Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Cal__Trask t1_jddxxdz wrote

She even looks like a villain in the photo. If she doesn't like the easement she should move to a place she does like instead of trying to ruin 146 year old public path for everyone else.

229

print_isnt_dead t1_jde2dgy wrote

I honestly gasped when I opened this

And I’m going to go walk there now that I know about it

74

IDockWithMyBroskis t1_jdecf3f wrote

Feel free to knock over the sign too

16

MrMcSwifty t1_jdej3kt wrote

I know it feels right, but I wouldn't. You know she'll just use the claim that her property is being "vandalized" to bolster her cause . Don't give her any leverage. Just walk right on by like they aren't even there.

27

IDockWithMyBroskis t1_jdekzfz wrote

That’s a fair point. Every passer by who sees this should just move the sign like 6 inches closer to the actual house then.

14

HaElfParagon t1_jdeahal wrote

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

BeardiesRule112 t1_jde0wzp wrote

I’ve never gone there before but guess what I’m doing this weekend!

207

print_isnt_dead t1_jde2k18 wrote

I have a feeling it’s going to be busy!! My dog loves climbing on rocks

68

CustyMojo t1_jdex84l wrote

Looks nice. I'll take the hour and a half drive.

14

ForceMental t1_jdi0ylz wrote

The fake no trespassing sign has been there for 2 years. As there was a question posed about it.

I think it would be the honorable thing if, someone would remove the fake sign on public land. I will if I see it.

5

swoldier_force t1_jddxk5r wrote

tl;dr, Wealthy lawyers who owns oceanfront property “seeking to void a provision in her deed, dating to 1887, that the coastal rocks and ledges on her property must remain open to the general public.”

She knew all this when she bought the place. Smh.

76

IDockWithMyBroskis t1_jdecjb5 wrote

Good to know it’s going to backfire tremendously. Some people are rich beyond belief and it’s never enough.

9

Arctucrus t1_jdhayoc wrote

> Good to know it’s going to backfire tremendously.

That's the thing. We don't know that.

2

wrenhunter t1_jde2io3 wrote

I like the part where the Globe turned off the comments. I know they were available earlier, but the pitchforks were getting real pointy I guess!

59

BeardiesRule112 t1_jdepcn3 wrote

I’m honored that I saw them before they were hidden 😂 they were pretty spicy but didn’t see many lies.

13

Bearawesome t1_jde42v2 wrote

This woman looks exactly how I picture her.

48

lyd136 t1_jdediwq wrote

Wow, if there was ever a stock photo for "evil old wretch with money"

46

rmajkr t1_jdf2eqa wrote

Does she have a chance? Please, someone tell me she does not.

10

Quercus-bicolor t1_jdg42sm wrote

She has money. It will just drag out for years and trying to go to higher courts.

10

rmajkr t1_jdg4t1z wrote

Thanks! You’re right, and people will lose interest and she may win in the long term.

5

soh_amore t1_jdgeo69 wrote

She’ll probably be dead before that happens

5

OceanEarthling t1_jdedcmy wrote

What an asshole thing to do. I've never been but now I plan to visit, and linger, with my dog and long range camera lens. :)

38

prberkeley t1_jdfblo5 wrote

Seriously. The path has been public since the 1800s. What did you think was going to happen when you bought the property? I once had an apartment across the street from a bar. People were smoking on the street and talking loudly until 2 AM but I knew that when I signed the lease so I didn't complain. This homeowner is so entitled, I hope 7 dogs take a dump on her lawn this weekend.

25

Honest_Salamander247 t1_jdfojzd wrote

I expect it’s what she said. She is ok with people walking through like they do in England (public right of way and all) but you don’t buy a house on the edge of the ocean expecting people to throw down a blanket and spend the day blasting their music.

−10

sc00p401 t1_jddz92d wrote

No one's gonna be peeping at this crone, and if she doesnt want dogs on her property then GET A FUCKING FENCE YOU'RE CERTAINLY RICH ENOUGH TO AFFORD IT.

33

somegridplayer t1_jde6wv0 wrote

>if she doesnt want dogs on her property then GET A FUCKING FENCE

It's kind of her right given there's leash laws. It is a bit of a dick move to let your dog wander around on someone else's property.

30

agrimi161803 t1_jdeqkdt wrote

Certainly, but not as much of a dick move as suing to end over 100 years of public access to a recreational spot that you knew about when moving in

15

mini4x t1_jdfmo6y wrote

And there's a ROW in your land deed.

4

redditor420_69 t1_jdeg5mb wrote

My girlfriend and I thought about a day trip somewhere on Saturday. Guess we found the spot!

30

Whitey3752 t1_jdezq8s wrote

Interesting article. Just goes to show the wealthy do what ever they want as the rest of us don't have the financial means to fight it. Its depressing and is why the imbalance of wealth will ultimately turn into a dystopian shit hole where the rich get rich and the poor get fucked.

Welcome to America!

I'll see you all at the path this weekend.

27

dew2459 t1_jdf86oy wrote

I think the money part of the article was probably a bit of Globe yellow press hysteria. Rockport isn't a poor town, they have $112K median income and a >$30M annual budget. From the article it looks like much of the current legal action/cost for this so far is in the MA AG's office anyway.

I currently live in a small town, and (though not on the ocean) we've been sued many times by rich snobs and others like developers, and have generally not had big costs defending (I think the record was someone claimed they spent ~$150K suing the town, insinuating in a public meeting that the town must be spending a similar amount defending. We actually spent ~13K defending and won.) My town's legal budget usually comes to around $30 per household per year, with probably half of that on contract negotiations and personnel issues, so not a huge burden.

