Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />SEP 5 1984 <br />Mr. Scent emphasized the railroad is private property <br />and belongs to the FEC. He agreed there are a lot of <br />railroad crossings, but pointed out that the City of <br />Sebastian already has sent the Commission a letter stating <br />that they do not wish to be included in the proposed ban. <br />Mr. Scent noted that he himself lived very close to the <br />tracks for years; these whistles are a warning to the <br />public, and he implored the Board to consider the safety of <br />human lives. Since the only argument of the people opposing <br />the whistles is that they can't sleep, he suggested they <br />either use ear plugs or move. <br />Mr. Graham felt the idea that the FEC owns the trains <br />and the county can't regulate them doesn't make any sense. <br />If we had a factory pouring out pollutants, he believed we <br />could take steps to regulate them to protect the people. <br />Mr. Graham contended that the public is fully protected by <br />the guarded crossings. <br />Commissioner Bird expressed concern about the person <br />who comes up to a crossing where the gates are malfunction- <br />ing. <br />Mr. Graham noted that traffic signals can go out, and <br />Chairman Scurlock agreed and pointed out that we have a <br />tremendous liability. Mr. Graham did not believe the County <br />would have liability for the crossing signals. <br />Attorney Paull stated that the County would not have <br />any liability for adopting the ordinance with respect to any <br />individual railroad crossing. We have an individual agree- <br />ment with the railroad for each crossing; the railroad owns <br />the crossing property and is responsible for maintaining the <br />signals in good order. Under most of those agreements, the <br />County is required to regulate traffic if it is aware that <br />there is a malfunction of the signal: If the railroad knows <br />and does nothing about it, they have the liability. <br />76 <br />