quote:

---

Lots of good production land was taken out of service in the 1980's through the CRP.

---

CRP ground in the 1980's was mostly highly erodible and lower producing land but go ahead and spread misinformation...

quote:

---

Where was the outrage when the 11,000 acre Buffalo Ranch was sold to TDCJ? Same kind of ag lands, but just one owner.

---

I don't know about that story, but based on the information in this post, one owner sold his OWN land. It's his land, he can sell it to whomever he wants.

quote:

---

Isn't water supposed to be a precious resource? Maybe it is not such a bad thing to take acreage out of irrigation; let someone else use that precious resource...

---

Just because the land is being used doesn't mean it's being irrigated.

Did you even read the post?

First sentence, second paragraph:

" 1,200 acres of prime, irrigated cropland between..."

Did someone mention Creosote?

Do I remember correctly that all wooden power and telephone poles are also treated with Creosote?

Is anybody concerned about that?

IMO, this is not a jobs issue or a farming issue or a railroad issue or even an issue of the "best" use of the land. It is simply a PROPERTY RIGHTS issue. The use of eminent domain to build a railyard should not be a legal right.

Railroads were granted eminent domain powers to build rail lines, primarily so one landowner could not stop their construction or require a rail company to pay an outrageous amount for a parcel of land. I have no idea how the construction of a railyard became part of this equation. We are talking about apples and oranges here--there are more options when placing a yard as opposed to laying a rail line.

This boils down to a simple concept--legal land thievery.

Railroads are privately owned by stockholders, either individuals or companies representing individuals. This land is owned by individuals (and perhaps some of it also is owned by companies representing individuals). It is not morally correct for one group of property owners to be forced to sell land to other individuals for purely economic reasons. Do you remember the uproar in New England several years ago when a city condemned land that contained some number of small businesses so they could "re-develop" it purely for economic reasons. The concept is the same. If the landowner wants to sell his or her land to the railroad, be my guest. But it should be his or her choice.

Are our local legislators listening? Legalized theft should be stopped. Step up and be a hero...or at least be on the right side of this issue.

oops, yeah I did miss that part.

but to make sure I'm clear, are you arguing that, by taking that 1200 acres out of farming and putting it to railyard use, we'll save a bunch of water?

quote:

---

The use of eminent domain to build a railyard should not be a legal right.

---

Hasn't another landowner in the vicinity offered to sell her property for the railyard? Her property is sufficient in size and is not used for farming.

quote:

---

IMO, this is not a jobs issue or a farming issue or a railroad issue or even an issue of the "best" use of the land. It is simply a PROPERTY RIGHTS issue. The use of eminent domain to build a railyard should not be a legal right.

---

Ding ding ding. Argue all you want about the environmental and economic advantages/disadvatnages. The above is what it should come down to.

THank you, evermore for precipitating out the real issue.

All these other "woe is me, poor farmer" arguments are just window dressing.

By the way, the use of eminent domain is not thievery if the landowner gets compensated fair market value for the taking. Yet another hyperbole to blow this out of proportion.

"fair market value"

what if they simply didn't want to sell, at any price?

I see you know who is busy stirring the pot on this topic also.

Thank you for the compliment,Burdizzo. Thievery might be too strong a word, but I believe there are compelling reasons why it actually applies in this case. Even the railroad pr people are having a difficult time selling the use of eminent domain in this case as "serving the public good."

So far, they have failed to make a case that this particular land is in any way better for their use than other, perhaps even available land might be.

And rhoswen makes a good point. Some folks automatically assume that landowners are simply trying to get a better price if they fight eminent domain. It's not always, perhaps even usually true. Using the KISS formula, it all about property rights.


[This message has been edited by evermoreAg (edited 3/4/2013 5:21p).]

quote:

---

Those chemicals are no longer being used in farming. Just do a little research yourself on the railroad industry. We have talked to the County Agent in Livonia, La. where there is a small rail yard--nothing like the one that UPR is proposing for the Mumford area. This person told us that UPR has hazardous spills in the railyard every day and try to cover them up. I know a environmental attorney who worked as a rail yard inspector and he personally saw the contamination.

And let's talk about jobs--yes, it might create jobs but read what I posted again about the small businesses that will be hurt. There will be many, many jobs lost if 1,200 acres are taken out of production so on net what is gained except more danger to the community including Bryan and College Station and more danger to the environment? We have done our research and consulted with those knowledgeable about how UPR operates. We have checked our facts, and we stand by the statements in this post. If someone wants to ignore the facts, then so be it.

---

I would be very surprised that there are spill daily and all are covered up. Sounds like someone who told you that has an agenda?

Also, I don't know the area but to farm 1200 acres would take about ten persons. Add the few jobs for suppliers, truckers, seasonal workers and you would have a few more but unless there are other businesses going to be closed, the number of jobs lost will be very small.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A big wide open area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That is in full agricultural production. I swear people don't think about what is being lost with projects like this. Prime farmland cannot be recovered. This project will forever destroy highly productive farmland.

Food and fiber are not produced at grocery stores and clothing stores.

[This message has been edited by AgResearch (edited 3/4/2013 11:59a).]

---

The state of Texas should immediately outlaw all expansions of city limits, outlaw the development of all rural and suburban subdivisions, require all rural homes built going forward to be on no less than 20 acres and 19 of those to be set aside prohibiting development, and to outlaw all higway widening of any sort.

In many instances, many take away prime farmland.

On the other hand, to me, eminent domain powers should never be used to confiscate private property to give to another private enterprise.



[This message has been edited by Frio Cielo (edited 3/4/2013 6:15p).]

No Frio, if it's a developer buying the land that's OK. If it's a utility or railroad, it's evil. The farmland will never be recovered under the latter.

quote:

---

No Frio, if all parties are selling willingly that's OK. If it's being threatened to be "purchased" from someone unwilling to sell, it's evil.