4

DeliPaper t1_jddydcu wrote

Me using my rconstitutional right to fishing, fowling and navigation:

26

Bmkrocky t1_jdeugg7 wrote

I live in Gloucester and have walked the path a few times - rarely see more than a few people - this lady is a witch

26

Cal__Trask t1_jdeyibz wrote

It's worth noting her home is currently valued on zillow for 2.2 million dollars. Increasing 49k in value over the last 30 days. And yet, she complains.

17

Diegos_kitchen t1_jde4g1v wrote

Is there anywhere we can donate to help fight her case?

16

DDups2 t1_jdebb6u wrote

The globe did her dirty with that photo.

14

PakkyT t1_jdhjb8b wrote

I think it was her face that did her dirty.

3

AmazAmazAmazAmaz t1_jdemid3 wrote

Ok. Tagged in map. Going there this weekend 🤪

13

Any_Advantage_2449 t1_jdeq412 wrote

I don’t like this lady.

Is she just bitter that she couldn’t afford a beachfront property on the cape like the real players.

10

rodimusprime88 t1_jdeggyo wrote

Crotched-divorced lawyer bitch files multiple lawsuits to ban the poors from her view: more at 10

9

Feisty-Cloud5880 t1_jdf2x35 wrote

Why would one not want to share the beauty of the sea.... May KARMA be... Shameful!!

4

millargeo t1_jdfvv2r wrote

I just planned a summer day trip.

3

SideBarParty t1_jdgmyda wrote

Elizabeth Fisher looks just like the kind of person who would be a divorced, bitter, angry woman trying to ruin something for the public good.

3

JaKr8 t1_jdh81k6 wrote

Please remember there are other neighbors in the vicinity as well, many who probably do not agree with this lady, so just a reminder regarding those people as well.

But I suspect it's going to be a busy weekend out there, as Sunday will be nice ( at least waay out here in Western MA).

3

dirtnasty1312 t1_jdfarhe wrote

Fuck this woman, she’s nothing but elitist trash.

2

intrusivelight t1_jdej87l wrote

This is Taylor Swift and Narragansett beach all over again

1

Wide_Television_7074 t1_jdg62i8 wrote

Public access to the shore is a right. People like this woman need to be put in a mayonnaise jar

1

peteypaaaablo t1_jdgz3ab wrote

Welp, starting next month (wnenever the first striped bass begin showing up this far north) this ruddy cheeked old succubus will have to get used to seeing me happily navigating the pathway through her precious rock field with a surf rod in hand. I figure I’ll usually be arriving right as shes sitting down to enjoy that day’s early morning glass of breakfast scotch and the first of 5000 chain smoked Marlboro lights. I feel like this woman probably smells like a distinctive bouquet of mothballs and dollar store perfume, with a strong top note scent reminiscent of the very bottom layer of an overflowing ashtray.

1

PakkyT t1_jdhjik6 wrote

Now that the weather is starting to get a little better, I have been considering new places to go to practice my photography. Sounds like a nice place to spend an hour this weekend.

1

therealchiefrobert t1_jdi95k2 wrote

Looks fantastic! Seems like even bad publicity is good in this case.

1

Downrightregret t1_jdfpybz wrote

One of the quiet great things about Massachusetts is that the trash is too entitled and uppity to do so alone or quietly. Wave your trash flag you trash bag...

−2

mehkindaok t1_jdfaald wrote

On one hand, fuck the NIMBYs. On the other, i can see why towns are getting fed up with their beaches getting trashed on a daily basis.

−5

HaElfParagon t1_jdeap22 wrote

I'm not for rich ass nimby's getting their way typically, but I understand this one.

If the government wants that land open for public use, the government should buy that section of land off the landowner, or, the landowner should be allowed to do what they want with the property

−29

Robot_Tanlines t1_jdectrk wrote

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

charons-voyage t1_jdeca6s wrote

It’s stated in her deed that public beach access is permitted.

11

HaElfParagon t1_jdedc2l wrote

Right, I'm not saying that she is right, I'm saying that the government is wrong.

−2

TheLyz t1_jdeebgn wrote

Honestly nobody should get to own a piece of coastline.

10

HaElfParagon t1_jdeen61 wrote

Certainly a spicy opinion lol, but I can understand your perspective. I think it should be dependent on other factors. Like, if your whole lot is less than a quarter acre, for example, I see no problem why you can't have your land extend to the waterfront to give you a bit more space.

−2

Scratch_Disastrous t1_jdedegr wrote

But why should they buy it when they already have easements and established rights of way? Seems like that would amount to the taxpayers giving her a windfall, for no added benefit to the taxpayers.

9

HaElfParagon t1_jdedsrk wrote

The benefit to the taxpayers is twofold:

One, they can continue to use the land without harassment.

Two, their tax dollars wouldn't be wasted fighting a lawsuit against NIMBY's who, regardless of our opinion on them, should have the right to decide who is and isn't allowed on their land.

I'm arguing that easements should only be allowed for critical infrastructure, not for recreational footpaths.

−1

Scratch_Disastrous t1_jdefykr wrote

Public easements for footpaths are common in MA, and there's no criteria that it needs to be for critical infrastructure. So I still don't think the government (taxpayers) should start buying up these properties. I'm also not convinced it would save tax dollars to move this money from legal fees to property purchases.

10

HaElfParagon t1_jdegcmg wrote

I never said there was criteria it needs to be for critical infrastructure? All I said was that it should have that criteria.

0

Scratch_Disastrous t1_jdei7o4 wrote

Ok, got it. So you have a personal opinion on easements that's unsupported by any laws, and this is why you think the current disagreement should be resolved in this woman's favor.

I think we'll just disagree on this. I do think she's wrong here, and it's pretty plain and simple. She bought property with these inherited easements and rights of way. Now she's using her wealth to put pressure on a small local government to give her something that she's not entitled to.

8