this statement needs explaining:

"but the people out there feel there is better-suited land in the county for a development like this."

what do the landowners know about the best place to set up a rail yard? Are they 20-year railroad veterans or former UP employees? Everyone has an opinion, but that doesn't mean he or she has a clue what they're actually talking about

and regarding the 200 full-time jobs...of course the management group, supervisors and other key personnel are going to have to be relocated UP employees. And if they transfer people from Fort Worth that will now live in Brazos County or the surrounding area, that's okay.

if the UP employees daily commute from Houston, then obviously that has a lesser economic effect

I was told that a lady in that area has a chunk of land that is more than enough for UP to build their yard and she offered her place for them, but UP turned her down.

So UP has the option to move just a few miles to a different place without any drama and they choose not to. Doesn't make sense to me.

Also as to the landowners being paid for their land, the issue isn't as much with the landowners, but with the farmers. Most of the farmers in that area lease the land to farm on it and have been leasing it for decades. If UP buys up that land then the farmers who are leasing get NOTHING and lose all of their crops that they've spent decades to work on.

quote:

---

I was told that a lady in that area has a chunk of land that is more than enough for UP to build their yard and she offered her place for them, but UP turned her down.

---

it was nelda calhoun, not nelda eustice

quote:

---

So UP has the option to move just a few miles to a different place without any drama and they choose not to. Doesn't make sense to me.

---

did you read the link to kbtx? hwy 6 would have to be relocated. a quote from the article..
“It was too short and it was just about two miles long and we need about 5.5 to 6 miles in length,” said Espinoza. "It's also located on the opposite side of the highway, so we'd actually have to move the highway."

quote:

---

Also as to the landowners being paid for their land, the issue isn't as much with the landowners, but with the farmers. Most of the farmers in that area lease the land to farm on it and have been leasing it for decades. If UP buys up that land then the farmers who are leasing get NOTHING and lose all of their crops that they've spent decades to work on

---

so if the owner has a hold harmless provision to break the lease, then the farmer should have negotiated better terms. it's hard to feel sorrow for someone who doesn't own the property. emapathy, yes. sucks that they will have to move, but if the land is turned for UP use, the farmers aren't entitled to compensation for leased land without the provisions being in the lease.

Blue star Rexter.

Texan, I watched two of your videos on the Brazos Valley rail yard topic and at the conclusion of the viewing I noticed one thing. There are no shots from the actual location/properties that UP is interesting in purchasing.

I'm very familiar with that area and the locations you chose are not part of the proposed rail yard. I don't see how the images you showed will change at all. Don't you fell this is somewhat misleading?

Marooned,

There will be scenes of the actual location. This is just a trailer. It's going to be 5+ miles long and I have good aerial shots of the land in question. Stay tuned!

Any new news on this UP Rail Yard? Curious if UP has contacted any landowners and put in actual offers on the land?

UP has won round one at the Surface Transportation Board; in a decision dated February 19, 2014, the STB ruled against the Brazos River Bottom Alliance. The BRBA was seeking discovery to require the UP to seek STB approval for the building of a new rail line. The STB cited regulations that stated that the UP has the ability to add improvements along an existing right of way; no new rail lines are being built.

edit because I cannot make the link to the STB page work...

[This message has been edited by frito bandito (edited 5/16/2014 5:00p).]

Thanks for the update.

http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/WEBUNID/F6C5A132CBD0C0BF85257C840051B729?OpenDocument

quote:

---

techno-ag: do you really believe the city of hearne will reap benefits from this project? if so, then you are mistaken. most the union pacific employees will NOT live in hearne, will NOT shop in hearne, and will NOT pay taxes to hearne. additionally, when all of the farmers have left the county because there is no available land worth farming in robertson county, who will live, shop and pay taxes there? that's a lot of lost revenue imho. the only people who will benefit financially from this project are the union pacific execs.

---

My guess is that the railyard will produce a large increase in taxes to the county compared to the losses of tax revenue due to farming. Farm land is taxed at a very low rate, commercial land will be valued much higher and generate much more property tax revenue. Also, sales taxes aren't collected on items used for farming/ranching.

I have no idea what the best location for the yard is, but I have little doubt that it will cause lower tax revenues for the county.