Who would like this law changed? Regarding trails on preserved farmland

Submitted by turbodsm t3_zxsw5c in Pennsylvania

This is regarding bike lanes and pedestrian paths. Can anyone think of a reason we wouldn't want to do change the laws to allow paths on preserved land?

>Another constraining factor in Upper Makefield Township is the presence of large areas of farmland which has been preserved using Commonwealth of Pennsylvania funding. As part of the preservation of these farms and their associated productive agricultural soils, current regulations do not allow for the development of trails/the granting of trail easements, on these preserved farms

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

fryerandice t1_j22pn02 wrote

Preserved farmland is still private property with an easement contract granted to the county in which it resides, which stipulates land use restrictions and agricultural activity restrictions, beholden to a county board of agriculture that manages preserved farmland easements.

Basically the state pays you to keep operating your farm as a farm rather than what many farms do, which is sell out to housing developers who subdivide farms and throw up McMansions in the countryside.

The reason oil and gas extraction is allowed, is because the property is still owned privately and there are no current stipulations in the easements that disallow it, although I would guess that counties could impose those restrictions, BUT, operating a gas well on one's farmland also subsidizes the farm, and removing that option may dissuade farmers from entering the program, and to sell their properties.

​

Basically, you are asking to cut a trail through a farm operating on private property, which is not stipulated in the easement the property owner granted to the county in which they live, since it's not in the contract, it's not a possibility. Further even if you manage to push to change the stipulations of the easement, it will not apply retroactively. What is stipulated is that the land will be used to operate agriculture, and the ways in which that agricultural operation can operate.

12

turbodsm OP t1_j23ov0d wrote

Through? No. Adjacent to? Along the edge of? Don't conflate my intention was a path down the middle of a farm with a trail along the existing right away along existing roads.

Yes, you can change laws and have them apply retroactively. Laws can be written to include just this. It's a land use that improves the life of the residents in the area. It allows alternative transportation options. Obviously every case would be different but to allow o&g ops, it's clearly not about preserving food production and moreso reducing housing development. It's clear that pedestrian trails need a better lobbyist.

Counties and municipalities seek easements on private property all the time. This is nothing new. So your "private property" point doesn't really make sense. I'm not asking for eminent domain.

−1

fryerandice t1_j24d4rb wrote

An easement isn't a law, it's a contract, entered into by two parties, it cannot be changed after the fact. The only defacto easement is the one along the road for utilities.

6

Dredly t1_j25o1rh wrote

He doesn't care. HE wants to be able to trespass, so THOSE people need to do what he wants!

​

because why should THEY have something when HE wants it... dude is all over the place in this thread

6

newworldman1070 t1_j28kx1u wrote

Imagine living your life thinking that the only way that you can experience nature is by walking on a manicured “pedestrian path” in the suburbs somewhere.

3

justmyusername47 t1_j26dq84 wrote

Have you seen what people leave along trails? Trash, dog and human feces. Plus people would assume they can just hike off the trail wherever they want, causing liability issues for the farmer.

6

turbodsm OP t1_j26elag wrote

Pa law says there's no liability for allowing a trail on your property.

Have you seen the trash on our roads? Do we never build another trail again?

−1

justmyusername47 t1_j26f7vp wrote

Trash can break equipment, so that is a huge issue. And farmers are rhe 9nea who clean up the edges of their fields, why would they want another area they need to pick up after?

And when those people go off the trail and on to private property? Even if they don't win, the farmer still has to have a lawyer to fight it. Plus the farmers insurance will increase to cover possible issues that can arise.

6

newworldman1070 t1_j28k7mw wrote

Trash can kill livestock. Cows will eat metal objects and it will rip apart their digestive system.

4

turbodsm OP t1_j26ffha wrote

Put up a split rail fence. You people are dense and never been outside.

−2

justmyusername47 t1_j288yrs wrote

You obviously have never been or known a farmer.

5

newworldman1070 t1_j28ku0b wrote

I’m not sure that the OP has done much of anything other than try to steal peoples land.

4

turbodsm OP t1_j29jckd wrote

I live adjacent to a 100 acre park with an active crop farm and people walk around it daily. I live 15 mins from a larger state park which contains crop Fields. Again, trails are right along the edges. There's clearly situations that allow these two things to coexist. The real question is why your tiny mind can't comprehend or imagine that real world use case.

−1

justmyusername47 t1_j29tp8l wrote

Because I have seen farmers loose cattle and spend $$ on broken equipment Because people feel they have the right to open land that is near the trails. So my tiny mind focused on the farm who is just breaking even on most days of he is lucky

4

turbodsm OP t1_j225uuf wrote

But wait you can drill for oil and gas.

>Oil and Gas Extraction

The Agriculture Area Security Law specifically contemplates the extraction of oil and gas from restricted land, together with the necessity of the “appurtenant facilities related to…oil or gas development or activities incident to the removal or development of such minerals.” The exploration and/or extraction of oil and gas on eased land by a third–party holder of subsurface mineral rights is normally accomplished through a right-of-way agreement, oil and gas lease, or easement. An owner of restricted land, or an applicant to sell an agricultural conservation easement, would not be in violation of the deed of easement simply by virtue of having entered into oil and gas exploration by allowing the extraction of these minerals from the land. The oil and gas lease normally “reserves” the necessary or useful surface rights and privileges for the underground storage of gas, the right of ingress and egress, the right to erect temporary buildings, tanks, towers, stations, or other structures for surface support for the subsurface extraction of oil and gas. None of these reservations would necessarily violate the terms of the deed of agricultural conservation easement or Agricultural Area Security Law.

2

feudalle t1_j223p2y wrote

Is it just persevered land or are they functioning farms?

1

turbodsm OP t1_j225sls wrote

Functioning farm. Corn or soybeans in this case. Most trail corridors would be along a road where a large setback probably exists already. I wouldn't think much farmable land would be lost.

1

Dredly t1_j22f3p0 wrote

is it private property? or leased property?

1

fryerandice t1_j22ouxy wrote

Private, the state purchases an easement for conservation from what I understand, and the farm that operates on it now must operate in line with certain conservational stipulations put forth by a board at the county level.

From what I am reading is that it works out a lot like the Pennsylvania clean and green act, which preserves private lands for use for agriculture or forestation.

5

Dredly t1_j22pco3 wrote

so then why would it be opened to public use? seems like thousands of people walking all over it would destroy it?

7

fryerandice t1_j22qou3 wrote

It wouldn't, and my guess is for any already preserved farmland it can't ever happen.

An easement is a property use contract, party A pays party B for certain rights to land. In this case the state is buying the right to enforce that the land is used for agricultural purposes, and how those agricultural activities take place i.e. not burning up the soil in 5 seasons and then letting the land to rot. I am going to guess that the easement does not grant the creation of trails on this farmland, and doesn't give the county board imposing land use restrictions the right to cut off hunks of land, beyond what they already get for utilities and sidewalks.

It's like you can grant an easement to a neighbor to cut a driveway through your property, but they also can't start building a bbq pit and picnic pavilion on it, because the contract states they can build a driveway and that's it.

That's not to say that stipulations for public use couldn't be added in the future for all future easements, but my guess is if there were stipulations against oil/gas extraction, and/or stipulations granting public use of the land, farmers would sell their land to Ryan Homes instead of continuing to work the soil. Because who wants to run an operational farm with yahoos running about on trails, picking soy beans from your fields so they can eat edamame at home and shit.

5

turbodsm OP t1_j23pe7s wrote

Y'all really don't know what pedestrian paths look like do you? You can't think of any way a trail could exist to the edge of a farm, along existing roads?

1

newworldman1070 t1_j23rs8k wrote

It’s not the trail the concerns me. It’s the people on the trail.

There is a rather popular rail trail in the county next to where I live and it has issues with people off the trail all the time. Human waste on private property, dogs not in leashes chasing landowners dogs and their other animals.

4

turbodsm OP t1_j23s6fa wrote

What's the name of the trail? I'd love to take your word for it but I'd like to look into myself.

0

newworldman1070 t1_j23s8nn wrote

Pine creek rail trail.

3

turbodsm OP t1_j23v3wn wrote

Those are good concerns. Maybe it needs more restroom facilities at the trailheads. It looks like there are bathrooms every 5 miles but People are allowed to shit in the woods though provided that move far away from water sources and the trail.

I've never been to this trail but it seems to be world renowned. And the issues you raised aren't unique to trails, they can happen in neighborhoods too.

My specific point is related to preserved farmlands in suburbia not allowing sidewalks or paths through the edges of their property because their hands are tied by the law, not that they wouldn't support the cause.

0

newworldman1070 t1_j23w49g wrote

Or…..people could respect private property.

3

turbodsm OP t1_j23z4d6 wrote

Yeah people are shitty. That's not a reason to stop building trails though.

0

newworldman1070 t1_j23zf06 wrote

Right. It’s a great reason to not take private land and turn it into trails.

Build all you want on public land.

3

turbodsm OP t1_j240v48 wrote

You're talking about eminent domain when nobody else is taking about eminent domain.

1

newworldman1070 t1_j243yj6 wrote

A township or county isn’t going to fund the construction of a trail without first owning the land.

If the farmers were ok with people tromping all over their land, they probably would already allow public access.

I’m going to assume that you are not a land owner? I am. It comes with a very unique and specific set of headaches.

3

turbodsm OP t1_j2458yd wrote

Go read the feasibility studies for each proposed trail. They discuss this. You're not stating some little know fact. Oh wow, a county won't construct a trail on land they don't own the rights to construct on? No way. Who would have guessed. Roads and highways have been built through farms for decades. Can I get a trail along the outer edge? NO WAY!

https://www.buckscounty.gov/400/Trails-Program

>Much of the land within the study area is publicly held which minimizes the need for easements. However, in some cases, easements or land acquisition will be required to secure the right-of-way for the trail. For instance, there is the potential for routes to run through school district, homeowner association, or privately held lands. Easements or acquisitions will need to be obtained from these landowners to develop the trail network.

1

newworldman1070 t1_j2464ee wrote

Easements or acquisitions.

So if 5 out of 8 properties get on board, but the last three hold out, guess how that land becomes acquired.

Eminent Domain.

2

turbodsm OP t1_j246lcx wrote

>Eminent Domain: Although not desirable, and therefore not used very often, eminent domain can be used to acquire land. Eminent domain is the power of government to acquire property for public use so long as the government pays just compensation. The government can exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property even if the property owner does not wish to sell the property. Government taking of such property is called a condemnation, or a taking. It is seldom used in part due to the need to show that the taking of the land does constitute public use.

Read the studies :)

0

newworldman1070 t1_j248bqh wrote

Here are my final thoughts on the matter.

About 40 years ago, my wife’s family farm was taken by Eminent Domain. At that time, we had read all the studies, spoken with people on both sides and were assured that eminent domain was not on the table. Needless to say, we don’t own that farm anymore, and were paid only a fraction of todays value.

Furthermore, if walking outside is something that you enjoy, consider living in an area with large amounts of public land and hiking trails. Don’t demand that others make their land available to you.

2

turbodsm OP t1_j249jnw wrote

Why would you get anything close to "today's value" if the land was taken 40 years ago.

Was a road built? Why was it taken?

How do you think highways were built? Land was taken. Trails are much more responsible use of land than taking land and building a highway through it. And like any internet comment, you're exaggerating the situation. You're basing your opinion on some one specific example and applying it to everywhere. That's not how the world works.

I live in a suburban area with 2 million people within a 1 hour drive. Righting the wrongs of past development means making routes for non car users and there's a preservation law stopping progress. That's the topic.

0

newworldman1070 t1_j249wn5 wrote

I suggest you just go out and buy your own land, stop trying to make everyone else let you use your own for free.

2

turbodsm OP t1_j24bnb6 wrote

Nah I'm good. I'll keep fighting for public right of ways containing pedestrian paths through my county and that does include using easements along farms and private property.

0

turbodsm OP t1_j23p5bd wrote

Have you ever been on a pedestrian path? Or a rail trail? What you're picturing obviously isn't correct.

1

Dredly t1_j240bbo wrote

Unless its bordered by razor wire, people are going to walk all over the place

7

turbodsm OP t1_j240s5z wrote

I don't think you've ever been on a trail

1

Dredly t1_j240w0t wrote

I don't think you've ever been in public?

7

turbodsm OP t1_j242isv wrote

Where are you referring to? You must have firsthand experience.

I've been on rail trails, forest trails, canal towpaths and I've never witnessed anything like this.

0

Dredly t1_j2482dh wrote

You've never witnessed people and their pets wandering off trails??? I need to go hiking whete you do!!!

3

turbodsm OP t1_j2488n1 wrote

Where does this happen? In a park? Dont step on the grass people.

0

Dredly t1_j249p3g wrote

Where do people not stay on the trails? Literally everywhere?

It's so prevalent that it's one of the biggest rules on the website! You even responded to another person making excuses for people wandering of trail because there were not enough bathrooms

3

turbodsm OP t1_j24cd5y wrote

You still can't name anything specific.

whoa, someone shit off the trail on a rail trail which is 62 miles long? They even offer guidelines on how to shit on the trail responsibly. Yes, totally applicable to a pedestrian trail through my neighborhood in suburbia.

0

newworldman1070 t1_j24d5o7 wrote

You’re referencing a trail that is located in a very rural area, with the majority of it being no man-developed state forest land. Hence the leave no trace guidelines for using the bathroom in the woods.

Point being is that even this trail has issues, and only a very small fraction of it runs through private property.

Just imagine some dude taking a dump in the backyard of your suburban McMansion.

2

turbodsm OP t1_j24e6j9 wrote

> Just imagine some dude taking a dump in the backyard of your suburban McMansion.

Never ever in the history of the world has a blacktop trail existed so closely in harmony with McMansions. It's never been done.

oh wait >Lower Makefield Township is home to an extensive network of existing trails that owe their existence to township ordinance regulations established in 1977 that require the installation of bikeways as part of new development within the township.

How much do homes in Lower Makefield Township, PA cost?

Median Sold Price

$585,500

0

newworldman1070 t1_j24jwqz wrote

Seems like a lot of money to pay for 1/4 acre in a subdivision where someone can tell you what color you need to paint your door and how many cars you can have in your driveway.

5

turbodsm OP t1_j24lt34 wrote

Seems like a lot of assumptions from someone who is probably also scared of cities.

Stay in the woods old man. It's a scary world.

0

newworldman1070 t1_j24n21b wrote

Not afraid I’d the cities at all. I do know that I don’t like them apart from a visit every once in a while.

I will stay in woods, on my own land. Instead of demanding that everyone else allows me to recreate on theirs.

4

Dredly t1_j25nubx wrote

wait... so you want to put in a blacktop walking trail on private property?

​

and, I hate to point out the obvious - but those are required as part of NEW DEVELOPMENT, meaning they are zoned in... this is the equivalent of "must install sidewalks"... how in the hell is this relevant to people using rural trails, walking all over the place and shitting wherever they want

3

turbodsm OP t1_j25uf3t wrote

Do you not understand this or do you spin everything as negatively as possible?

I'd like the county and municipals to be able to work with owners of preserved farm land to install asphalt trails on the edges of the property lines parallel with existing roads. I said work with. Currently there is 0% chance of this happening because of state law. That's outdated and needs to change. We need trails. E-bikes are doubling every year in usage. People want to get out their house and take walks. We need fewer car trips. If your shitty county isn't doing these things, then butt out of the conversation.

When asked which trails have the problem with users "walking all over the place" you still haven't named a single one. If users of a trail are doing such a thing, it's a problem with trail design.

Starting to realize you're just a troll.

0

Dredly t1_j261z7m wrote

You want farmers to give rights to the public to walk all over their property on permanent trails which they would surrender their property to enable.

​

and I've walked on a ton of trails in NE PA, on game lands, state forests, in the Lehigh Valley, Worlds End, stretches of the Appalachian Trail and a bunch of others... and no matter what, there is very clear signs that people have abused the privilege of being there, they have littered, they have left graffiti everywhere possible, and they have walked off the trails wherever they felt like it.

​

I would LOVE to know what trails or paths you are walking on where people magically show respect for the rules... cause I have YET to see anything like that anywhere. Hell I haven't even seen a spot where people stay on the sidewalk and don't let their dogs shit in everyones yards

4

turbodsm OP t1_j26ehim wrote

Yes, you act like no farm has ever allowed an easement on their property.

And you saw trash? Oh no. Did you look on the roads as you drove there? Or were the roads magically clean somehow? I recently hiked at ricketts glen and it was very clean. Tyler state park, very clean. Newtown rail trail all the way to Roosevelt Blvd. Very clean.

You must be the old guy yelling at people to get off your lawn.

1

Illustrious_Air_1438 t1_j24gfob wrote

Ultimately it would be nice if we could eliminate animal agriculture, thus reducing the amount of farmland we use and allowing us to rewild much of it.

−3