The Georgia case over the railroad’s use of eminent domain could have implications for property rights

By JEFF AMY, Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP) — It’s a fight over land in one of Georgia’s poorest rural areas, but it could have implications for property rights across the state and the country.

A hearing is scheduled to begin Monday to determine whether a railroad company can legally condemn the property to build a 4.5-mile rail line that would serve a quarry and possibly other industries.

A hearing officer will take testimony for up to three days and make a recommendation to the five elected members of the Georgia Public Service Commission, who will ultimately make a decision.

The line would be built by the Sandersville Railroad, owned by an influential Georgia family. It would provide a connection to the CSX railroad in Sparta, allowing products to be shipped widely. Sparta is located approximately 85 miles southeast of Atlanta.

People in the rural neighborhood don’t want a rail line running through or near their property, partly because they believe it would allow for the expansion of a quarry owned by Heidelberg Materials, a listed German company.

Some residents already dislike the quarry because of the noise, dust and truck traffic it creates. Proponents say if the railroad is built, the quarry will operate its operations further from homes, trains will run fewer trucks on the roads and the railroad will build berms to protect residents.

But the owners say losing a 200-foot-wide strip of property to the railroad would destroy land they value for its tranquility, hunting, fishing and family heritage.

“Sandersville Railroad does not care about the destruction of my family’s property or our way of life,” Donald Garret Sr., one of the owners, said in a written statement in August. “They only care about their own plans for my property, which will not serve the public but will only help them grow their business and the quarry’s business.”

Opponents have influential allies, including the Institute for Justice, which wants to use the case to destroy eminent domain: the government’s power to legally seize private land while paying fair compensation.

The libertarian-leaning legal group was on the losing side of a landmark 2005 case that allowed the city of New London, Connecticut, to take land from one private owner and transfer it to another private owner in the name of economic development. The decision sparked a widespread backlash that led to more than 20 states passing laws restricting eminent domain.

Railroads have long had the power of eminent domain, but Georgia law requires such land seizures to be for “public use.” Opponents took aim at the project, saying it would only benefit the quarry and did not meet the definition of a public use.

“This does not mean that private property owners assume the need to truly serve public interests and the public as a whole. “It’s more of a mere transfer of wealth,” Daniel Kochan, a law professor at George Mason University in Virginia, told opponents.

The Sandersville Railroad says there are other users, including a company located next to the quarry that mixes gravel and asphalt for road paving. Several companies have said they would transport products from the Sandersville area and load them onto the short line and said they want access to CSX, but opponents question whether that deal will go through.

The case is significant because private companies must condemn private land not only for building railroads, but also for building other facilities such as pipelines and power transmission lines. In particular, there is a need in Georgia and other states to build additional power transmission lines to transmit electricity from new solar and wind energy.

Ben Tarbutton III, president of Sandersville Railroad, said in his testimony that the Institute for Justice is “making transparent efforts to change federal and state constitutional law regarding sentencing.”

Others who live nearby have organized as the No Railroad In Our Community Coalition. Janet Paige Smith, a leader of the group, testified: “We already suffer from traffic, air pollution, noise, debris, garbage and more from the Heidelberg Quarry, but this project would make everything worse.”