Landowners near Knoxville ‘rail-to-trail' project file lawsuits seeking compensation
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WATE) — Landowners along a 3.8-mile stretch of railroad tracks in South Knoxville that the city aims to convert into a greenway are suing the federal government. The intent is not to stop the project, but rather to seek compensation for the landowners under longstanding federal law.
In December, the city and Legacy Parks Foundation announced plans to convert the seldom-used stretch of railway into a nature and hiking trail through the National Trails System Act. Two law firms have filed federal lawsuits on behalf of landowners, arguing federal approval of the project could entitle landowners to monetary compensation.
PREVIOUS: New Rail-to-Trail project hopes to spur growth in South Knoxville
During the proliferation of railroads in the 1800s or early 1900s, railroad companies would make agreements with landowners during the creation of these railway corridors. If the land was not purchased outright by the company through imminent domain, many would acquire the right to use land for railroad purposes by receiving an easement.
Easements preserved a landowner's rights to take the land back if the railroad company were to abandon the corridor. Since Gulf and Ohio Railways has applied for abandonment of the property of the South Knoxville rail line with the intent of offering it up for the greenway project, neighboring landowners could be entitled to compensation if Gulf and Ohio Railways acquired its use through an easement.
TN bill would roll back state-level protections of wetlands in favor of developers
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the federal government cannot take private land from landowners for public use without paying just compensation.
▶ See more top stories on WATE.com
Landowners have a limited period of time to file a claim. Both law firms are set to hold meetings this month for potential plaintiffs.
Lewis Rice LLC will host meetings on Wednesday, April 16 at 5:30 p.m. & Thursday, April 17 at 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. at Kern's Food Hall- 2201 Kern's Rising Way
Stewart, Wald & Smith will be holding informational meetings on Wednesday, April 16, at 5:30 p.m. & Thursday, April 17 at 9:00 a.m. at Hampton Inn & Suites, Knoxville- Downtown, Rocky Top Boardroom, 618 W Main St.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
CVS responds to Gov. Sanders' New York Times Op-Ed about PBMs
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. (KNWA/KFTA) — CVS Health is ramping up its campaign against a new Arkansas law that targets pharmacy benefit managers, publicly clashing with Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders just hours after she defended the legislation in a guest essay for The New York Times. Act 624, signed by Sanders in April, bars companies from running both a pharmacy and a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), a model used by CVS. PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for insurers, negotiate prices with drug manufacturers and reimburse pharmacies. In her guest essay on June 10, Sanders wrote that PBMs 'forcibly steer patients away from independent operators' and inflate drug prices. She also wrote that Act 624 lets PBMs keep operating in Arkansas, but, she said, 'they just can't continue to mistreat patients and box out other pharmacies.' Sanders claimed the three largest pharmacy benefit managers handle 80% of U.S. prescriptions and earn 70% of specialty drug revenue through their affiliated pharmacies. 'Now, CVS is threatening to close down every pharmacy it operates in our state — preferring to take its ball and go home rather than divest from its pharmacy benefit management business and actually serve the patients it claims to care about,' Sanders wrote. CVS sues Arkansas over new pharmacy law CVS issued a statement later that day disputing Sanders' characterization of the law, claiming that the new law is about 'choosing winners and losers and rewarding special interests.' 'Out-of-state competitors are disadvantaged,' a CVS spokesperson said. 'In-state competitors, including Walmart, would handsomely benefit from the closures of pharmacies owned by us and others. The losers are the people of Arkansas who will pay more.' CVS says the law could force it to close 23 pharmacies in Arkansas, affecting 340,000 patients, and block its specialty pharmacy from treating 10,000 high-risk patients with cancer, HIV and rare diseases. The company is also challenging Act 624 in federal court, arguing it violates the U.S. Constitution. 'PBMs are the last line of defense between drugmakers that want to charge a lot of money, and the American businesses, unions, health plans, and government agencies that want to provide good benefits to people,' CVS said in its response on June 10. CVS argues the law is unconstitutional because it unfairly targets out-of-state businesses, treats similar companies differently, and conflicts with federal laws like ERISA and Medicare rules. The company also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest. 'One state representative who co-sponsored this law owns 13 pharmacies by himself,' the company said, linking to state Rep. Brandon Achor's campaign website. Act 624, introduced as House Bill 1150, was backed by the Arkansas Pharmacists Association and Attorney General Tim Griffin, and passed easily. Act 624 is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2026. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Ohio regulators begin House bill 6 hearings as lawmakers mull anti-corruption legislation