---

FIFY

And urban sprawl is a huge problem as well.

quote:

---

On the other hand, to me, eminent domain powers should never be used to confiscate private property to give to another private enterprise.

---

Right or wrong, railroads are granted the same power of eminent domain as the government because our government had decided that they needed it (and continue to need it) in order to build efficient transportation systems that benefit the national economy. It works the same for public and private utility systems. Someone above gave an example of what could happen when one person holds an entire railroad hostage with one parcel of right-of-way they refuse to sell, regardless of the reason. It's debatable whether or not a railcar sorting yard is a public necessity, but don't just poo-poo the use of eminent domain simply because you don't understand it.

quote:

---

THank you, evermore for precipitating out the real issue.

All these other "woe is me, poor farmer" arguments are just window dressing.

---

Do you know any of these "poor farmers?"

quote:

---

"fair market value"

what if they simply didn't want to sell, at any price?

---

What about public necessity?

quote:

---

Hasn't another landowner in the vicinity offered to sell her property for the railyard? Her property is sufficient in size and is not used for farming.

---

Anyone?

quote:

---

Hasn't another landowner in the vicinity offered to sell her property for the railyard? Her property is sufficient in size and is not used for farming.

Anyone?

---

Yeah it was mentioned elsewhere a property owner on Hwy 6 south of Hearne offered her land for sale, but the RR said it wasn't suitable.

quote:

---

Do you know any of these "poor farmers?"

---

I don't know anyone who owns 600 acres of anything, much less 1200, that I would consider poor.

Burdizzo, I don't think this is a "public necessity" issue. Trains are obviously running frequently and seemingly quite well in this area--I waited for trains a couple of times during the weekend. These rail lines, locomotives, whatever are being serviced currently by a railyard located somewhere. I have no idea where.

I am pretty sure that some MBA (I have nothing against MBAs, I am one) has concluded that it would be economical to locate a yard in this area. This is solely to increase their profits. And again, I am not at all against profits--that is why companies exist. They surely have done a cost analysis that has proven, at least to their satisfaction, that a railyard in this area will pay for itself, probably in less than ten years, and then save the company money in the long run. I don't think that passes the smell test for a "public necessity."

IMO, the first issue is property rights, i.e., the owner has the right to do whatever he or she pleases with their property.

I think I can make a pretty good case that a secondary issue is profit. Why should a rail company have any more right to "take" land so they can make profit thereby depriving the current owner of his/her rights to make a profit in any legal manner he or she chooses?

And no, Phi, I don't think I know any of them. I haven't checked the list of involved landowners.



[This message has been edited by evermoreAg (edited 3/4/2013 7:46p).]

It's not just one landowner.

quote:

---

I think I can make a pretty good case that a secondary issue is profit. Why should a rail company have any more right to "take" land so they can make profit thereby depriving the current owner of his/her rights to make a profit in any legal manner he or she chooses?

---

Gotta say first, I've enjoyed this respectful disagreement of opinions on here. I like that we can all agree to disagree and not get nasty about it.

Second, re the above, is it profit so much as need? And if the RR/utility does need a new facility, they will build it somewhere, regardless. And wherever it's built, it will bring economic benefit.

Therefore, let's rally around the facility being built here. If they "eminent domain" land elsewhere with less resistance, we won't gain anything from it since it would be out of our area.

Techno, I always enjoy a civil discussion when I disagree with others.

I think we both know that "need" is in the eye of the beholder. In the business world, it translates into we "need" to be more efficient...so that we can make more profit. And that's what makes the world go 'round.

It is pretty obvious that the railroads currently are accomplishing these "needs" somewhere right now. We sometimes hear talk of new high speed rail lines but this isn't about that. And I haven't read anything about any railroad expansion in this area. Locomotives, etc., can pretty much be repaired anywhere. I truly believe that it is totally about profit--the railroad's profit.

To me this is simply a moral issue. I think you and I will have to agree that we disagree.

OK evermore. I respect your opinion.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you know any of these "poor farmers?"

---

I don't know anyone who owns 600 acres of anything, much less 1200, that I would consider poor.

---

Nice deflection. I was quoting you. Do you know any of these farmers? Yes or no question. Thanks.

Do farmers need to feed their family?

What about the tenant farmers?

[This message has been edited by phiaggie (edited 3/4/2013 9:08p).]

A link to a trailer for the upcoming film about the folks out in Mumford: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al8MSmJ5KhU

It should be finished and uploaded April 5th and I will make a post at that time. It will have a brief history of the area, the people potentially impacted by this yard as well as take a look at the economic and environmental impact of such a site, for better or worse...

(Full Disclosure)
To this date, Union Pacific and public officials that have been contacted to get their take on this development have declined to participate. One official who I will not identify said he was in (to say it nicely) hot water over "all of this" but would "ask around" to see if he could find someone to comment on camera. I don't think anything is coming from that conversation...

Sorry about misunderstand your question, Phi. Your normal, snarky, cryptic, and obtuse mode of participating on texags precedes you.

No. I do not know any of "these" farmers. However, I do know several farmers who have had to sell land and/or easements to the government for public projects, namely freeways, tollways, and utility easements. In fact, all of them were family members.

quote:

---

Do farmers need to feed their family?

What about the tenant farmers?

---

Yes, and yes.

Do people often change professions? Yes. Are people often forced to change professions due to circumstances beyond their control? Yes. Do railroad workers need to feed their families? I wonder.

[This message has been edited by Burdizzo (edited 3/4/2013 10:17p).]

YES.

(in answer to the OP's original question)

Those same railroad workers will be able to feed their families with the railyard built in another location. They're not losing a damn thing.