Blocking access to public land is definitely bad. But am I the only one who's first reaction is "Fuck hunters" anyway?
A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
81–90 of 189 posts
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
They may not be citing specific law, but instead generally describing the spirit of a broad set of such laws.
then essentially it's unenforceable, so no I don't want that in the states. fair to me means "not one inch across my property line"
Incorrect. Broadly-defined laws that do not hammer out the specifics to the inch are absolutely enforceable, just not with perfect certainty ahead of time. All laws are imprecise, and judges and juries are well able to operate more flexibly than a rigid programming-style logical interpretation (IF position X WITHIN bounds Y-Z THEN arrest) would allow.
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#83Blocking access to public land is definitely bad. But am I the only one who's first reaction is "Fuck hunters" anyway?
>But am I the only one who's first reaction is "Fuck hunters" anyway?
Yes? Anyone that says that is clearly ignorant of the need for hunting in maintaining environmental balance.
Unless of-course we want to bring back natural predators and have the problem of children, pets, and live stock being attacked.
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#84In many places, the land between high tide and low tide is public no matter what the beachfront property owner says. That doesn't stop them from making it very difficult for the public to access.
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#85Earlier 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. 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.
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
then essentially it's unenforceable, so no I don't want that in the states. fair to me means "not one inch across my property line"
i think "not one inch across my property line" makes sense, but there is still a problem to resolve regarding access to public land. in particular the article describes a problem with public land being inaccessible except through "corner crossing".
In the US we accomplish this in a lot of location with easements, common easements are for utilities, but easements can be for anything including transit to other parcels.
Easements means the ownership is maintained however access is granted for VERY VERY specific things, (like putting in and maintaining utilities, or transit across ) but can not be used for other things (like camping)
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#87Earlier 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…
why were her concerns more important than his? old man was probably alone all day as well and unsettled
No post body was provided.
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd say the owner of the land that land-locks it gets to within reason decide the route that is permitted Suppose that the public land is sandwiched between two private owners. Which of those private owners must grant the access? Worse, suppose that that chunk in the middle wasn't originally public land, but is later purchased by the state. At that point, the previous owners - having done nothing on their own - are…
This has nothing to do with public ownership; it occurs with private ownership of the interior parcel as well. Are the outer parcel owners also unfairly encumbered by an access easement then?
This is a very real problem in some agricultural country! Not unusual for farms to purchase a field that is surrounded by other owners and then have a big dispute over easement to access. It's a particularly large problem in areas that were historically subdivided without road easements between lots (as is the typical modern practice), or that were originally subdivided for reasons like mineral exploitation that did not customarily use road easements.
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#89A 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
As a general rule I dislike the form of government that is European, and prefer the American Individualist system, so I dont think it would be nice if America adopts more European laws, we have adopted too many of them already IMO.
We revolted for a reason, many Americans seem to have forgotten those reasons in the centuries since, Europe has always been more authoritarian than the US, and they largely replaced monarch systems with more collectivist systems instead of adoption of more Individualist systems like the US did.
I prefer the Individualist system, the smallest minority is the individual, and individual rights are supreme over collective or group rights.
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not correct in the slightest - landowners do not control the airspace above their property. That's why municipalities can't ban the use of drones, just their launching and control from their territory. Even the national park service, which tries to restrict aircraft as much as possible, can only regulate in this way (and to prevent harassing wildlife). I have a commercial drone license.
Landowners generally control the air above their land to some certain limit, which is why you can fly your drone at 2000' elevation over their land but not necessarily 10' elevation over their land.
The situation is a bit confusing but the general idea is that altitude doesn't matter, regulatory context does. The FAA holds the exclusive right to regulate civil aviation and so property owners are not able to restrict any aviation activity unless the FAA permits it. There are aviation regulations that generally prohibit operation of aircraft within 500' or 1000' feet of the ground (depending on unpopulated or populated area) except when on the way from or to it, but there are plenty of nuances to that rule (most notably that it's all completely different for sUAS) and it's nothing to do with property ownership but rather aviation and public safety.
In other words, property owners are generally viewed as owning the airspace all the way up from their land, but that ownership does not confer any rights to restrict aviation, which is all done according to a separate body of federal regulations that has very little interest in land ownership. This is a similar situation to mineral rights, where land ownership matters more but there is still a separate system of regulations and deeds that operates largely independently from property title (which is why it's common in rural areas to buy land where the mineral rights are held by someone else).
Notably, though, this is all about flying - ground operations are different and you must have permission of the property owner for ground operations (except in emergencies when the regulations are generally tossed out the window for better glide). So property owners can restrict takeoff and landing, and (I think this is a little bit fuzzier legally but still generally agreed) remote operation of aircraft from their land.