Aerial photograph of the OVEC-operated Kyger Creek Power Plant in Cheshire. (Getty Images.) The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio on Tuesday kicked off several weeks of hearings related the House Bill 6 scandal. The proceedings braid together three different cases tied to FirstEnergy's scheme to bribe lawmakers and regulators to bail out nuclear and coal plants. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Meanwhile in Washington, D.C., an Ohio Congresswoman wants to expand the definition of an 'official act' to ensure corrupt politicians can't wriggle out of accountability. At the same time, state lawmakers in Ohio are mulling campaign finance changes that would allow corporations and unions to make unlimited contributions to dark money groups like the ones at the center of the HB 6 scandal. The HB 6 hearings bring together almost two dozen attorneys representing utilities, consumers, and several interested parties from the energy and manufacturing industry. As part of the proceedings, each party gets a chance to cross examine witnesses. Several FirstEnergy officials who previously refused to testify citing their Fifth Amendment rights will take the stand in coming hearings. State utility regulators preparing for Ohio House Bill 6 hearing But after years in the works, the proceedings didn't exactly burst out of the gate. Attorneys sparred before starting about what evidence was admissible and the correct order of cross examination. Once the show got on the road, an auditor from Blue Ridge Consulting named Donna Mullinax took the stand to discuss a 2021 report on FirstEnergy's capital recovery rider. Utility companies in Ohio can get approval to state regulators to charge customers for investments in improving their infrastructure. The company recoups that investment by tacking a surcharge on consumers' bills known as a rider. The Blue Ridge audit dug into FirstEnergy's books to determine whether the company's expenditures were reasonable. Auditors determined that the company's 'revenue requirements calculation is not unreasonable,' but state regulators later asked for a closer look. In that expanded scope audit, Blue Ridge found more than 20 payments to organizations related to former PUCO Chairman Sam Randazzo. 'I didn't know who he was,' Mullinax told attorneys for the Ohio Consumers' Counsel. In all, the report indicated FirstEnergy funneled roughly $14.4 million to the Randazzo-connected entities, and many of those payments lacked supporting documents like a contract or purchase order. DeWine says Randazzo's ties to First Energy were well known, but the evidence of this is lacking As part of a 2021 deferred prosecution agreement, FirstEnergy acknowledged paying a $4.3 million bribe to Randazzo, identified as 'public official B,' for 'performing official action in his capacity as PUCO Chairman to further FirstEnergy Corp.'s interests.' This Friday, FirstEnergy's former Senior Vice President, Dennis Chack will testify. He's the first of six high ranking officials who used to worked at FirstEnergy who will take the stand. Chack previously pled the Fifth, but has been granted immunity from prosecution to share information relevant to the case. Last week, U.S. Rep. Emilia Sykes, D-OH, joined six other lawmakers last week introducing what they're calling their 'End Corruption Now' agenda. The proposals include a lifetime ban on members of congress lobbying and requiring members put investments in a blind trust, among others. Sykes' Closing Bribery Loopholes Act zeroes in on the definition of an 'official act.' She pointed to charges against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, who accepted lavish gifts from a political donor. A federal district court convicted him of wire fraud among other charges and the appeals court affirmed the ruling. But in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned his conviction. 'The court ruled that those favors did not meet the very narrow definition of an official act under federal law,' Sykes argued. 'That decision blew a hole in anti-corruption safeguards and set precedent that made it easier for public officials to sell access, influence and prestige without facing any consequences.' She explained the issue is important to her in light of Ohio's recent history; Sykes was serving in the Ohio House at the time of HB 6's passage and voted against the bill. She argued Ohio 'had a lot of work to do' in the wake of the scandal that landed former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder behind bars. Attorneys for Householder, Borges 'hopeful' following pardon for Cincinnati politician 'Unfortunately, that work has not started in the state house of Ohio,' Sykes argued, and so she's attempting to address the problem at the national level. Just two months ago, state lawmakers finally approved legislation eliminating the HB 6 rider propping up aging coal plants. More recently, the Senate's version of the state budget includes provisions allowing corporations and labor unions to make independent expenditures in political campaigns — like running ads for or against a given candidate. Unlike donating directly to a candidate's campaign, which is capped, independent expenditures have no upper limit. With the Senate's changes in place, the money FirstEnergy funneled to dark money groups controlled by Householder would be perfectly legal, so long as the expenditures were properly reported. 'Let me clear, when we allow public officials to use their power for personal gain and shield them from accountability, it undermines democracy itself,' Sykes insisted. 'This bill and the broader end corruption now agenda is about restoring public trust and ensuring that no one — no one — is above a law,' she said. 'Not a governor, not a president, not a Speaker of the House.' Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
CNBC
3 days ago
- CNBC
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. appeals court rules
A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The Federal Circuit said the litigation raised issues of "exceptional importance" warranting the court to take the rare step of having the 11-member court hear the appeal, rather than have it go before a three-judge panel first. It scheduled arguments for July 31. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.
