Data collection should be illegal without personally negotiating with the subject on a price.

Wanna collect my data for free? Fuck you. Wanna collect my data by paying me $100 per data point per day? Be my guest.

If you're just going to act like a dick this conversation is over.

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

Given others haven't mentioned it, it would not be a bad idea to start considering measures for your own protection. Pepper spray, securing your home with better features (for example, 3" screws into the door brackets will do wonders with keeping it from being kicked off its hinges)

Enroll in a self defense class. You're seeing first hand how little the cops care about you, ultimately you are responsible for your own safety if your ex goes crazy

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.

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

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.

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

Yes, very mature

That's what I'm advocating for

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

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

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.

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

I've explained elsewhere

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.