Dude, Where’s my Trail?

Your piece about the Paul Bunyan Trail [Good Intentions, October] overlooked something. Perhaps the State of Minnesota ignored the fact that railroad rights-of-way fit into many different categories ranging from outright ownership to easements for railroad use. Perhaps it wasn’t overlooked, and the decision was to take a chance. If the latter, it was bound to blow up some time. I’ve been a licensed attorney, specializing in real estate law, for fifty years. Since retirement, I’ve lectured to lawyers and surveyors on the ins and outs of the law relating to railroad rights-of-way and public streets. One element I’ve always stressed is that everything depends on how they were created. You’ve got to know the facts. The results of the state trail case have been widely quoted, but not the underlying facts. I’m waiting to read the court of Appeals decision. There is a decision relating to a similar trail in Washington County in which it was decided that the right-of-way was really for “transportation purposes.” I’m sure the state must have argued this decision, but the Court of Appeals decided that it didn’t apply. I suspect that the evidence may have shown that the right-of-way had been abandoned for some time before it was incorporated into the trail system. If so, both the U.S. Constitution and Minnesota’s Constitution require that the underlying owners must be compensated.
Charles L. Horn
Bloomington