I know one of the farmers in the area, and they are absolutely torn up about the potential for losing their family's land. And, the fact that the railroad company is refusing to meet with them at the very least is not acceptable. If this could potentially have the impact that the OP states, there could be a tremendous impact on campus with increased traffic, as well as a potential for hazards to students from decreased air quality. At the very least, an air quality impact assessment should be done before this is allowed to move forward. As a College Station resident, who would not be as impacted as those in Mumford, etc. I can definitely say that I would be concerned about the impact on my children's air quality from potential leaks. If the leaks are not occurring like the OP states, then let the RR company prove it before they are allowed to move forward with this project. Also, from a property rights standpoint, it appears as though this is not one isolated farmer. If there is a group of farmers who do not want to give up their family land, then I can respect that, but we need to know all of the facts presented by both sides and have a thorough analysis from an independent 3rd party put together and presented to the citizens who could be affected by this. The Cities of Mumford, Hearne, Navasota, Bryan, and College Station definitely deserve to know the full story and all of the potential impacts of a RR yard in that area. Especially if there is another land owner who has offered up land elsewhere like someone else has stated.

The GATX rail maintenance facility has been in Hearne for years, and has affected air quality not a bit.

Interesting thread.

How is it that I find myself agreeing with both sides? On one hand, there is a need for the railroad and other utilities to have "eminent domain" authority if there is a public need to use it. On the other, the landowners should have the right to fight it if there are alternate locations and willing sellers available.

The landowners of Texas has shown that the use of eminent domain for profitability doesn't always win out in the court of public opinion, since we don't have a Trans-Texas Corridor running down the middle of the state right now.

I'm still waiting for the tinfoil hat wearer to tell me how evil all power poles and telephone poles are and how they have poisoned our world with their creosote-infused death cloud.

Some people swallow too much kool-aid on the eminent domain issue.

quote:

---

If the leaks are not occurring like the OP states, then let the RR company prove it before they are allowed to move forward with this project.

---

I move that the poster of this reply be banned until he or she can prove that they aren't a murdering bank robber.

This is still America and people are still innocent until proven guilty.

TTC died mainly because of lack of funding. However, Texas 130 is a sample of how that project could have been constructed. The state used eminent domain in some cases to purchase that ROW, but the road is built, operated, and maintained by a private company with a percentage of the tolls going to the state.

And one of my family members had his farm cut in half by Texas 130.

Might as well add to the videos that have been posted on this thread.

http://youtu.be/LU37_75nQ9o

quote:

---

I move that the poster of this reply be banned until he or she can prove that they aren't a murdering bank robber.

This is still America and people are still innocent until proven guilty.

---

I retract my statement asking for UP to prove they aren't damaging air quality, but since I can't prove I'm not a murdering bank robber, I'd suggest anyone questioning me or threatening me with a ban make themselves scarce...=-P

I think the thread title pretty much tells the story: This is a classic case of NIMBYism.

Railroads serve a vital function in the transportation of goods. It saves everyone money to have bulk good moved by rail to the largest extent possible (as opposed to having these items moved by truck on taxpayer funded highways). Furthermore, rail transport is much more environmentally friendly than the road haul alternative. The case for railroads being a net positvie for society is not open for debate.

That being the case, with the positives that railroads bring inevitably come some negatives, which are concentrated in discrete local areas. It's simply unavoidable. No one would choose to live next to a rail yard, but it's unavoidable if we're going to have railroads that operate effeiciently.

The Mumford location appears to have been chosen because of it's proximity to the rail junction SW of Hearne and the topography of the land--you need a really flat piece of land for a railyard, and this looks to fit the bill.

Now, if you have some type of philosophical probjem with eminent domain, I'd suggest that you need to go hang out with that NY celebrity chef that is opposed to fracking, yet uses natural gas to cook in his restaurants. If you're arguing on the internet, you're using telephone lines and communication facilities that were acquired by eminent domain. If you drive on the highways, you're using land that was acquired through eminent domain. If you use electricity other than what you generate on your own property, you are reaping the benefits of eminent domain, as excercised by a private company in the same way that railroads exercise the power of eminent domain. We all reap the benefits of eminent domain every day.

twk

More propaganda for this thread.

http://youtu.be/p_g009nUkdE

How anyone can be in support of forcibly taking away something someone owns "for the greater good" is beyond me.

Thank God the highways and other major infrastructure were built before rampant NIMBYism and environmentalism got out of control in this country.



[This message has been edited by techno-ag (edited 3/8/2013 10:13a).]

NIMBYism and environmentalism.

[This message has been edited by FlyRod (edited 3/8/2013 10:27a).]

1. The land Nelda Calhoun offered to sell was only 300-400 acres and is mostly in the Pin Oak Creek and Little Brazos flood plain. She didn't consult with ANY of her neighbors (myself included) about where the rest of the needed property might come from.

2. I understand the railroad has already acquired some of the property they're seeking.

3. One of the main reasons this site is of such interest to UP is that the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific tracks cross and run parallel there, and being just a few miles south of Valley Junction, which is another major rail intersection, makes it even better.

quote:

---

How anyone can be in support of forcibly taking away something someone owns "for the greater good" is beyond me.

---

It's not "taking away". It's forcibly selling. "Taking away" implies there is nothing given in return. A taking by the government requires that the grantor receive fair market value for the property.

