Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HaElfParagon t1_jdeahal wrote

Reply to comment by Cal__Trask in Andrew’s Point, Rockport: Homeowner suing to end public access by SarcasticRaspberries

Counterpoint: if it's such a critical path for the well-being of the citizenry, it shouldn't be an easement. The state should purchase the path via eminent domain and be done with it.

41

Cal__Trask t1_jdecmsn wrote

Not a bad point, my reply would be that until and unless the court sides with her, there was no need for rockport to take any such action as there were already provisions in her deed allowing public use. So basically, why would they waste money buying property the public ALREADY had a right to use, money that could be used on other park projects.

Edit: clarity

43

HaElfParagon t1_jdeda72 wrote

I'd argue that the public shouldn't have the right to use private property. I understand easements with regards to managing telecom boxes in cluttered neighborhoods and the like, but this isn't an easement for critical infrastructure, it's an easement for a recreational footpath. The state shouldn't have the right to tell us what we can and can't do with property we own. If the state decides they want the land to be used for a specific purpose, they should buy the land off her to achieve that purpose.

−59

Nix-7c0 t1_jdejo7s wrote

She didn't have property and then an easement was forced on her. She bought a deed with that condition baked into it already and now just wants more at the cost of everyone else.

49

CosmicQuantum42 t1_jdfc6e8 wrote

People buy property speculatively all the time with the goal of overturning stuff like this. Buying property is not some kind of agreement to abide by any unjust previous encumbrances on the property.

The easement either is or is not properly granted. If it isn’t, it should be overturned and the town should buy the property by eminent domain if it’s so important.

−24

bootboard t1_jdgiwca wrote

Well, those people can buy a parcel with the idea to change local property laws, but they can't expect no pushback.

Also, if youre buying property "speculatively" today, you have more money than 99% of the population. You'll garner no sympathy from me.

11

Cal__Trask t1_jdee58u wrote

I know of no rule that states easements can only be applied to critical infrastructure. While I have never practiced in property law, so I admit my knowledge is limited, the classic example of easements in law school is a footpath. You have every right to disagree with the concept of easements, but the fact is it was written into her deed, she either knew, or should have know about this before she purchased the property. Essentially she went into this with her eyes open and now is trying to change the rules for everyone else.

21

HaElfParagon t1_jdeecks wrote

I never said there was a rule, I was sharing my opinion.

−24

CelticsRaider t1_jdf6n2k wrote

I’d argue that maintaining the public’s access to the ocean in a coastal town is critical infrastructure.

Especially when, as others have noted, this easement was not forced on her nor was it a hidden provision of her purchase of the property. She bought the property, it seems, with the express intent to decrease quality of life for everyone else.

14

HaElfParagon t1_jdfc4vv wrote

Then purchase the land from the landowner if it's so critical

−9

CelticsRaider t1_jdfm2lk wrote

See, you keep saying that. Please let me know what makes you think this person would sell?

5

HaElfParagon t1_jdfmqul wrote

Despite me not being a fan of it, this is one of the few times eminent domain would actually make sense

−1

CelticsRaider t1_jdfnpzf wrote

I would then argue you are back to where we are right this moment. I highly doubt the attorney who has been fighting this for so long is not going to challenge the legality of eminent domain in this case.

Why would the town risk losing that case, which would lay the ground work for the easement being successfully eradicated when they have the almost 150 years precedent of the easement existing as is ?

6

Puzzleheaded_Oil9958 t1_jdhlfdh wrote

It’s funny because the whole concept you are arguing for is simply not legal according to a big portion of the world. In Scotland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Austria, Czech Republic and Switzerland there is legislation called “right to roam” where anyone can walk through someone else’s land so long as they don’t stay too long or mess it up. Although it is law in those countries it’s pretty much culturally a law in most of Europe going back centuries.

So from a European perspective, the entire concept of suing to disallow people to simply walk across your land is ridiculous. Same as the idea that the state would have to buy that land from you just so people can walk through it.

Tldr: the entire concept that we are even spending resources fighting things like this in court in America is almost a laughable parody of American exceptionalism

2

HaElfParagon t1_jdho9t4 wrote

That's certainly an interesting idea, but in the US it doesn't apply.

0

Puzzleheaded_Oil9958 t1_jdj05ny wrote

All I’m saying is that America is one of the only countries in the developed world that considers the concept of simply walking down a path a crime and that should say something about the validity of this woman’s complaint. As well as the concept of the gross misuse of tax dollars to buy huge amounts of empty land nationwide (hello, private beaches) when our representatives could codify peoples right to walk in open land like the rest of the world.

Maybe it’s the fact that this entire country is stolen that makes Americans so touchy about this..

2

Puzzleheaded_Oil9958 t1_jdj0plv wrote

Idk what you mean by “it doesn’t apply”..

It seems x1000 times easier to just pass a state or local law making it so this woman’s case is dismissed. The alternative that you are advocating would require billions and billions of taxpayer dollars and a ridiculous amount of time in court for each property owner in the long run

1

HaElfParagon t1_jdjasw0 wrote

I mean it 100% means it doesn't apply. European laws have no bearing on the US

1

Checkers923 t1_jdg7i79 wrote

Easements are not only for utilities, and the easement existed when she bought the house. She had the chance to walk away - I walked from two houses when I was buying because they had easements I didn’t want to live with.

8

HaElfParagon t1_jdhinl9 wrote

Yes, first off, I was already aware how it was, you and the 15 other people who are explaining this, it's a waste of effort, I'm already aware, and I'm not talking about how it works, I'm talking about how it SHOULD work.

−4

Checkers923 t1_jdhxp07 wrote

Its simply what it is now. What would you propose to remove the easement?

3

HaElfParagon t1_jdi07c4 wrote

I've already proposed it elsewhere in the thread. I'm really not interested in just rinse and repeating the same conversation from last night.

0

liptoniceteabagger t1_jdepp4u wrote

The easement already provides the public with access; and she knew the easement existed long before she purchased the property. There should be no reason why the town or state should have take any action on this issue.

16

drnkinmule t1_jdf6924 wrote

Agreed, I don't know if that would be legally possible but some a lot of this. My guess it would be a litigation nightmare and probably bankrupt the town since the path runs close or through so many properties. You can tell people have the nimby wealth to be a pain in the ass when they use terms like "landscape terrorism"....

4