Historic Walk on Railroad Corridor

Coastal Rail Trail October 28 and November 11, 2005

Halloween Critical Massers Ride the Streets of Santa Cruz
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/18886/index.php

Union Pacific Employees Try To Destroy Santa Cruz Coastal Rail Trail
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/18976/index.php

A post on Santa Cruz Indymedia on November 11th, 2005 stated, "A group of workers from the [Union Pacific] railroad came on 11/10/05 to the newly built trail next to the railroad tracks near Almar. They used a grader to tear up the volunteer-built trail as to render it difficult to ride a bike on."

I sort of like this first picture. The commentary at the bottom is okay to follow
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/story.php?sid=64961

The railroad didn't exactly pay for the land

The fact is that they do own the land, yes they did pay for it, and they have the right to enforce no trespassing. And for a pretty good reason: train tracks aren't safe.

They own it, they make rules. I'm not sure why some people have a hard time understanding that. Sure, they have been lax about enforcing it, and some people think that they could win the right to pass but until that right is granted by a court they don't have it.

> If the railroad doesn't like it, they need to sell it to the county.

Uh, that doesn't really follow. Lets all start camping in your front lawn. If you decide you don't like it you can alway sell your lawn to the county. Oh, except that the idea of private property does exist in this country - how inconvenient.

Private "property rights" are not absolute, it's use it/enforce or lose it - nationwide, and in California.

"he public may have attained the right to use these informal trails or areas through the doctrine of implied dedication. Confirmed and explained by the California Supreme Court in Gion vs. City of Santa Cruz (1970), implied dedications are essentially easements over real property that come into being without the owner’s explicit consent. An implied dedication is a form of prescriptive right. To obtain an easement through an implied dedication for coastal properties in California, those who seek it must show that the public has used the land for five years as if it were public recreational land, under these conditions: without asking or receiving permission from the owner with the actual or presumed knowledge of the owner; without significant objection or bona fide attempts by the fee owner to prevent or halt such use; and by showing that the use has been substantial rather than minimal."

A local example from this same article:

"Seven prescriptive rights studies are currently under way. One for Hidden Beach in Santa Cruz County and another for Santa Claus Beach in Santa Barbara County were published in May 2001 on the Commission’s web site (http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/prc-access.html).

In the first instance, the County had received an application for the construction of two megahouses on the sandy beach, which is backed by an eroding bluff, beyond which lies Hidden Beach County Park, with a paved trail signed for coastal access. The trail leads down to the six-acre sandy beach, where visitors scatter up and down the shore. Who would know that the county’s legal interest in the beach itself was only a 10-foot-wide swath to the mean high tide line? Not the public, according to the public-use questionnaires returned to the Commission.

The public response to the potential development of houses on Hidden Beach was immediate, well-organized, and unwavering. Over the next few months the Commission received more than 500 responses to its public-use questionnaires. The respondents represented every age group, reported use over several decades, and reported every type of use: sunbathing, picnicking, playing volleyball or frisbee, building sand castles, camping, swimming, surfing, running, visiting the beach, climbing the cliffs, fishing, and more. The area has been used for school outings, birthday parties, and weddings. Some who used the beach lived within walking distance, others far away—inland in California or out of state. With few exceptions, they believed the beach was owned by the County or the State. Many believed that all beaches were owned by the public.

The results of the questionnaire were summarized, and in February 2002 the Commission’s Report of Prescriptive Rights Study for Hidden Beach was forwarded to the office of the Attorney General. In April 2002, the Coastal Commission filed a Complaint to Quiet Title and for Declaratory Relief in Santa Cruz County Superior Court. The Commission and its legal counsel, the Office Attorney General, are optimistic that a settlement agreement will be reached in the near future, permanently preserving the beach and the arroyo for public use."

Source: http://www.scc.ca.gov/coast&ocean/spring2003/pages/two.htm

More general legal discussion: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lat06.htm

I just got off the phone with Micah and he said he is on his way to Kelly's. He said people have been calling him to say they will walk in the rain. If you happen to be reading this now, get on over to Kelly's. It's just a little rain.

Interesting background info, Thomas Leavitt, but the cases aren't really that close - securing beach access and taking over a rail line. It would be more interesting to read about a case where a RR lost ownership of a rail line - got any precidance for that?

Plus, no amount of case history can change the fact that until you have your day in court you have not won your case.

Jeff