Marketplace
![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
|
|
Mostly Cloudy ~ River stage: 33.9 Rising Saturday, November 21, 2009 |
RSS
 Print
 Email link
 Respond to editor
 Read comments (2)
 Share link
Court agrees Mo. has no property right to bridgeWednesday, October 24, 2007KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- An appeals court Tuesday upheld the dismissal of Attorney General Jay Nixon's lawsuit challenging a state agency's decision to abandon its interest in an old railroad bridge. The Missouri Court of Appeals ruling supports an earlier lower court decision that said the state has no property right to the Missouri River bridge in Boonville, Mo. Nixon, who appealed the lower court's ruling, had challenged whether the Department of Natural Resources could legally give up its interest in using the bridge as part of the Katy Trail State Park. Nixon, who has been in a dispute with Gov. Matt Blunt's administration over the bridge's fate, said he would appeal to the state Supreme Court. "If the giveaway of the bridge is completed, the ramifications could threaten the integrity of the entire Katy Trail, as well as take away an integral component of the city of Boonville's economic development efforts," Nixon said in a written statement. Doyle Childers, director of the Department of Natural Resources, said in a telephone interview that the ruling just reinforces what the department had been saying along -- that it didn't own the bridge. "We have no ownership in the bridge, and the parks tax should not be required to spend millions of dollars to take and refurbish a bridge that we have no ownership in," Childers said. "It was a very simple case, but unfortunately the political aspects of it outweighed the legal aspects [judging by] the attorney general's actions." Union Pacific Railroad Co., the bridge's current owner, wants to dismantle it and reuse its steel for a new bridge over the Osage River east of Jefferson City. In July, the appeals court affirmed the same lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the St. Louis-based Great Rivers Environmental Law Center on behalf of several bicyclists and a donor who helped finance the Katy Trail. Gov. Matt Blunt said he wasn't surprised by Tuesday's ruling, which he hoped would end the dispute. "I am pleased that the department will no longer have this frivolous lawsuit hanging over its head, so it can be free to direct its resources to protecting the environment and creating new recreation opportunities for Missourians including new access along the Katy Trail," Blunt said in a written statement. He said it disappoints him that Nixon continues to take the matter to court despite the state's objections. Blunt said the attorney general's lawsuit has now cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, including more than a quarter-million dollars paid by Nixon out of Missouri's legal expense fund. Nixon is running against Blunt in the 2008 gubernatorial election. Comments  Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
|
Enter your email address to subscribe to our mailing lists:
|
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
Google
It is sad that we aren't able to make the Katy Trail into a good source of bicycling and hiking recreation which would go all the way to KC.
"...it (DNR) can be free to direct its resources to protecting the environment and creating new recreation opportunities for Missourians including new access along the Katy Trail," Blunt said in a written statement." (items in parentheses added)
New access to the Katy Trail? I've never even heard a peep about a new access. Hands down I would prefer having it span all the way across the state giving an alternative route to highways (which bicycles and pedestrians are not allowed on with good reason) than "a new access."
The judge ruled according to the law, which is exactly what should be expected from ANY judge. Nixon is out of line in this matter. For the state to come in and tell UPRR that they cannot dismantle THEIR OWN bridge to reuse the steel in another bridge that the RR is wanting to construct is essentially the state taking private property from UPRR without just compensation. It doesn't matter how far Nixon takes this through the court system, he is only wasting tax payer money and the court's time as the courts will not rule in his favor.
The ONLY legal means he has to prevent UPRR from dismantling the bridge would be to either purchase the bridge from them, or to start eminent domain proceedings (as the private property taken by the state would be for the public good...the Katy Trail, and the court would determine the compensation to be paid to UPRR).