Blunt Refuses to Steal Private Property
It appears as though the folks at Missourians Fired Up are trying to steal the Katy Bridge on behalf of the Missouri Government so they can convince you that Matt Blunt gave it away.
Obviously, the activist and clearly liberal crowd following that advertisement-rich blog site have no knowledge of the bridge's history, no clear understanding of ownership, and no clue what they are talking about. They're starting to sound a bit like socialists. Look here:
In 1987, the MKT Railroad quit using the rail line that crossed the Katy because the regional economy could not support a railroad. As a result, the right-of-way was contracted to the state of Missouri. $200,000 for 200 miles, excluding the Katy Bridge. Why not the bridge? Because even back then, Missouri realized that the expense of maintaining and insuring such a bridge was far too great. If Missourians wanted the bridge, they reserved the right to claim it, so long as they also accepted liability.
For nearly two decades, nobody wanted that responsibility, nor could anybody afford it.
In 1988, Union Pacific, who then owned MKT, offered the Katy Bridge to the Boonville Area Chamber of Commerce. The offer was turned down because of the extreme costs associated with maintaining and insuring the bridge. (Notice the trend.)
During the decade of the 90's, Union Pacific battled with the U.S. Coast Guard over the bridge. The Coast Guard considers unused bridges a hazard to river navigation. Initially, Union Pacific agreed to sell the bridge but nobody wanted to buy it because of the enormous cost associated with maintaining and insuring it. (Sounds familiar)
Now, with today's shortage in raw steel, Union Pacific has suddenly realized that they own a very valuable chunk of metal. They now plan to move part of the bridge to a location where it can once again be used. The financial savings, over the cost of a new bridge, are estimated at $10 million.
Because Boonville opened a casino a while back, they now have money. About $4 million. Matt Blunt was quick to correctly point out however, that neither the State, nor the City, could now afford to purchase the bridge, repair it, and insure it.
You see, Matt Blunt did not give away the bridge. He correctly identified that Missouri could not afford to buy the bridge simply to "save" it. Keep in mind, the bridge hasn't been used in decades, and nobody has ever had a good reason to maintain it. It is now a hazard, and it is still owned by Union Pacific. The railroad can save money by reusing the bridge that they own. And there is no organization wealthy enough to buy it.
The crowd at Missourians Fired Up is wrong. Matt Blunt acted appropriately. What they apparently desire is for the State government to seize private property, thereby creating financial hardship for the railroad as well as every single Missouri taxpayer. Just what is the payoff for violating property and ownership rights? And how on Earth would this make Matt Blunt a better Governor? It wouldn't. And when their blog states that removing the bridge creates a "gap" in the Katy trail, they are lying. How do I know this? I know because the bridge is a lift-span bridge, and it has been in a raised position for decades. Apparently, these people have never even seen their beloved Katy Bridge.
W.S.
posted by William Squire at 3:48 PM
4 Comments:
Yep. Check out this e-mail from TrailNet.
Dear friend of Trailnet:
Attorney General Jay Nixon will be filing suit against the state Department
of Natural Resources to prevent the State from giving the Boonville KATY
Trail bridge to Union Pacific Railroad.
He will be holding a press conference this Thursday, May 26, 11:15 in
historic St. Charles at the KATY Trail Train Depot (in Frontier Park along
the river)
A showing of public support is critical. We need people to show their
support at the press conference. Please help spread the word, and be there
if possible.
Ted Curtis
Trailnet Executive Director
...giving the bridge to Union Pacific.
Scratch scratch.
hln
Please, someone, explain to me why it's a good idea for one portion of the government to sue another.
Here in Missouri, school districts have sued the state government and now the attorney general is suing the governor....
I guess it beats working for a living.
While I don't neccesarily disagree with the Governors decision about the bridge. Your article misses the point of why the bridge is important.
The states ownership and use of the trail is based on the ability of the trail to be turned back into a rail line should the situation neccesitate it. Removal of the bridge makes this less possible and some believe that it makes enough difference to tip the scales in the courtroom.
The statement that the removal of the bridge creates a gap in the KATY trail is infact correct. If you are looking at the trail as a railroad rather than as a bicycle trail. Creating a gap in the trail as a potential railroad line therefore makes the the Katy Trail vulnerable to a whole new round of lawsuits regarding the states right to use it rather than its reversion back to the original tracks of land that it came from.
The cure for this in my opinion is a simple one.
The Supreme Court has determined that the right of the state to use eminent domain to promote economic developement is perfectly legal.
Since the railroad is the current owner/leasor of the property and an eminent domain proceeding against the railroad by the state for the land in question would not meet with any rebuttal from the railroad this would solve the landowner / bridge argument once and for all.
The railroad could take thier bridge and the trail would not be threatened.
There are other ways to solve this issue. The important thing is that when you bad mouth some one for there concerns you should really take the time to understand them first.
Ted
--when you bad mouth some one for there concerns you should really take the time to understand them first.--
The concerns are well understood, but do not alter the proper outcome. The state does not own the Katy trail bridge, the railroad does. The state cannot afford to buy the bridge. It is therefore the property of the railroad company to use as they see fit. If the state cannot afford to buy or fix the bridge it is useless and will continue to be useless. The railorad can put it to good use by reducing the cost of ongoing development for Missourians. Maintaining the current state of disrepair is also costly and represents a real safety hazard.
I believe I understand the concerns just fine. Before you attack, perhaps you should work to understand property ownership and the state's financial responsibilities.
Post a Comment
<< Home