Shirley Bailey, the woman sued earlier by the Town of Saltville for $687,000 due to alleged interference in the ongoing “rails-to-trails” development, has filed a counterclaim against Saltville. Here is an RT-D article and here is a BHC article on the suit. The town sued following Bailey posting her property with “No Trespassing” signs, not allowing workers to remove the rails, and calling the sheriff on Saltville town officials. Saltville is claiming damages against Bailey due to her resistance and interference. It is indeed very interesting they sued her for twice the value of the entire rail sale agreement, which is $330,000.
In the counterclaim, Bailey asks the court to declare her the rightful owner of the property on which the railway lies. She states she has paid real estate taxes on this with the rest of her property for many years. She also is asking the court to order the Town of Saltville to stop trespassing on her property. Bailey also seeks judgment for her attorney’s fees.
Bailey and other property owners contend they own the rail-bed and the railroad company only had a right of way. Bailey concedes that Saltville may have a right to the actual rails and associated equipment—but not the property upon which it sits.
Here are some quotes from the RT-D article which I find very interesting:
According to Bailey’s motion to dismiss, the town’s lawsuit exhibits “an arrogance of power” and was meant to squelch public opposition to the town’s plan to turn the line into a hiking trail.
Town officials said they filed the lawsuit against Bailey after becoming worried that the landowners’ opposition to the rail-to-trail plan would become violent. The town’s lawsuit accuses Bailey of threatening to block a private company from removing the tracks and crossties from the railroad bed.
I agree with Bailey’s stance that Saltville does possess an “arrogance of power.” They basically sued someone for dissenting, which is a right they have. As I’ve said earlier, Saltville had other ways of taking this to court to have it settled—not in this arrogant fashion. I think the assertion that the dissenters may become violent is laughable. In all the “run-ins” with Saltville, Bailey and the others did the right thing and called the sheriff’s office to come out instead of taking matters into her own hands.
Here is another laughable quote in the RT-D article from Tracy Smith—officially Saltville’s Economic Development Director—but it would seem she does just about everything in Saltville government. Here it seems that she is acting as town spokeswoman:
Yesterday, Tracy Mitchell, director of economic development for the town, said the purpose of the lawsuit was simply “to settle the question of who owns that property and, by doing that, we think that will settle things down.”
Well, I again would say you don’t have to file a lawsuit against one woman for $687,000 to get a determination on who owns what. If Saltville thinks that filing lawsuits for large sums of money against opponents is the way to conduct business, I hope voters on May 2nd will oust the current members up for re-election to the Town Council and replace them with sensible people. After all, it was the Town Council in a special called meeting several weeks ago that authorized this lawsuit unanimously.