BELFAST - A group of property owners abutting the former Belfast & Moosehead Lake Railroad corridor is seeking damages from the Federal Government related to the conversion of the route to a recreational trail. What they stand to gain remains unknown, but the stakes are high enough that they’re willing to return hundreds of dollars paid to them by the city.

The suit comes via Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, a Missouri-based law firm that boasts in its literature the largest team of specialists in rails-to-trails litigation, and nearly 40 rails-to-trail related class action suits brought to Federal Claims Court on behalf of defendants in 15 states. 

“This is what they do,” said Belfast city attorney Kristin Collins. “In each state, they bring these cases. It’s usually contested the first time and the federal government settles the second.”

Collins became involved this week after city officials learned the suit could not go forward unless Belfast rescinded its own trail-specific easements given by landowners in exchange for payouts from the city. The City Council authorized Collins on March 3 join a court case that would effectively reverse the transaction.

“The way it works is like an uncontested court case where we would agree to the complaint and the order,” she said. 

The city would rescind the easements and the property owners would return what they were paid. Collins said the average payment was between $800 and $1,500 per property.

Six defendants are named in the Belfast suit. Locally, they are represented by attorney Ed Bearor. 

When the Passy Rail Trail was first announced, abutting landowners who opposed the project pointed to dusty clauses of 19th Century property law and an ambiguous section of the Fifth Amendment relating to eminent domain compensation. They argued that the easement that bisected their property was tied to the railroad and should therefore revert to the surrounding land.

The city pressed ahead using a well-worn legal path for rails-to-trails conversions called “rail banking,” which preserves the easement provided the rail bed is kept intact and bought separate easements as an added precaution.

Baker, Sterchi, Cowen & Rice cites the “just compensation” clause of Fifth Amendment as central to its nationwise litigation strategy on behalf of rail trail abutters.

City Councilor Mike Hurley recused himself from the closed door session preceding Tuesday night’s decision to rescind the easement because he is among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Hurley owns the “Beavertail,” an uninhabited sandbar that points out into to the river. He has also been a strong supporter of the trail. Asked why he signed onto a suit seeking damages, he said, effectively, the case was going to go forward with or without him, and he wasn’t willing to pass up the money on principle.

The names of other litigants were not immediately available.

Contact Ethan Andrews at: news@penbaypilot.com