CP Rail and abonded lines

[kslseed]

Just saw an article in a local news paper, where a town has to spend $14,000,000 to purchase an abonded line area from CP Rail.

Question: was not CP given land and rights to bring rail service to Canada? Now if CP closes off thus lines wound it not difault on the contract and lose all land it owns at that line? Hope one legal egal reads this.

[dalek]

Not sure about that but I know with the fencing laws in Ontario municipalities and others who bought these lines have just been told that they can't just manipulate the fencing laws to suit them and that they WILL be responsible for fencing 100% of all of these lines they've bought and bringing the fences up to standard. Won't be anymore municipalities buying the lines for a long time to come and I think the ones that did are wishing they hadn't, and it looks good on them.

[Steve]

Kslseed

If you are referring to the ¼ sections of land that was given to the CPR, it was all sold years ago, so all they own now is the right of way for their tracks.

[kslseed]

Steve, I believe CP has not only a right of way, but own the land the tracks are on and some more. This is now offered to any one interested and sold. land that was at early settlment divided by the tracks may stay divided if the land owner is not willing to pay CP's price. Also, the tracks are pulled out and the land is left, in many areas, as is. Let a privat person try this.

[flatbroke]

kslseed: you are correct that cpr's right of way does in fact constitute legal title to that land. In our case, said land is not for sale to the adjacent landowner at ANY price (believe me I tried!) The reason for this is a multi-million dollar tax credit they receive by gifting these abandoned lines to the "trans canada trail". (valued for this purpose at something like $1000.00 per acre) Our hope was to buy at least some of this line to stop this. This having failed, several of us farmers that have grazed and cropped this abandoned line for the past 70 some odd years have filed caveats on the title for "adverse possesion" (something like squatters rights) since cpr has completely neglected this line since the late 1920's. Unfortunately, as our attorney pointed out, CPR since the very beginning of this country has been able to write it's own laws as they see fit, and this will not likely hold them off for long...

[Steve]

Kslseed

Right of way means that the CPR owns that strip of land, but don’t own the adjacent land as they did a one time.

[kway]

The railway is suppose to offer the land to the fed gov. first, the prov, next, then to the municipal gov. Our municipality bought the land and then sold it to the adjacent landowners for what they paid for it, $250/acre. The municipality can control the creation of trails. They can make trails a use only on land zoned for trails. Then if anyone wants to develop a trail they must get a land use change.

[flatbroke]

kway; I'm not sure where you live, but I'd love to move there! Apparently they had the law changed in 1996, I believe, so that they are not obliged to offer it to any of the above parties. Our County (Flagstaff) was very supportive of us and tried unsuccessfully to aquire the line. That having failed, they passed bylaws requiring certain conditions to be met before land use permits were granted for trails. Now the Alberta government is ramming through "recreational corridors" legislation which takes away all powers of local government concerning this issue. I'm afraid we're screwed...

[kway]

Flatbroke, I'm in the County of Newell. The line went from Bassano to Empress. We purchased the land after 1996 and have just transfered the last parcels to the landowners. The Government has assured us municipalities will have control. What your municipality can do is have a land use designation where trails are a discretionary use. Then put restrictions on this use in the bylaw,perhaps landowner ageeing to the trail. The only way anyone can then develop a trail is to get a land use change which requires a public hearing. If the landowners are opposed and the bylaw states they must agee then the use would be turned down and the trail could then not get a development permit. Your municipality has more power on this issue than you think. Get them to act with a land use bylaw ammendment.

[flatbroke]

kway; we did get by-laws to that effect put in place, but concil feels with the aforementioned rec. corr. leg. they will not be able to prevent trails. If you have any info to the contrary, or other insight, I'd be extremely grateful.