New Red and Orange Line Cars

cybah said:
No sorry. This isn't how it works. That rail has been there for over a century. Its also owned by MassDOT. No Name knew the track was there, and there's been plenty of discussion of it being used over the past several years. Yet crickets from no name.

But the minute the T wanted to test trains and actually was going to use it, it was a different story. Especially since it interferes with them building condos, of course. Because you know this is what this is all about... them making $ off condos, and that track interferes with them doing so.

Its all about money, pure and simple. That lot has been empty for decades. So why all of sudden its important now.. oh right, money from condo sales.
Click to expand...



Exactly!

The T is very powerful, & it usually gets what it wants. No Name, like you said, has had ample time to make up it's mind.

Those condos can wait! Track 61 would only be used until the testing is complete. Things can go back to normal when the RL testing with the new trains are done. :mad:
 
Jahvon09 said:
Why does the MBTA HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE them? Hopefully, they can work out a deal.

It all comes down to this; Continue to ride on raggedy broke-down problematic Relics of the Dinosaur Age that we'd probably have to deal with for the next dozen winters or so, while standing in bitterly cold weather, waiting for them to slowly creep along into a station.

Or ride in modern up-to-date high-tech trains that are safer, quieter & can stand up to some of the most brutal winters that we've had in years. Take your pick. :eek:
Click to expand...

No, it doesn’t come down to that. It comes down to the property rights of No Name and whether or not the easement in place allows the T to run the new cars there without compensating No Name.

cybah said:
No sorry. This isn't how it works. That rail has been there for over a century. Its also owned by MassDOT. No Name knew the track was there, and there's been plenty of discussion of it being used over the past several years. Yet crickets from no name.

But the minute the T wanted to test trains and actually was going to use it, it was a different story. Especially since it interferes with them building condos, of course. Because you know this is what this is all about... them making $ off condos, and that track interferes with them doing so.

Its all about money, pure and simple. That lot has been empty for decades. So why all of sudden its important now.. oh right, money from condo sales.
Click to expand...

None of that changes the property rights question at all. Why else would anyone buy commercial property if not for money?

Just ask yourselves this: if No Name’s property was in the way of I-695, what would you guys say to their intransigence?
 
Its clear there are posters in this thread who have never owned real property.

Let me try another example.

YIMBY A rents an apartment. The landlord has a right-of-entry into the apartment, without YIMBY A's permission. The landlord comes in, decides he doesn't like the color of YiMBY A's furniture, and repaints it. The landlord doesn't like the posters YIMBY A has hanging on the walls -- 'too political' -- so he tears them down. He doesn't like the way that YIMBY A has moved all the furniture out of one room to create a dance space, so he moves furniture back into the room. He sees that YIMBY A sleeps on a waterbed, which are not prohibited under the lease. Regardless, the landlord thinks the waterbed is too much weight for the floor, so he drains it.

If you were YIMBY A, do you think you have any 'rights', or do you believe the landlord can do pretty much whatever he wants?
 
stellarfun said:
Its clear there are posters in this thread who have never owned real property.

Let me try another example.

YIMBY A rents an apartment. The landlord has a right-of-entry into the apartment, without YIMBY A's permission. The landlord comes in, decides he doesn't like the color of YiMBY A's furniture, and repaints it. The landlord doesn't like the posters YIMBY A has hanging on the walls -- 'too political' -- so he tears them down. He doesn't like the way that YIMBY A has moved all the furniture out of one room to create a dance space, so he moves furniture back into the room. He sees that YIMBY A sleeps on a waterbed, which are not prohibited under the lease. Regardless, the landlord thinks the waterbed is too much weight for the floor, so he drains it.

If you were YIMBY A, do you think you have any 'rights', or do you believe the landlord can do pretty much whatever he wants?
Click to expand...

As with the easement question for Track 61, the answer is it depends. In particular it depends on what rights the YIMBY signed away in their lease agreement, as it depends on what rights the property owners signed away in their easement.

This is specifically a contract question, and without a thorough legal review of the contract (the easement) none of you know the answer. (And even then it will be subject ultimately to the court's interpretation of the likely "imprecise" contract language.) (Imprecise because it is unlikely that the easement anticipated the desire of the Track 61 user to use the track for Red Line car testing, but may very well allow the easement holder to run trains on the track at some unspecified interval. Is running Red Line cars for testing running trains on the track -- maybe???)
 
stellarfun said:
Its clear there are posters in this thread who have never owned real property.

Let me try another example.

YIMBY A rents an apartment. The landlord has a right-of-entry into the apartment, without YIMBY A's permission. The landlord comes in, decides he doesn't like the color of YiMBY A's furniture, and repaints it. The landlord doesn't like the posters YIMBY A has hanging on the walls -- 'too political' -- so he tears them down. He doesn't like the way that YIMBY A has moved all the furniture out of one room to create a dance space, so he moves furniture back into the room. He sees that YIMBY A sleeps on a waterbed, which are not prohibited under the lease. Regardless, the landlord thinks the waterbed is too much weight for the floor, so he drains it.

If you were YIMBY A, do you think you have any 'rights', or do you believe the landlord can do pretty much whatever he wants?
Click to expand...


The word is NIMBY.
 
YIMBY-Flickr-640x480.png
 
Jahvon09 said:
If you don't want it, it is NIMBY
Click to expand...

Thats not the point in question here. He's illustrating a hypothetical scenario, and you're getting hung up on the fictional person's name in this scenario, rather than actually address his point.
 
What point? He has none. Put a sock in it.

This is turning into an argument. Let's get back on topic, please.
 
Jahvon09 said:
What point? He has none. Put a sock in it.

This is turning into an argument. Let's get back on topic, please.
Click to expand...

Why? Nobody else is getting particularly excitable about this, just trying to explain where No Name is coming from.
 
All that I'm trying to say is that they've waited for so long to try to negotiate this thing. They knew way ahead of time about it. Now they want to jump up & try to be Mr. Get Bad! :mad:
 
Last edited:
Or make one into a restaurant, like the old diner restaurants that used to populate the metro area.

rosebud.jpg
 
$800 seems cheap, really. A smart artist could hack one up and then make it into art of some sort. Sculptures, framed pieces, whatever. People would buy it.

That or grab one and you have the most unique obstacle for a monster truck show ever.
 
Or do like Washington, DC is doing. Cut up some of them to make subway kiosks with them. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top