Court Opinion

ID: 9686130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:30:46.708661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:15.313504
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. The Division of Railroads cannot be an island unto itself — isolating itself from state government and a responsibility to the citizens of this state. It must answer to some branch of government or it is a pure oligarchy. It has neither the right to give away state land nor to grant permanent easements for a paltry or nominal sum. Particularly — to an entity which is disassociated with the railroads. These easements were all but given away — free. This is unconscionable.
I would reverse the trial court and remand with instructions that the Division of Railroads prove in court (which is a ques*186tion of fact) that it followed the guidelines* which exist herein:
1. Disposition of excess property.
2. Leasing of state-owned industrial trackage.
8. Granting of licenses or permits — except for agricultural purposes.
Finally, the easement was not submitted to the Governor for approval as required by SDCL 5-2-11. Therefore, it is a nullity. This case — this entire proceeding — should go back to the drawing board for a little democracy (government by the people, Webster’s Dictionary calls it).

 Depositions on file reflect that guidelines for this governmental body do exist, and the Director so acknowledged.