roadway through wetlands is huge. Clearly, the decision by Janet Owens to cancel the proceedings that would have settled the title issue created a mess that must eventually be straightened out.

Unclear whether AA cares any more about collecting taxes owed than they do about wasting state money.

[MB]

[raises hand]

Will this be on the exam? And which one is Whiteacre, again?

[Jim Titus]

@MB: For extra credit: If the state of Maryland passed a statute requiring all possibilities of reverter created after 1899 to be recorded within 70 years of their creation, what does that imply about Contrarian's hypothesis that the Meyers' ownership interest in the railbed may have escheated to the government after all these years?

[guez]

Think a Little,

Kelo v. New London is not really relevant here, as it applies specifically to economic development. The idea is that the state can claim that economic development is a "public purpose" and, let's say, take away your property and give it to Walmart.

This is standard eminent domain stuff: the compensated seizure of private property for a clear public purpose.

[Ed Farmer]

As a friend of the Meyer family, I applaud the research and conclusion that Mr Titus has conducted. This matches what the Meyer family has stated from Day 1 -- that the land still belongs to the Meyer family.

A couple of corrections:
1) the family (local and out-of-state), are all in agreement with keeping the land in the family.
2) the land in question has been actively used by the family over the past 70 years and has never been abandoned by the Meyer family. There has been no confusion or recent realization of this issue.

Based on this research and the supporting decisions of Anne Arundel County, the approved Northern path seems the best option to move forward with the completion of this project.

[washcycle]

Ed, I think it's too early to say that. For one, I'd like the courts to weigh in on some of the items here. And even if the Meyers own the land, the Northern path is still not the best option. But I certainly hope the county starts sending them a tax bill for this land they own.

[Ed Farmer]

I would rather see the approved Northern path completed than have this issue debated in the courts for another 10, 20, or 30 years.

It is time to complete this project and enjoy the trail rather than waste more time, effort, and money on a path that probably will never happen.

The extensive research from Mr. Titus shows that the Meyer family owned the land before and after the railroad. It is time to move forward with all of our efforts to get this approved Northern path done.

[washcycle]

I think you overestimate how long this would be in court.

The northern path will cost more money than one on the ROW.

Despite Jim's analysis, AA county thought they had a pretty good case for ownership and only backed off under political pressure. And even Jim isn't 100% sure if his analysis is right. I agree with Jim that a study is needed before anyone makes any decisions.

You've been opposed to running the trail on the Meyer land since the get go, so it's hard to believe that your concern is about getting a bad trail built quickly.

[Ed Farmer]

11 years have been wasted already. Jim proposes spending more years in courts and public hearings, possibly forcing the County to pay fair market value for land even Jim admits the Meyers own. Seems unlikely that will cost less than the approved Northern path.

At this point, it is time for Jim and the people of WashCycle to join the tens of thousands of citizens that support the approved Northern path.

So please, WahCycle, stop delaying this trail!

[Purple Eagle]

"tens of thousands of citizens that suppor the . . Northern path"? Can you cite a source for those numbers?

[Jim T]

Ed,

Thanks for your kind comments on my report.

If Anne Arundel will use private and county funds for the entire cost of the bridge, then I think it is reasonable to proceed as you suggest.

There seems to have been a decision process that included alot of people from the immediate neighborhood, but neither the regional cycling community nor the residents that live along the trail in PG. That's fine if we are just talking about extending a trail to the water's edge through the Preserve at Two Rivers.

But if state and PG funds are going to be spent on a bridge, then basing the decision entirely on a neighborhood-oriented process is not satisfactory. The regional biking organizations (Bike Maryland and WABA) need to be on board before state trail funds are spent. And the PG area cyclists need to be on board before M-NCPPC commits significant funds.

Ed, I am still learning, and as I learn I'll communicate what I learn regardless of whether it bolster's my previous argument. It would be nice if someone would invite me over so that I can better understand your perspective.

[Ed Farmer]

In response to Purple Eagle, the tens of thousands of citizens are the people who have signed petitions over the years opposed to the ROW alernative trail. This is the "political pressure" that the WashCycle post before mine referred to. "Political pressure" just means lots of voters who care about all of the needs of the citizens and the land use.
The County listened to them which is why the Northern path is the approved path.

Jim, I thank for you for all of the research you have done on this issue. That was no small task. It helped clarify several points that have been endlessly debated for years, including the whole ownership issue. My guess is that the County came to the same conclusion years ago. A quickclaim deed is a matter of convenience; not a valid conveyance. As you stated, in most cases, the original land owners are long gone so this issue does not arise. That is not the case here. It seems that only the Railroad abandoned the property; not the Meyer family.
Based on these findings and the decisions by AA County, we could all gain by putting all of our collective efforts to getting the approved Northern trail built so that can this project can be completed sooner than later.

I look forward to walking from Piney Orchard to friends in Bowie on the new trail someday.

[twk]

@Jim T
Thanks for continuing to pursue this and sharing what you have learned. I live in the PG side and would love to see this built. My preference is along the ROW. I would use the trail as much for transportation as recreation.

In addition to the increased construction cost of the Northern route, has anyone considered maintenance. My understanding this would be cutting through a wetlands area. How does trail infrastructure hold up in that environment. There are potentially high "life time" costs to be considered as well.

