Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 189 posts

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#111

Post by googlryas »

prepend wrote: post #85
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The last thing I want is some random camping in my backyard. Story: A regional gov agency bought a large tract of land behind my home for conservation. A fireline was cut all around the edge of the tract and lined with a 4' wire fence that ran adjacent to our properties. Homeowners were unitedly happy the land wouldn't be developed but some were upset it was now available for public daytime use. Two disgruntled nei…

> One was a new mom who was alone all day and was unsettled with folks hiking past her backyard. This seems unreasonable to think hikers are a threat to her. It’s nice of you to work to make her feel better but it seems silly for her to think that people are going to break into her house in the middle of their hike. There are many more opportunities for violence and if she wants to worry about things, there’s others.

You don't know what she thought. And maybe she's worried about other forms of violence too. You also don't know the type of people who walk by.

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#112

Post by bergenty »

teddyh wrote: post #30
bergenty wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t want that in the US. We have more than enough national public land where people are free to roam. The last thing I want is some random camping in my backyard. We are a very individualistic people, I don’t want people in my little nation state.

> The last thing I want is some random camping in my backyard. FUD. Freedom to Roam laws only allow camping a fair distance away from inhabited buildings.

If it’s 70m that’s still very close to my house. Americans have a way of pushing the boundaries of every law, we’re a litigious country we follow the letter of the law not the spirit. This will probably result in a chain of homeless people that stay in your backyard for three days and then move over to the next backyard.

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#113

Post by aaomidi »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #77
Scaevolus wrote: post #21

A number of European countries have "freedom to roam". It would be nice if America had an equivalent, but given how lobbying works that seems impossible at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

In practice it doesn't matter at all, just BLM (Bureau of Land Management) alone owns 387,500 sq mi of public land. For comparison, Scotland, is 30,090 sq mi in size . This is not counting local, state and national parks and forests. Why fix a problem that doesn't exist? Some of the largest parks are comparable in size to European countries. https://mapfight.xyz/map/yellowstone/ https://mapfight.xyz/map/death.valley/

Because just giving out land numbers is pretty useless?

How much of that land is where people actually are? Most of that land you need to drive to.

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#114

Post by phpisthebest »

jltsiren wrote: post #105
phpisthebest wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? The "right to roam" is a collective right granting the public a "right" over that of the individual property owners right to control access and use to their property. To conflate the "right to roam" as a "individual right" completely miss understands what an individual right is

Land ownership, as we understand it today, is a government-granted right, not a natural right. Ownership as a natural right is based on the idea that the fruit of your labor belong to you, and on voluntary trade. The land already existed before humans, so it can't be fruit of anyone's labor. It can't be owned in this sense. Traditional ideas of land control were based on usage, not ownership. If you used the land for…

>If you used the land for something

So preservation of natural state is not a "use" ? Hunting is not a "use"?

I think they are...

>Land ownership, as we understand it today, is a government-granted right, not a natural right.

I think it is largely both, and I recognize that we can and should reform some of the government granted rights I just dont think the Right of Exclusion should be one of those reforms.

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#115

Post by nibbleshifter »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #77
Scaevolus wrote: post #21

A number of European countries have "freedom to roam". It would be nice if America had an equivalent, but given how lobbying works that seems impossible at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

In practice it doesn't matter at all, just BLM (Bureau of Land Management) alone owns 387,500 sq mi of public land. For comparison, Scotland, is 30,090 sq mi in size . This is not counting local, state and national parks and forests. Why fix a problem that doesn't exist? Some of the largest parks are comparable in size to European countries. https://mapfight.xyz/map/yellowstone/ https://mapfight.xyz/map/death.valley/

If you read TFA, the issue is access to said land.

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#116

Post by jltsiren »

phpisthebest wrote: post #114
jltsiren wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land ownership, as we understand it today, is a government-granted right, not a natural right. Ownership as a natural right is based on the idea that the fruit of your labor belong to you, and on voluntary trade. The land already existed before humans, so it can't be fruit of anyone's labor. It can't be owned in this sense. Traditional ideas of land control were based on usage, not ownership. If you used the land for…

>If you used the land for something So preservation of natural state is not a "use" ? Hunting is not a "use"? I think they are... >Land ownership, as we understand it today, is a government-granted right, not a natural right. I think it is largely both, and I recognize that we can and should reform some of the government granted rights I just dont think the Right of Exclusion should be one of those reforms.

