 |
Re: NCRA/NWP Co. Memos Regarding "Railbanking"
Author: MG42
Date: 07-16-2012 - 19:03
Juppo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MG42 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I don't disagree with that assessment.
> Hopefully
> > something changes down the road. One thing the
> > pro-trail crowd also seems to forget, is that
> if
> > the line is ever officially abandoned, the ROW
> > will go back to the property owners, more than
> > likely. Property owners, who will be less than
> > enthusiastic about giving up their land for
> > trails. They should try working with us
> railfans,
> > most of whom don't mind a trail next to the ROW
> > (some of whom, myself included, would use such
> > trail to railfan!), instead of blaming us for
> > blocking their plan (which is a blatant lie).
> > Otherwise they may never get what they want,
> even
> > if NCRA gives in.
>
> I think that the THA is on the right path (pun
> intended) with the mutual rail/trail/excursion
> corridor around Humboldt Bay. I've never been a
> fan of the Rail-to-Trails scheme, but like the WP
> museum in Portola, these people know they're doing
> and seem to have a solidly positive and productive
> background.
Yes, they know what they are doing and they are a great group of folks. THA is just trying to preserve our rail and logging heritage with their eventual museum, boost tourism of the Humboldt Bay Area with their train, and they are providing some good, clean family friendly fun on the rails in the meantime!
>
> If "Rails-to-Trails" changed their name and their
> mission statement to "Rails-with-Trails," they'd
> get more accomplished and everybody would be
> happy.
Hell, if they did that, I might even join them!
> I agree, trails parallel to rail lines
> are a railfan's best friend. Safe, legal access
> to the ROW that isn't standing at a grade
> crossing.
Yup.
>
> It's interesting what you say about the ROW
> reverting to private property owners. Two good
> examples of this is the former SP/NVRR ROW from
> St. Helena to Calistoga on the Napa Valley Railway
> and the middle section of the Modoc Line that I've
> driven a couple times. Both have had the ROW
> subdivided and integrated into surrounding
> property with wineries nearly completely erasing
> the NVRR ROW and rancher's fences strung across
> the trackless ROW on the Modoc.
> I'm wondering what the property ownership and
> lines are along the Eel River ROW? How much is
> private property and how much is public land?
> How many private property owners are there up
> there? Can't be many.
Southern Humboldt may be sparsely populated, but those who live there do own very large swaths of land. It's mostly ranches and some logging operations, and that's just the legal economic activity. There's plenty of the illegal kind going on, too. Those who live there also have this "property rights coalition" (exact name escapes me at the moment), which newly elected 2nd district supervisor Fennel (Clendenen's seat) was a leader of. There may be a small amount of Forest Service land where the line goes over into Trinity County, but I can't think of too much more public land along the north end. There is a lot of public land in Humboldt, just not too much along the ROW.
>
> Although I do agree with everyone that Mexican
> Cartels, etc are growing LOTS of illegal Cannabis
> up there, I disagree that it is a problem for the
> railroad or potential trail users. If the
> railroad reopens WITH a trail and an illegal pot
> farm happens to be nearby, the growers will move
> elsewhere, more secluded. A bunch of machete
> wielding Hispanics harassing trail users is bad
> for their business and they know it. This isn't
> Mexico.
I agree. As far as this not being Mexico, almost every bust involving Mexican Nationals here has turned up loaded assault weapons and the occasional RPG, yet they always seem to surrender without much of a fight. Most growers will move deeper into the woods if a trail goes in, or even if just rail was restored, I'd imagine. Only situation I can think of where a grower closed down a rail line was Bassler, but he was just a crazy s.o.b. and wasn't even growing pot (well OK, opium poppies...)
>
> Also, (not directing this at anyone in particular)
> it's time to get over the whole "evils of
> marijuana" nonsense. This isn't 1955 anymore.
> McCarthyism, J. Edgar Hoover, Communism, gays and
> the smoking of weed are either dead, or about as
> harmful as an excess of laughter. I feel bad for
> the few people left who sit alone in their house
> concerned that there are people out there smoking
> weed and having a fun, safe and enlightened time.
>
So long as it doesn't harm me or my family, and children and animals are left out of it, I couldn't care less what a person does in his or her home. Not really mine or Big Brother's business what somebody chooses to ingest or do sexually, I just don't need (or want) to know the details of it. Perfect example-Supervisor Elect Fennel is a lesbian, and I voted for her. Her sex life is of no concern to me, because anybody is better than Clif!
>
> A person's political and social ideology aside,
> marijuana is not anyone's (negative) issue or
> enemy.
I'd consider trying it if it's ever legalized Federally. That's just where my risk aversion kicks in at the moment. Just like how everyone else can drive like a jerk, and no cops are around for miles, the second I try, in my mind, they're right there, on my ass.