[Contrarian]

It seems that only the Railroad abandoned the property; not the Meyer family.

Actually, when the family stopped paying taxes on the land they abandoned it too. Using the land -- or thinkihg that you own it for matter -- does not grant you title to land. You have to pay your taxes to keep your land. If the Meyers are so all-fired determined to keep the land, they should probate their great-grandmother's estate, then pay three generations worth of estate taxes, federal and state, and 70 years worth of property taxes. Then they might have a claim.

[Ed Farmer]

Contrarian

No one ever claimed that the Meyers have not fully paid all taxes. Even Jim's article mentioned he did not know. That is a private issue for the Meyer family.

This type of remark, full of anger and hostile tone, but lacking in facts, has been too common and does not help resolve getting the trail completed.

[Jim T]

I find myself largely agreeing with Ed Farmer about past taxes, and with Contrarian on future taxes.

As a point of clarification, the Maryland department of assessments and taxation shows Anne Arundel County as the owner of the right of way from Academy Junction to County Line who would be taxed, were it not exempt.

If the county is also sending a bill to the Meyers, then it should not show a single parcel going the whole distance, but instead it should show a subdivision. So clearly the electronic records that the state makes available do not show the Meyers as getting a tax bill for the right of way. But as Ed Farmer implies, the fact that it does not show up in the electronic records is not absolutely dispositive. The system might not be set up to bill both an easement holder and a land owner for the same parcel. But any resident of Maryland is entitled to ask the Department and receive an answer. (The state might not understand the unique value of the asset, however, and provide a relatively nominal assessment.)

As far as I know, no locality goes back more than a few years to correct erroneous tax bills--and AA might not go back more than the current year. If the county does not send you a bill, it's your lucky year (or decade). If property is owned as tenants-in-common which is the case here, the names on the tax bill are all the tenants in common, and the bill is sent to the address on file, and the owners sort it out among themselves who pays and how much.

As Contrarian implies, the longer the Meyers fail to correctly record these fractional interests, the more likely they will lose at least some fraction of the ownership. There is almost no doubt that Buz Meyer and his brothers owned the 1/6 interest that Joubert inherited from Jacob and Bertha Meyer. But who owns the 1/6 share that Otto Meyer inherited? That's harder to guess since he had remarried by the time he sold lot 6. The Meyers may know the answer today, but the next generation may not.

[Ed Farmer]

Jim,

Thanks for a reasonable response. Postings like Contrarian's -- which can be summed up as Tax them to death and drive them off the land -- probably do not help create a positive relationship with the Meyer family. I can understand their mis-trust when they read these hostile viewpoints.

I think the issue of property taxes is an issue to be resolved between the County and the Meyer family. Just as my property taxes are my concern and your property taxes are your concern.

Our focus should be on finding a solution to getting the trail completed. I see that PG County's WB&A Trail map now shows the Northern path to align with AA County's river crossing.
It looks like a reasonable solution is underway.

[Contrarian]

I never said "tax them to death." I merely said they should pay what they owe. How exactly is that hostile?

And I disagree that your taxes are solely your concern. By their very nature taxes are very much a public concern.

The Meyers family is trying to have it both ways -- taking the rights of property ownership without the responsibility.

[Dave]

Ed I am a fellow Piney Orchard resident who is familiar with Jim's work. I think the Meyers have a real chance to leave a historic legacy to our country in this situation.

Please email me at dave @ dasice dott com if you want to establish a dialog.

[washcycle]

I doubt there are tens of thousands of people who wrote the county last decade when the Baltimore paper created a stink about this among hunters. A thousand would shock me.

And that was never about supporting the Northern path. It was about opposing the trail through hunting land. Those two are not equivalent. I can't imagine that there are even tens of thousands of people who know what the two options are - let alone who prefer one over the other.

11 years have been wasted, so the Meyers should just stop fighting the trail on the ROW. That is the fastest way to get the trail built right? If speed is your concern. I'm not the one delaying this trail, they are. It would be built by now, but for them. My focus is on finding a solution and the best one is for the Meyers to give up their claim in exchange for money/assurances.

[Jonathan Krall]

Wow! Excellent posting and discussion.

Ed Farmer,

This isn't about just "getting the trail completed." It's about building a useful trail that will likely be one of the very few bicycle transportation facilities available in that area of Maryland. Unlike most citizens, bicyclists are aware that cycling is stunningly marginalized. Bicycle paths and lanes are few and far between and often disappear in spots where it is inconvenient to build them, such as in this case.

As a result, people like me often find themselves without a bike path or bike lane, on a road where motorists routinely exceed the speed limit, driving at lethal speeds. When that happens, I typically ride full speed to get out of that dangerous situation, hoping to not get killed. Well-designed roads are so common that motorists consider such roads unremarkable. For cyclists, the opposite is true. The few bike paths we have are routinely flawed and dangerous.

I have read your posts and understand that property rights are at stake in this case. I'd like you to understand that a significant public benefit, similar to that of the railroad, is also at stake.

People like me will fight for the best bike path we can get because we know we are not likely to get more than one bike path in that part of Maryland. We will fight as if our lives are at stake. Because, often, they are.