Kehoe bills affects Rock Island Trail properties | Central MO Breaking News

Headlines are quick hits from media outlets from Missouri and around the world. Follow the headline link for the full story. The source of this headline says:

State Sen. Mike Kehoe filed two separate pieces of legislation last week relating to property along the former Rock Island rail line, which is slated for future hiking and biking trail development.

Senate Bill 250 would require those who own property bisected by the rail bed will not have to pay property taxes on the rail bed. Taxation for state, county or local purposes would be exempt for "that portion of privately owned land subject to a railroad easement upon which a railroad right-of-way exists and a state, political subdivision, or qualified organization has assumed responsibility," according to the bill introduction.

The measure asks for all fencing coinciding with the boundary between individual landowner property and the Missouri Rock Island Trail to be maintained by the division of state parks within the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

Link: 

Kehoe bills affects Rock Island Trail properties | Central MO Breaking News

MoBikeFed comment: We have been supportive of the bill to remove Rock Island and other rail-trail land from property tax rolls. As far as we know, counties already remove this land from property tax obligations unless the landowner is (illegally) using the rail corridor land. So for the most part this simply codifies existing actual practice.

The fencing bill is a more difficult situation. Missouri State Parks already provides fencing for landowners along the Katy Trail, with landowners taking on the job of installing and maintaining the fencing.

This has turned out to be a very effective way to handle the issue of fencing. Landowners are satisfied both because the state is covering the cost of the fencing--thus fulfilling their half of the responsibility along the joint property boundary--but also because the landowner gets to install the fencing, thus ensuring that the landowner is happy with exact placement, gates, and other details of the fence installation.

The proposed bill goes far beyond this by requiring the state to both purchase and install/maintain the fence. It seems like this is both a very large expense and has potential to create considerable landowner dissatisfaction, as no outside entity is going to be able to build and maintain hundreds of miles of fencing to the satisfaction of dozens of adjoining property owners.