SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Congress just passed, and Trump signed, a law that makes all properties adjacent to the rail system operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Constitution free zones.
From TFA on zerohedge.com:
"In performing its duties, the Commission, through its Board or designated employees or agents, may: Enter upon the WMATA Rail System and, upon reasonable notice and a finding by the chief executive officer that a need exists, upon any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System, including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government, for the purpose of making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing as the Commission may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this MSC Compact, and such entry shall not be deemed a trespass."
As we all know, the standard in the 4th Amendment is a particularized warrant based on probable cause, "reasonable notice and need" as determined by the cops (i.e. agency chief), is not the same thing at all.
We already have constitution free zones within 100 100 miles of any border, and this provides a convenient framework to do a similar thing along any rail line (or road) so the Feds can liberate the center of the country from any form of Constitutional protection. Anyway ... the 4th Amendment is already dead at this point, but its piecemeal demise should provide a useful education for those clamoring for the demise of the 1st.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @01:00AM (4 children)
Usually, the power company has to pay to get an easement.
Does this mean everybody adjacent to the railway should send a bill and get a written easement with specific rights and limitations?
Especially the limitation for how may feet from the railway they have the right to inspect.
Unless the RR already has as easement, this seems to me to be a seizure without compensation.
That may or may be reasonable, depending on how much it interrupts the owners use of the property.
Definitely a case to show that NIMBY's are correct in their stance.
If somebody gets caught piggy backing a law enforcement activity on this, there will surely be a court case.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 28 2017, @08:58AM (3 children)
I'm not sure that power companies always have to pay. Also, there are various kinds of easements. For instance, I own exactly half of the roadway, for it's entire length, in front of my house. That is, my ownership extends to the middle of the roadway. The state highway at the far end of the property also belongs to me, right out to the center line. I'm taxed for it, just like I'm taxed for all the rest of my land. The county has an easement for it's county road, and the state has it's own easement, under eminent domain laws, for the sate highway. If the county road were to be shut down, I could move my fence out into the middle of the road, and gain a little extra grass to cut. Or, weeds, actually. Ditto with the highway, although that wouldn't work out as well, because traffic would still flow past the house.
And, I get nothing for the public's use of my land. I get to use my land, each time I drive home, but that use is far from exclusive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @12:57PM
The payment for the easement is usually up front when it is created.
As an alternative to a easement, I've also seen leases with periodic payments, but not usually with roads and utilities.
Sometimes the payment is in kind, as in you get a road, but have to provide a place to put it.
So, yes, they should pay for this easement,
but more importantly, the easement should specify how much of the adjacent land is affected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @01:24PM (1 child)
Have you considered putting up a toll booth?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 28 2017, @02:03PM
LOL - I'm not out to win any popularity contests. Not even the State of Arkansas' "Most Unpopular Guy" contest.