Someone could offer me $1500 for my Aggie ring, doesn't mean it's for sale.

It doesn't have to be for sale.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution allows the government to take real or personal property and also requires the government to provide just compensation in return.

Yes, that's exactly what I take issue with.

Eminent domain has been one of the most controversial and often explosive aspects of the Constitution since time immemorial. From my own point of view, I don't see a compelling reason to characterize people who take issue with it as silly or unreasonable.

quote:

---

Eminent domain has been one of the most controversial and often explosive aspects of the Constitution since time immemorial. From my own point of view, I don't see a compelling reason to characterize people who take issue with it as silly or unreasonable

---

Nothing to be gained from name calling, so let's suffice it to say that while one might lament the necessity for eminent domain, and wish to see safeguards implemented to limit its application, those who oppose it under all circumstances are either unaware of the fact that they personally benefit from it every day, or just don't care to look at the facts lest it get in the way of their logic.

It's controversial because it has often been abused. One case happened right in College Station. City of College Station was trying to redevelop Northgate. One owner of a dilapidated building refused to sell. The City used eminent domain to buy the property and subsequently sold it at a profit to Texadelphia. A few years later Texadelphia closed.

What is hard to get past is the stubborn and idealistic refusal to sell without acknowledging that we have all benefited in the past from eminent domain - public roads, utilities, military, parks, etc. If you have used any of these in the past and then just flatly say eminent domain is unconditionally wrong then you're just a hypocrite.

Blue stars for twk & Burdizzo. Well stated.

quote:

---

and wish to see safeguards implemented to limit its application

---

quote:

---

It's controversial because it has often been abused.

---

I agree. Well stated.

eminent domain is a necessary evil. remember the extension of longmire past barron? the property owner lost the portion of land for the road and was then billed for a portion of the road construction, which was on top of higher property taxes due to the increase in value becaause of road frontage.iirc, they had to sell the remaining land to pay the bills.

bs uses are for things like sports authorities. hakeem olajuwon fought with houston sports authority (or harris county SA) over his apartment complex when the toyota center was built. they tried to take it. i think he won. i can't wrap my mind around an sa having that capability.

up/sp got eminent domain a long time ago when rail was the main mode of transportation. i think it is still necessary for them to have, due to the critical stuff they move. i also think that anyone losing property thru eminent domain should get market value plus a % above..say 25%.

What is market value of that land these days? I've heard some farmland in Brazos Co. might fetch $10,000/acre. Would 1200 Brazos Bottom acres in Robertson Co. go for that much?

quote:

---

How anyone can be in support of forcibly taking away something someone owns "for the greater good" is beyond me.

---

Totalitarian **** heads.

UP would not have went public with this if it wasn't gonna happen.

Has anyone mentioned the obivious that, Mumford is approximately 15.5 miles away from Mumford?

Further, Mumford sits west north west of College Station. The wind in Texas RARELY blows southeast to such a degree that air pollution would drift from Mumford to CS; besides that heavy particulate (bad stuff) falls out between 2-7 miles.

Also, I'm pretty sure if there were chemical spills frequently and daily as the OP said then in Texas TCEQ and TRRC would be notified; obviously if your friend knows about this and is not reporting it; then he is just as guilty as the people spilling stuff. All in all unless there is a major disaster the residents of College Station will not be affected by any residuals from the rail yard. Increased rail traffic through College Station? Almost certainly yes, and that does increase the percentage chance of an accident or spill in College Station; but that's not a direct result from the yard being built in Mumford, that's a result from the general Brazos county location and surrounding counties. (College Station was built around a rail yard, remember)?

Now to the other part, taking land through the use of eminent domain blows... big time. It is odd to me that a private company would get govt. assistance to do something that will increase their profits... Actually now-a-days I guess that's commonplace; but it shouldn't be.

Not that anyone cares about my opinion but environmentally I think building the yard is fine in that location. Taking of land on the other hand I am against; even with the providing jobs.

Union Pacific did not go public with this, the mayor of Hearne did via a file on a website associated with the city of Hearne.

http://www.hearnetexas.info/

What would the effect of all this be on rail traffic through B/CS? Obviously there would be an increase, but what I'm getting at is that transportation (road) in these cities is already becoming a major PITA due to population increase at a rate that development cannot keep up with to handle. Would something like this not turn road transportation here into a total clusterf?

Seems like I remember hearing (don't quote me) that the local governments here as well as A&M have tried to work with UP to move the rails outside of town but that they decline. If something like this were to go in, it seems to me like UP should have to contribute to transportation improvements due to the increased disruption in transportation/economic activity that this would cause.

Triad, I think rail traffic will continue to increase, regardless.

I get that, but I guess my question has more to do with mitigating the increased PITA of road traffic since UP essentially bisects B/CS. I would think there would be a vested interest in getting UP to contribute to transportation improvements, since it is their rail traffic that will cause further complications to an area that is already strained due to rapid population increase.

UP has been approached about moving the tracks toward the Brazos River due to safety issues. Up has resisted because they would bear the cost of that work, and construction cost for new rail generally run about $1,000,000/mile. That does not include the political and financial costs of purchasing new ROW. The folks in western Brazos County let it be known they would fight the rail coming through their backyards.

Anyone remember how the city of College Station killed the Lo-Track project?