« CaBi in Alexandria covering 72% of operating costs | Main | Bike Arlington is Hiring an Events and Outreach Coordinator »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The question the Washington Times should be asking--do bike trails piss you off more than toll roads? I think the only thing that can make I-66 a more pleasurable driving experience is toll booths to pay rent for the land that was taken by stealth. We know how much Tea Partiers like paying for the true cost of their driving.

They would not pay rent. They could just buy it using eminent domain. But it would cost a lot of money. I guess it would just come out of the extra transportation dollars we all have.

I predict the suit gets tossed. The result would be extremely disruptive of well-established programs.

The claim that land has been "stolen" is curious. There is a property right at stake--the reversionary interest in the land. But that's a contingent interest. The owner of that interest never possessed the land, and their right never comes into effect until certain conditions have been satisfied. Others may have superior rights, as indeed the Unites States arguably has here.

It's in no sense "stealing", it is at worst ensuring the failure of a condition to ownership that was never guaranteed.

"First of all, THIS case is specifically about a rail-to-trail conversion, but the argument is not. Something the government points out several times."
Well, you could have fooled me, with that RTC excerpt.

"Wow, never heard RTC and its affiliates described as a "Dark Network". "

But of course, the RYC slagging Cato as people as part of network who want to "reduce protection of public lands" is perfectly okay.

"Breyer is especially concerned "what actually happened matters. And the amounts [of money] matter, at least to me.""

And there you have it. Money talks, even to liberals - nobody actual gives a darn about principles, much less rights.

Though I could see this court going 5-4 against the government, as Kennedy is still the deciding vote and could easily take the flip side of his Kelo argument (as these are different circumstances and a different underlying issue)

(and the ultimate irony is that modern progressives are now entirely in favor of the shady land deals that gave huge concessions to politically connected railroad barons. )

Kolohe, you must be easily fooled.

Labelling one group as wanting to do something that arguably they want to do is very different from a pejorative like "Dark Network". You may disagree with the RTC critique of Cato, but it's more defensible than "dark network".

People do care about rights, but Breyer is looking at being a bit pragmatic. I think the court has a long and noble history of pragmatism.

I don't think this is all a sign that liberals are "in favor" of the land deals that gave land to the railroads. It shows that liberals are in favor of an interpretation that the government gave them surface rights to the land as opposed to an easement. That doesn't require any judgement on the wisdom of the giving. In fact, not all of these ROWs were given away.

My crazy alarm goes off whenever I hear certain snippets -
"The rails-to-trails movement plaguing ... goes back to ... leftist foundations ... President Obama was a board member ... realized they could push their climate-related no-motorized-transportation agenda ... creating and funding bicycle activist groups ..."

It's hard to even take someone seriously when they write that kind of stuff.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader