Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rattling around someplace in my skull is recollection that in certain remote parts of the US of A it is customary for people to use the private cabins located there, in case of need. Lost in the woods for example. A place to sit down, warm up in front of the fireplace, take a load off, and leave when rested. The only rule being leave the building in the same state in which one found it.
Anyone else familiar with this?
Apparently, arctichomesteader isn't. Like I said, if his state's constitution guarantees everyone the right to trespass on unposted privately owned property, that includes any homes, buildings, etc., located on that land.
What's the difference? Trespassing is trespassing. You said your state's constitution guarantees everyone the right to trespass on unposted private property.
If you have a right of use, then it's not trespassing.
What's the difference? Trespassing is trespassing. You said your state's constitution guarantees everyone the right to trespass on unposted private property. The house is on such a private property. It's fair game.
The law has always treated land and houses differently. You're making a rather absurd comparison. Walking across some land is not remotely the same as walking into your bedroom.
This has been settled in many states; the last I know of was Florida some time ago. The courts in all cases said that beaches are public property and public must have access to beaches.
If you have a right of use, then it's not trespassing.
That's what I've told arctichomesteader. If his state's constitution guarantees access to anyone's private property to all, it's not trespassing; everyone is welcome to recreate in an unposted home.
What's more difficult is establishing a right of use. How is the public's right to use someone else's privately owned property legally established?
This has been settled in many states; the last I know of was Florida some time ago. The courts in all cases said that beaches are public property and public must have access to beaches.
You're wrong. I've already posted an article from Florida in this thread. People get arrested in Florida for trespassing on privately owned dry sand beach:
Quote:
"Although the white sand may appear welcoming, beachgoers here need to be careful where they lay down their towels. Some areas of the beach are considered private property, and those who venture onto the sand could find themselves in danger of being arrested for trespassing.
In Carlisle's case, Walton County sheriff's deputies responded to her call and told her to move a few hundred feet to the public sand nearby. Although she questioned whether she really stood on private property, Carlisle opted to relocate her family for fear that she would get arrested.
The incident happened July 5, the day that tourist Eduardo Gonzalez was arrested for trespassing on a private beach in another part of Walton County.
...The state says that anyone with title to the beach owns it to the mean high water line."
I sense a lot of entitlement feelings in this thread to that which someone else has worked hard for to own. Why is that? Why do so many of you feel you have the right to take from others, and use freely what they have worked hard and paid for to acquire?
If you have a problem with individuals privately owning the dry sand beach (all of the beach seaward up to the mean high water mark line), your problem is with the government agency which permitted the titling of the property as such, not with the individual private property owners.
The question remains... exactly how is the legal right to use someone else's privately owned property without their permission and without being specifically invited to do so legally established? Why do so many of you think you have that right?
The publicly owned part of the beach in most ocean states is only the wet sand beach (seaward of the mean high water mark line), which is likely completely submerged at high tide.
Oceanfront private property owners' Constitutional rights very recently upheld in the California court system:
Quote:
"The agency [Coastal Commission] refused to give them [the private property owners] a permit for basic fix-up work on their farmhouse unless they agreed to grant a mile-long public pathway easement across their property, along the coast. Never mind that this demand had no connection with anything the sisters were proposing to do on their property. Or that allowing the public to hike along the property could create major liability headaches for the family. No, the agency simply saw an opportunity to demand property, and it seized the chance.
...The Commission petitioned the court to reconsider, but it declined to do so. Now, the Commission has finally thrown in the towel. It has chosen not to appeal the case to the state Supreme Court."
Not even the liberal state of California believes that the public has the legal right to use privately owned land, and therefore had sought to extort easements from oceanfront property owners by withholding building permits for repairs unless the property owner granted a public easement. After a 6 year legal battle, the California court system has ruled in favor of the private property owners. They do not have to grant a public easement on their privately owned property.
When Long Beach Township officials asked Robert Minke and his relatives to sign over some of their oceanfront property rights for the federal government to build a protective dune, the family was fine with the idea.
But when the township decided to use the south end of their property in the affluent Loveladies section as a public access road to the beach, that’s when the Minke family balked.
In a lawsuit filed in state Superior Court on Wednesday, the family contends the township went too far in trying to create a beach access road, which they say will turn their otherwise private spot into a public beach.
The case highlights the ongoing disputes over oceanfront property ownership in New Jersey where some residents own up to a certain point of the beach and the public is allowed on the section closer to the water. But where public access has been limited, some beaches have become almost private because few people go there.
*******************************
The government is to spend 100 million dollars to replenish those public beaches.
Would that be the same owners who have no issue with landlocked citizens footing most of the FEMA cost for flooding in their back yard?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
