Unfriendly rail road

It seems that most of our city council would prefer that the new arena be built on a little used railway yard next to interstate 10.

The problem is that the city tells us that the  railroad wants a king’s ransom for the land, namely the closing of many railroad crossings in the city.

Whereas the city can use eminent domain to condemn and take the properties of individuals they cannot do so with the railroad.

The rail yard in question seems to be used very little if at all since the railroad built a 2,200 acre site in nearby Santa Teresa, New Mexico.

We deserve better



13 Responses to Unfriendly rail road

  1. Has it been confirmed that Union Pacific really is asking for all those quiet zones? The last I saw, this was denied by them, and only claimed by Niland and the City Attorney. Somebody is playing fast and loose again. I agree with the rail yards being used, because there’s more than enough land, no families would have to move, no buildings torn down, and there would finally be adequate parking. Somebody needs to uncover the truth here.


  2. anonymous says:

    I agree with John. Statements by city officials indicate that the city concluded that a reasonable deal could not be made with the railroad. They never actually discussed it with the railroad.

    The city was quick to select a site for the ballpark that required making a deal with the railroad. They even committed to the site before they had even struck a deal with the railroad.

    In other ways, this sounds much like one of the ballpark lies. We were told that the Cohen site was unacceptable because the league required that a new park be built downtown, when in fact the league had no such requirement.

    The bottom line is that certain individuals want the planned site because it will add more to the value of their personal properties and businesses.

    However, I am a little confused. Why can’t the city use eminent domain to take railroad property if it leaves the rails in place? Multiple Supreme Court rulings have established that corporations are individuals with the same rights of persons. If so, then that should include the right to have their properties condemned and stolen just like the rest of us.


  3. Rod Fender says:

    And they would rather squander our tax dollars than build somewhere else than downtown.


  4. Anonymous says:

    I am certain the El Paso Times will have an article tomorrow which will explain it all..


  5. Helen Marshall says:

    And why not Cohen Stadium, no acquisition costs, nobody displaced, acres of parking. Easy access from most of the city, and from Juárez. Maybe rectify the nasty gesture to the Northeast when Cohen was essentially shut down so that the new ballpark would be the only game in town. Why does EVERYTHING have to be downtown? What is the evidence for the idea that cramming everything into a tiny footprint downtown will be a benefit to anyone?? Other than the unknown people behind the Union Plaza?


  6. anonymous says:

    Folks … you underestimate our city officials. They actually announced the Union Plaza site in order to have leverage in negotiations with the railroad. This is a thoughtful, well-coordinated plan. This is playing out exactly how they predicted.


  7. North down town, by the Montana bl, I seen a big land. Why they don’t try to build something.


Leave a Reply -- you do not have to enter your email address

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: