"“31. In performing its duties, the Commission, through its Board or designated employees or agents, may:
“(b)
Enter upon the WMATA Rail System and,
upon reasonable notice and a finding by the chief executive officer
that a need exists, upon any lands, waters, and
premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System, including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government, for the purpose of making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing as the Commission may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this MSC Compact, and
such entry shall not be deemed a trespass. The Commission shall make reasonable reimbursement for any actual damage resulting to any such adjacent lands, waters, and premises as a result of such activities;"
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... on/76/text
The highlighted is what alarms me. What is "reasonable notice" and who decides?
"Premises adjacent..."? What would that include?
Then the text reads "...including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government..". The preceding "including" verbiage appears to me as a non lawyer to mean "everything to this point is private, now we are addressing the fed property...". Either way, they encompassed both public and fed property without explicitly mentioning "public", cleverly. To me, it is implied and the burden would rest on private citizen to address in court at his/her expense.
Hmm. Smells like rotten fish to me still. Dangerous precedent at the very least.
How would everyone feel if this was Obama / Pelosi/ Reid product? I don't like it.