The lack of usage is not a use. Preservation means changing the legal status of the land permanently, and it also prevents the land owner from using the land for other purposes in the future.

Hunting is a use, but only when it's actually occurring.

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#117

Post by standardUser »

luckylion wrote: post #66
abruzzi wrote: post #42

this is very common in the west. Its one of several ways to "own" more property than you paid for. If your property completely encloses 1000 acres of public land, that land is as good as yours (with the exception of building things, but many of the property owners in these cases are taking people hunting on the land, so no permanant structures would be built anyway.) Another common thing is land leases. I don't know…

If it doesn't grant them exclusive rights, and they can't e.g. put up "no trespassing" signs, wouldn't that be a crime because they are claiming ownership, and thereby claiming that the state does not have ownership? Have you ever reported one of them to see what happens?

Not uncommon for large landowners to be on friendly terms with local politicians and law enforcement.

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#118

Post by droopyEyelids »

ryanblakeley wrote: post #53

Corner crossing seems like something that could be solved by saying "where two corners meet there must be an easement xx meters wide to allow the public to cross". I can't imagine any reason why the private landowner should be allowed to put up fencing and signs that block the corner. In cases where the only way to access a parcel of public land is through private land then an easement should be created. If a road or…

> I can't imagine any reason why the private landowner should be allowed to put up fencing and signs that block the corner.

A legally valid reason would be like "the wealthy elect lawmakers that write laws in the interest of the wealthy." That's how the USA works

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#119

Post by Siddarth1977 »

mediascreen wrote: post #16

As someone who has grown up with "Freedom to roam"[0] laws, it seems so weird that you would need to keep track of who owns the land where you are hiking. (To be fair you can't just hunt wherever you want in Sweden either.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Sweden

"Freedom to roam" laws are an archaic notion that only sort of work in very specific locations like the Nordic countries.

Even with a large staff of park rangers and a budget for trail maintenance, trash bins, toilet facilities and informational signs about "leave no trace" ethics, it's still hard to minimize the damage tourists do in parks. And even within parks, we don't let people freely roam, we ask them to stay to trails to prevent erosion and we shut down areas seasonally to protect critical nesting, feeding or migration paths. To ask private citizens to deal with such damage to their property is unfair and unreasonable.

Further, the average city dweller has no ability to assess what land is safe for them to hike on in America. Again, for parks we have dedicated staff to put up signs and set clear rules about closures and access, but agricultural lands are far more complex. What looks like "unused" land may be grazing for cattle, flowers for bees or habit for wildlife (whether for conservation or hunting). It may have been recently sprayed with chemicals which are harmful if humans come into contact with them or it may have recently been planted and footsteps will trample early crops.

"Freedom to roam" is like suggesting that the solution to homelessness is to just let homeless people choose to sleep on anyone's couch who wasn't using it. The millions of acres of managed public lands in the US, which can have appropriate usage policies depending on environmental impact, historical significance, number of visitors, etc and which can be properly managed for the long-term balance of many diverse stakeholders needs is a far better system.

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#120

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #103
prepend wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One was a new mom who was alone all day and was unsettled with folks hiking past her backyard. This seems unreasonable to think hikers are a threat to her. It’s nice of you to work to make her feel better but it seems silly for her to think that people are going to break into her house in the middle of their hike. There are many more opportunities for violence and if she wants to worry about things, there’s others.

More to the point: it's bad policy to normalize her concerns. For the sake of her child we hope that New Mom stops at one and is single. The biggest reason for child abductions is custody disputes and the biggest perpetrators of child sex abuse are older siblings.

> it's bad policy to normalize her concerns. For the sake of her child we hope that New Mom stops at one and is single.

This feels like a pointlessly bitter analysis, one that has drawn unnecessarily harsh conclusions.

At the time, I started weighing her danger assessment but I stopped. New parents tend to suck at risk analysis. I did. Over time I sorted it out. She would too but not that day.

> The biggest reason for child abductions is custody disputes and the biggest perpetrators of child sex abuse are older siblings.

This false danger narrative you're referencing, you're right that it's crap and harmful. However it is mostly driven by LEO & news orgs - both of whom are in the exact position to know better. It isn't reasonable to blame new mothers for the ongoing ineptitude of professionals.

Post reply on HN