This is a recent post in a thread on the phl.tranportation newsgroup
----------
Subject: Re: CSX vs. City of Philadelphia....
From: Greg <greg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups: misc.transport.rail.americas,phl.transportation
DaveW wrote:
> hancock4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > DaveW wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Southern Pacific VS. Santa Clara notwithstanding, Corporations do not
> >
> >
> >>have constistuional rights. They exist as entities sanctioned by the
> >>government and therefore, beholden to the government in ways that
> >
> > people
> >
> >>(who DO have constitutional rights) are not.
> >
> >
> > I wasn't aware that the govt had the power to confiscate land
> > and property from corporations without any compensation. Perhaps
> > the 'corporation' doesn't have rights, but don't the shareholders
> > who own the corporation? It is their property.
>
> First of all, have you ever heard of the I. R. S.? Second of all, the
> shareholders own their shares, that's all. The shares could be worth
> something or not. They do not own the land in the way you would if you
> as an individual would if you bought it.
What difference does it make to your position whether or not somebody has
heard of IRS or not? There are no federal tax issues under discussion.
You are correct on one count, corporate ownership is different then
individual ownership. But that does not give government the right to take
away corporate owned property without fair compensation. If you own a
business that has land, government cannot take it away without
compensation. This concept does not disappear after you decide to
incorporate your same business, which is a very prudent thing to do.
>
>
> >
> > Anyway, if you were correct, there wouldn't be any controversy
> > at all. The City would have the complete power to order CSX
> > to provide appropriate access to the park, and CSX would have
> > to company.
> >
>
> Actually, they City would have to abide by the rules Congress and the
> States have made for dealing with such situations. In many cases, that
> includes legislating easements accross private property.
Was the easement created when the property was obtained? Government may
be
able to create an easement, but is it prudent for government to install an
at grade railroad crossing for pedestrians? The railroad is a dangerous
place.
>
>
> > However, the recent history of relations between railroads and
> > local govts suggests otherwise.
> >
>
> Indeed. Federal law, as enforced by the FRA, often trumps local
> regulation. Sometimes the results are good, sometimes they are bad.
> C'est la vie.
>
--
Sheldon Isaac
lose all .control when replying
|
