4 ms·
Why could have the government not held on to the right-of-way and allow people to bid/buy or allocate it? Making it so the money went back to the government NOT
by mbrumlow 7y ago
Why could have the government not held on to the right-of-way and allow people to bid/buy or allocate it? Making it so the money went back to the government NOT some 3rd party at a profit?
- duxup 7y agoBecause the railroad company would have been far less or simply not interested in building the railroad. The right of ways were a reward for the upfront costs the railroad incurred for building the network. The transcontinental railroad and other railroads were investments for the future. A lot of short wonky rail networks were the only railroads being built and those weren't going to reach across the country.
- mbrumlow 7y agoduxup thanks! This makes sense to me. It was more about enticing the railroad to build the thing than anything in the long run. That makes perfect sense to me.
- mc32 7y agoWell then today it’d be a hodgepodge as well as we’d have discontinuous sections all owned and governed by multiple entities some of which might not care to share or accommodate fiber, for example.
- Aloha 7y agoThe government reaped the value the railroad created for all of the other lands it held, beyond that, consider that the government used to give away up to 160 acres of land to anyone who was willing to homestead it, and improve it. As in literally free - the land without the railroad had considerably less value at that time.