Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Robot_Tanlines t1_jdectrk wrote

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

Except she knew how it was when she bought the property. If she didn’t like the way it was she didn’t need to buy the property. If she wants to give the land up and get a tax wrote off that’s fine, but the local government shouldn’t pay her a fucking dime.

26

HaElfParagon t1_jded09v wrote

Right, I'm not saying she's in the right. I'm just saying the government isn't right either. Either buy the land off her, or let her do with her property as she pleases.

−13

Robot_Tanlines t1_jdedtnm wrote

How is the government wrong here? You only own up to the high water mark plus there is an easement in place. She bought the land for as cheap as she did cause of those things, it would be bullshit to reward her for trying to renege on the agreement she made by buying it. She’s a lawyer, she knew exactly what she was buying, if she didn’t like it she shouldn’t have bought it or she should sell it.

21

liptoniceteabagger t1_jdeq0ll wrote

Properties in MA can, and usually do, own down to the mean low tide line.

−4

HaElfParagon t1_jdee46l wrote

It's not critical infrastructure, there shouldn't be an easement there. Easements should only be used in places where it's necessary. This is a footpath, it's not necessary. If the state insists a footpath should be there, they should buy that portion of the land via eminent domain.

−9

Robot_Tanlines t1_jdeelr7 wrote

But it was already there before she bought it, if she had a problem with it than she shouldn’t have bought it. It’s really that simple. It doesn’t matter if it should have been there in the first place because it was there when she agreed to the price.

16

HaElfParagon t1_jdef4g8 wrote

You have a fair point, but one that I was not really planning on discussing. My only point I wanted to make was that the easement shouldn't have existed in the first place, and there's no time like the present to rectify it

−6

Swuzzle t1_jdelpva wrote

Your argument doesn't really make sense when applied holistically. If you wanted the government to only have easements for access to critical infrastructure (a telecom box in your other example), then you'd create a massive series of problems for right-of-way to public properties where access is cutoff from private properties.

Then the options become having the government take tons of small swaths of privately owned land by eminent domain to allow access to public spaces, or allow the landowners to cutoff access to public property for the sake of land ownership.

The existence of easements in part of common law to avoid those two extremes. It allows for the existence of a reasonable compromise without the need for excessive litigation.

The footpath is necessary because the public property (the coastal rocks) is cutoff from public access by the private property. It's no different than the many examples of public lakes being cutoff from access by private properties, and thus an easement is in place to allow the public to crossthrough private property to get to the lake.

10

HaElfParagon t1_jdem63n wrote

The existence of easements is so the state can have their cake and eat it to. They can force you to maintain the land to a certain quality, while having no control whatsoever over its use or its resources.

It is inherently authoritarian and should not be tolerated.

−8

Swuzzle t1_jder8k7 wrote

Inherently authoritarian? So you’d prefer the government to force you to sell your land at a price they choose? Or you’d prefer private landowners be able to landlock public property by virtue of just owning the land around it?

10

HaElfParagon t1_jderq15 wrote

Eminent domain is not the best option, but at least it would stop the ongoing abuse of forcing this person to maintain what essentially amounts to public land without any consent or compensation

−1