Scratch_Disastrous t1_jdedegr wrote on March 23, 2023 at 8:05 PM

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

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.

HaElfParagon t1_jdedsrk wrote on March 23, 2023 at 8:07 PM

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.

Scratch_Disastrous t1_jdefykr wrote on March 23, 2023 at 8:21 PM

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.

HaElfParagon t1_jdegcmg wrote on March 23, 2023 at 8:23 PM

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

Scratch_Disastrous t1_jdei7o4 wrote on March 23, 2023 at 8:35 PM

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.