cuz the ncra said so thats why1 
Member since Jul 11, 2012



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Committee to Study Something

Straight from the General Accounting Office : [Page 3-7]

The rail is out of service, NOT officially abandoned as is often reported, a key difference left out in the trails folks arguments. In the link it clarly states that an agreement has to be made, assuming the rail operator/owner is OK with railbanking, which did not happen today. They can choose to abandon the ROW which then the trails groups have to agree that it's on an interim basis and assume all responsibility, maintenance, and liability bonds. That stuff is a bit more than the $4 million Judy likes to print. If the line is completely abandoned with no future interest, whatever ROWs and easements revert back to the control of the original property owners. That means if say CA Redwood, PG&E and property owners around the bay don't want it, a trail will never be built as it will be theirs free and clear to rip out anything, trails AND rails. In that GAO link, the Feds do not say that things such as eminent domain can be used if this group or that decides to get pissy about control of that spaghetti noodle of land.

Also, if the trails people are truly wishing to build a trail system, then what the hell is with the A&M line at Blue Lake? Why is it blocked off by chainlink fences when I drive by, unpaved, unmaintained, and starting to revert back to a dirt hill full of noxious weeds? I don't believe that was part of the development plan.Or was it?

Posted by cuz the ncra said so thats why on 07/11/2012 at 9:54 PM

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Weekly Update (Thursday)
  • Events This Weekend (Thursday)

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2017 North Coast Journal

Website powered by Foundation