While some discussion here has spoken of danger to RR properties from this ruling, here is a different case, in which the RR (that I worked for)was the villan. In Burlington, Vermont, the RR owned some prime waterfront property on Lake Champlain. A few years previous, there were several RR-served businesses there, that the RR had managed to chase away to trucks. With the customers gone, the RR officials now wanted to sell off the land for hotels and condos, so they could pocket some huge bonuses before they retired. The planned developnents, being private, would have severely restricted public access to Lake Champlain. The city, however, dug up a very old agreement that noted the property in particular was filled land, subject to reversion to city ownership if the RR stopped using it for RR purposes. When the case was heard in Montpelier, the RR hired busses for we employees to go and testify in their behalf, but many of us knew their scheme and did not go.
In the end, the RR agreed to arbitration, foolishly accepting a "their price or ours" clause, with no opportunity to meet in the middle on the value. The RR's figure was ridiculously high, the city's quite low, and the arbitrator chose the city. The result is that the space is now pleasant parkland to be enjoyed by all, rather than view-spoiling high rises behind "keep out" signs. Had Burlington not been the hotbed of liberalism that it is, the result would probably have come out much different.
There are still several places to the south of that area that developers are drooling over, including the former Rutland RR roundhouse and yard, still used by the Vermont Railway. Given the pro-preservation political climate there, however, they'll have a hard time getting it.
