So I should suppose then, that the first one to put something other than weeds on the land, whether it be a railroad track, or an X-rated drive-in, or whatever; then gets to dictate the effect it shall have on neighboring properties - diminishing their value or usefullness without compensation. That doesn't sound much like a good neighbor to me!

Yes, those who put that old folks home next to the tracks might have chosen a better place (to better serve their customers). But on the other hand, if everybody did that, then that neighbor's land becomes unsalable and unusable without any compensation whatever, thus breeching his rights.

Actually, that neighbor landowner, being a sentient being "endowed by [its] Creator with certain unalienable rights", has as much "Right" as any other citizen; and certainly as much right as any souless corporation (a creation of mere men, the US Supreme Court notwithstanding).

I've often wondered, how does governemnt create (officially recognize) and then grant rights to a coporation to do things, in ways that the government itself does have the right to do. I would like the Supreme Court to satisfactorally explain that - but I digress

The bottom line here?
Is it not a prime duty and purpose of 'Government', to arbitrate and resolve such conflicts between the rights of its citizens. And if not, then how the hell would any governemnt ever EARN the support of its common citizens. Certain, no democracy could ever survive without that support. And even the Soviet Union did not ultimately stand.

Ideally, what one neighbor does on his/her land, should have no impact whatsoever on the neighboring properties. Then government and the courts, would have no need to get involved. But so often, one neighbor displays complete disregard for the rights of his neighbors - souless coprorations being the worst (if it don't help the bottom line - then screw you). So off to court we go!


AS to grade crossings and horn noise - the best solution is to not cross the tracks at grade - then you get no horns, and no colisions either. But that would've caused most crossings to cost more than the price of a mere easement. So yes, in years past WE (the government) took the cheap way out when building streats and highways, and caused this problem ourselves.

It is fitting then, that the cities and states (us) that caused this problem, should be the ones paying to fix it. But just try to tell that to any city councilman!