Looks like we find ourselves almost in complete agreement today, Juppo. Good talking with ya! :-)
-------------------------------------------------------
> MG42 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I don't disagree with that assessment.
> Hopefully
> > something changes down the road. One thing the
> > pro-trail crowd also seems to forget, is that
> if
> > the line is ever officially abandoned, the ROW
> > will go back to the property owners, more than
> > likely. Property owners, who will be less than
> > enthusiastic about giving up their land for
> > trails. They should try working with us
> railfans,
> > most of whom don't mind a trail next to the ROW
> > (some of whom, myself included, would use such
> > trail to railfan!), instead of blaming us for
> > blocking their plan (which is a blatant lie).
> > Otherwise they may never get what they want,
> even
> > if NCRA gives in.
>
> I think that the THA is on the right path (pun
> intended) with the mutual rail/trail/excursion
> corridor around Humboldt Bay. I've never been a
> fan of the Rail-to-Trails scheme, but like the WP
> museum in Portola, these people know they're doing
> and seem to have a solidly positive and productive
> background.
Yes, they know what they are doing and they are a great group of folks. THA is just trying to preserve our rail and logging heritage with their eventual museum, boost tourism of the Humboldt Bay Area with their train, and they are providing some good, clean family friendly fun on the rails in the meantime!
>
> If "Rails-to-Trails" changed their name and their
> mission statement to "Rails-with-Trails," they'd
> get more accomplished and everybody would be
> happy.
Hell, if they did that, I might even join them!
> I agree, trails parallel to rail lines
> are a railfan's best friend. Safe, legal access
> to the ROW that isn't standing at a grade
> crossing.
Yup.
>
> It's interesting what you say about the ROW
> reverting to private property owners. Two good
> examples of this is the former SP/NVRR ROW from
> St. Helena to Calistoga on the Napa Valley Railway
> and the middle section of the Modoc Line that I've
> driven a couple times. Both have had the ROW
> subdivided and integrated into surrounding
> property with wineries nearly completely erasing
> the NVRR ROW and rancher's fences strung across
> the trackless ROW on the Modoc.
> I'm wondering what the property ownership and
> lines are along the Eel River ROW? How much is
> private property and how much is public land?
> How many private property owners are there up
> there? Can't be many.
Southern Humboldt may be sparsely populated, but those who live there do own very large swaths of land. It's mostly ranches and some logging operations, and that's just the legal economic activity. There's plenty of the illegal kind going on, too. Those who live there also have this "property rights coalition" (exact name escapes me at the moment), which newly elected 2nd district supervisor Fennel (Clendenen's seat) was a leader of. There may be a small amount of Forest Service land where the line goes over into Trinity County, but I can't think of too much more public land along the north end. There is a lot of public land in Humboldt, just not too much along the ROW.
>
> Although I do agree with everyone that Mexican
> Cartels, etc are growing LOTS of illegal Cannabis
> up there, I disagree that it is a problem for the
> railroad or potential trail users. If the
> railroad reopens WITH a trail and an illegal pot
> farm happens to be nearby, the growers will move
> elsewhere, more secluded. A bunch of machete
> wielding Hispanics harassing trail users is bad
> for their business and they know it. This isn't
> Mexico.
I agree. As far as this not being Mexico, almost every bust involving Mexican Nationals here has turned up loaded assault weapons and the occasional RPG, yet they always seem to surrender without much of a fight. Most growers will move deeper into the woods if a trail goes in, or even if just rail was restored, I'd imagine. Only situation I can think of where a grower closed down a rail line was Bassler, but he was just a crazy s.o.b. and wasn't even growing pot (well OK, opium poppies...)
>
> Also, (not directing this at anyone in particular)
> it's time to get over the whole "evils of
> marijuana" nonsense. This isn't 1955 anymore.
> McCarthyism, J. Edgar Hoover, Communism, gays and
> the smoking of weed are either dead, or about as
> harmful as an excess of laughter. I feel bad for
> the few people left who sit alone in their house
> concerned that there are people out there smoking
> weed and having a fun, safe and enlightened time.
>
So long as it doesn't harm me or my family, and children and animals are left out of it, I couldn't care less what a person does in his or her home. Not really mine or Big Brother's business what somebody chooses to ingest or do sexually, I just don't need (or want) to know the details of it. Perfect example-Supervisor Elect Fennel is a lesbian, and I voted for her. Her sex life is of no concern to me, because anybody is better than Clif!
>
> A person's political and social ideology aside,
> marijuana is not anyone's (negative) issue or
> enemy.
I'd consider trying it if it's ever legalized Federally. That's just where my risk aversion kicks in at the moment. Just like how everyone else can drive like a jerk, and no cops are around for miles, the second I try, in my mind, they're right there, on my ass.
Looks like we find ourselves almost in complete agreement today, Juppo. Good talking with ya! :-)
