Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HaElfParagon t1_jdeecks wrote

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

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