April 2014

Check out this language from a recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of D.C.:

The CityCenterDC development may be a laudable and exciting public-private partnership, and it may entail a more comprehensive level of urban planning and cooperation than the ordinary project, but the exercise will result in the creation of an enclave of private facilities. What is being constructed will be no more for the use and benefit of the population of the District than any other condominium or hotel: members of the general public will be welcome to enjoy the surrounding sidewalks, and possibly the lobby, and they can spend their dollars in the nearby shops and restaurants, but at the end of the day, they will not be permitted to go upstairs. CityCenterDC is not a public work of the District of Columbia, and the ARB’s decision to the contrary cannot be sustained.…

Continue Reading “Incidental Public Benefits – Such As Employment Opportunities, Increased Tax Revenue” Does Not Make A Project “Public”

For those of you who are members of the ABA, here’s a tangible member benefit.

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014, tune in for a free webinar, “Rails-to-Trails and the Impact of Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States.” The program is sponsored by the Real Property, Trusts & Estates Legal Education and Uniform Laws Group. 

Here are the details:

ABA-RPTE Professors’ Corner – A FREE monthly webinar featuring a panel of law professors, addressing topics of interest to practitioners of real estate and trusts/estates

This is a One Hour WEBINAR

Wednesday, April 9, 2014
12:30 pm Eastern / 11:30 am Central / 10:30 am Mountain / 9:30 am Pacific

Register online here.  

March’s Program: “Rails-to-Trails and the Impact of Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States”

Professors’ Corner is a monthly webinar (on the second Wednesday of each month) featuring a panel of law professors, discussing recent cases or issues of interest to real estate or trust and estate practitioners and scholars.

Speakers:

  • Professor Danaya C. Wright, University of Florida Levin College of Law
  • Professor Michael Allan Wolf, University of Florida Levin College of Law

On March 10, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Brandt Revocable Trust v. U.S., involving the interpretation of the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875. The case involved a railroad right of way obtained in 1908, crossing land conveyed by the U.S. to the Brandt family in a 1976 land patent that did not specify what would happen if the railroad later relinquished its right of way (which occurred some years later). In the case, the U.S. sought to quiet title to the abandoned right of way, including the portion that crossed the land conveyed by the Brandt patent. Reversing the Tenth Circuit, which had affirmed a grant of summary judgment for the U.S., the Supreme Court held that the right of way was only an easement and was extinguished when the railroad abandoned it. The decision has already created some substantial consternation regarding its potential impact on the Rails-to-Trails movement and recreational trail development along abandoned rail corridors.

We’re registered, and you should too.
Continue Reading Mark Your Calendars: “Rails-to-Trails and the Impact of Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States” (4/9/2014) – Free To ABA Members

Check out this Power Point presentation, sent our way by a North Carolina colleague. It’s an explanation by the NC Department of Transportation of a “protected corridor,” a “[t]emporary restriction on development placed upon properties located within a proposed highway alignment.”

And what, pray tell, is the purpose of this protected corridor? To allow the NCDOT breathing room to come up with an orderly plan of development or something similar that is often used to justify moratoria? No, to “[h]elp[] insure availability of proposed locations for large-scale projects…”

In other words, to stop development in anticipation of NCDOT eventually — maybe, someday — condemning the land for a highway.

You see, those darn developers, they keep building subdivisions in the path of our future beltways (the nerve), so we have this plan to protect the land so we might eventually take it at reduced acquisition and relocation…

Continue Reading What Is A Protected Corridor? A Taking, Or At Least It Should Be