RTD calls railroad’s property too pricey
by John C. Ensslin
RTD officials said Wednesday they’ve broken off negotiations with the Union Pacific Railroad on a proposed rail maintenance facility and parts of a Smith Road railroad alignment after concluding the asking price exceeded the FasTracks budget.
The decision will require some re-adjustment to the route of RTD’s planned line to Denver International Airport. But it should not significantly alter any of the other planned FasTracks routes, RTD officials said.
“The basic corridors will remain the same,” said RTD spokesman Scott Reed. “This has more to do with the maintenance and internal operation functions than with the route of passenger lines.”
RTD will continue to negotiate with Union Pacific on other substantial pieces of property, according to RTD General Manager Cal Marsella, who characterized the on-going negotiations as “positive and constructive.”
“However, we have no choice but to re-examine other alternatives for some segments to arrive at the most cost-effective program,” Marsella said.
RTD officials would not disclose how much money Union Pacific wanted for the properties, which include UP’s 36th Street rail yard plus the western portions of the Smith Road alignment along RTD’s East Corridor.
That will force RTD to go back and re-examine some alternative routes for service to DIA, said RTD spokeswoman Pauletta Tonilas.
“I think the big picture is we’ll continue to work with Union Pacific,” she said. “We had been working on a package deal with them. The package is cost-prohibitive, but that doesn’t mean the whole package is off the table.”
FasTracks is a voter-approved 12-year-program that will expand rail and bus service through the eight-county district, including six new commuter rail- and light-rail corridors and extensions to three existing corridors.
ensslinj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5291
Filed under: Uncategorized
Steve,
I read all the articles and started looking into RTD and Fastracks. Below are a few questions I was hoping you can answer for me before diving into this. I left my cell phone number in a PM if that’s easier for you, otherwise send me a PM. Let me know where you need help researching.
Is the plan on this site listed the most recent? I saw another plan on the RTD website that looks similar, but more detailed.
Is commercial development within the scope of RTD’s responsibilities? Did the voter’s approve of commericial development along with the light rail? What was the question (verbatim) on the referendum that passed in order to start this project?
Is your land on a commercial development area or just to be used to improve drainage? If just drainage, why can’t they make modifications on your land and let you keep it. After all, drains are underground.
I know they are finalizing their design in early 2008, so I know time’s almost up. I know you don’t have time, but give me a call.
Sincerely,
Billy
Another group of questions:
Have you seen the budget for this project? Where is the funding coming from? It is public knowledge if it is funded through taxes. Are any funds appropriated through the Federal Government? If so, have you contacted your Congressman? If the Federal Government is funding this project somehow, you can get answers through that government agency through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Just send that agency a question pertaining to the funding of this project and it’s approved appropriations. This may help with land taken for commercial development.
Steve,
I read RTD’s Design Criteria Manual. According to their manual, I can’t see how they need your land for drainage for the bridges in the area because they state that they’ll build the bridge drainage systems perpendicular to the bridges (assuming each bridge is 400 feet long). The drainage system for any bridge (at least 400 ft long) in you area would not affect your land if built perpendicular to the bridge. Plus, it would only make sense to have drainage flow downhill towards the South Platte River and away from your property. I checked the FEMA FIRM maps and you don’t appear to be in a flood plain. As for street widening, they shouldn’t need your entire lot according to their own maps. They do have the budget for the West Corridor, though.
The West Corridor line is federally funded. I found a couple websites that are enclosed at the bottom of this reply. Did you contact Sen. Ken Salazar or Sen. Wayne Allard? They helped with getting funding, maybe they can help you keep your land. After all, they may have more influence than individual towns since RTD needs Federal funds to finance the West Corridor line.
I am in the process of gathering documentation to submit a letter through the FOIA to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Transportation and the FTA requesting they look into RTD using Federal funds to acquire more land than necessary through eminent domain to sell to private developers to help off-set costs for their already over-budget project.
http://salazar.senate.gov/news/relea…dmrapprops.htm
http://allard.senate.gov/public/inde…th=9&Year=2007
Keep fighting the good fight.
Steve,
Here’s a link of what RTD and Fastracks is proposing to do with your area and other areas throughout Denver. http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/main/TODStatusReport2006.pdf The proposed plan for the Federal-Decatur Station (your area) is on page 40. Pages 72-87 outline other projects that are being planned and categorized as residential, office, mixed, or institutional.
I’m developing a letter through the Fredom of Information Act (FOIA) asking the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the FTA if Federal funds are being used to acquire land through eminent domain for private development to off-set the cost of this over-budget project. The State of Colorado screwed up in giving these guys too much power, but they still cannot use Federal funds under false pretenses if they are not directly going towards the building of a transit system.
Steve,
Is your land higher than the property across the streets? I’m assuming the natural drainage in your area, is downhill towards the river and, thereby, away from your property.
Here’s some more info on water rights if RTD is trying to take the land for drainage.
An easement is the right to do something or the right to prevent someone else from doing something over the real property of another. The right is often described as the right to use the land of another for a special purpose. Unlike a lease, an easement does not give the holder a right of “possession” of the property, only a right of use. Therefore, even if RTD did show that they needed your property for drainage, Colorado’s statutory law states that they place an easement on the property, not just take it away from the owner. More so, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) states the easment is placed “upon the lower land for the drainage of surface water in its natural course.”
The excerpts below were taken from the CDOT Drainage Design Manual.
Chpt. 2 Page 9:
2.5.2 The Natural Flow Rule
Colorado has statutory law or the natural flow rule that places a natural easement or servitude upon the lower land for the drainage of surface water in its natural course. The natural flow of the water cannot be obstructed by the servient owner to the detriment of the dominant owner. The owner of the upper lands has an easement over lower lands for drainage of surface waters and natural drainage conditions can be altered by an upper land owner provided the water is not sent down in a manner or quantity to cause more harm than formerly. Hankins v. Borland, 431 P.2d 1007 (1967); H. Gordon Howard v. Cactus Hill Ranch Company, 529 P.2d 660 (1974); Hoff v. Ehrlich, 511 P.2d 523 (1973); Ambrosio v. Perl-Mack Construction Company, 351 P.2d 803 (1960).
This is reiterated in the manual in Chpt 2, Page 10:
2.5.5 Surface Waters
The civil law rule is based upon the perpetuation of natural drainage. The rule places a natural easement or servitude upon the lower land for the drainage of surface water in its natural course and the natural flow of the water cannot be obstructed by the servient owner to the detriment of the dominant owner. Most states following this rule have modified it to be similar to Colorado’s version.
Chpt 2, page 13:
2.6.2 Eminent Domain
Eminent domain is the power of the government to take private property for public use. CDOT often uses the power of eminent domain to acquire property for highway purposes, including the right to discharge highway drainage across adjoining lands. Title 38 of Colorado Revised Statutes codifies the State’s right of eminent domain. If the State exercises its power of eminent domain, the private landowner must be fairly compensated for his loss. The landowner may dispute the taking of property or the amount of compensation offered. Therefore, the designer must be prepared to testify in court regarding the design, the design’s effect on the property taken and the need for the taking.
Chpt 2, page 14:
2.6.6 Colorado Statutes
Specifically, title 37 of the Colorado Revised Statutes discusses water issues. It may be helpful for the designer to be familiar with these laws. Some of the laws include the following:
• § 37-84-106 provides that all bridges constructed over any ditch, race, drain or flume crossing any public highway, street or alley, after construction shall be maintained by and at the expense of the county or municipality.
• § 37-84-119 states that the owners or persons in control of any ditch or canal used for irrigating purposes shall maintain it in good order and repair and ready to receive water by April 1 each year.
• § 37-84-101 states that the owner of any ditch shall carefully maintain the embankment thereof so that the waters of such ditch do not flood or damage the premises of others.
• § 37-84-103(1) provides that any bridge constructed on a public highway to accommodate the crossing of any ditch or otherwise must be constructed in accordance with applicable standards established by the State.
• § 37-86-106 provides that whenever it is necessary to convey water through the land of another, the shortest and most direct route practicable should be selected.
• § 37-96-103(2) states that when a public entity responsible for landscaping and maintaining any public project or facility builds or makes changes, the plan for such building or changes shall seek to conserve water. Standards and considerations are located in the statute.