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.
Right so here I am sitting in some field with a broke down plane because I had to make a forced landing and I just have to get out and walk away leaving my plane there .... I dont think so. What if im injured?
Actually, yes, you do have to leave private property when asked to do so. It's a financial liability issue, not to mension a property rights issue. And if you're injured? An ambulance would be called and you would be removed from the property, anyway.
Quote:
I am going to make arrangements to get the plane out of there and that takes time.
Understandable, but don't be surprised of you're charged a user fee, rent, and possibly other charges as well, including charges for damage to private property.
Quote:
That is why I carry a chest holstered gun when I fly now. After the guy drew a knife on the rafting party that had to ditch on private property, it was all over local news. They were not going to leave the rafts behind as they are expensive.
Again, had they remained in ankle deep water and anchored their rafts in such until rescued, there would have been no issue. Navigable waters such as a river that pass through private property are held in public trust for public use.
Not direct punishment, but indirect financial punishment. Like, hey if I sleep with this dead beat because he has nice abs, hair and rides a harley I may end up having half my wages garnished to help the state raise my kid and be living in a tent city.
I think that trying to extract money from the dead beat harley rider is a loosing game, if the women started having wages garnished for the state to take care of their kids we would see drastic behavior modification.
If she does not want to pay she can go live in a tent somewhere is some slum.
Actually, yes, you do have to leave private property when asked to do so. It's a financial liability issue, not to mension a property rights issue. And if you're injured? An ambulance would be called and you would be removed from the property, anyway.
Understandable, but don't be surprised of you're charged a user fee, rent, and possibly other charges as well, including charges for damage to private property.
Again, had they remained in ankle deep water and anchored their rafts in such until rescued, there would have been no issue. Navigable waters such as a river that pass through private property are held in public trust for public use.
If there is actual damage during the landing (like you slam into a building) then there will have to be payment. There may be rent charges and that could turn into a law suit if they are trying to capitalize on the event, but yes fair market value rent could be applied. A plane sitting on the edge of a field ... what $20 a month.
What happened in an area near where I live is someone came at the raft crew with a knife, they wanted the police called so the property that they had to leave behind could be documented and pictures taken etc so that the owner would be held liable if the property disappeared before they could retrieve it. This is why I carry a chest holstered hand gun now when I fly.
The property needs to be documented and law enforcement present (in the case of a plane the FAA and NTSB as well) so that the fact your plane is there is VERY well known so if the property owner trys to pull some shenanigans they will be subjected to a law suit which will likely include massive punative damages. Planes being forced to land due to emergency is life and law enforcement and FAA are not going to give a property owner the right to steal the plane, but only if you document it.
If you are taking an aggressive stance and you wont call the police (becuase you wnat the craft) then it might be a fatal event. Of course a cali beach owner will probably be more reasonable than a drunk native in the middle of no where alaska lol.
Last edited by pittsflyer; 05-11-2018 at 05:04 PM..
People who cant support their kid and social services are forced to take the kids away due to unacceptable living conditions. The state has guidelines on this so that kids dont get burned, BUT they dont garnish the irresponsible moms pay which is a major issue.
If the MOM's pay were ganished (like half her income) she might think twice about who she sleeps with.
So as it stands now, state takes the kids away, mom does not have to pay so she can just go back out and have sex with the same kind of dead beat guy (because he is hot). When you have half your money being taken by the state its a wake up call.
Some of the examples being used are getting to be a bit extreme. In a country of about 330 million people one could find an example to prove any point one wants to make, but such an example would not represent the norm and would not prove the point.
The odds of someone landing a damaged plane on someone's property and that property owner trying to claim the plane as theirs is pretty far fetched and is a silly example to use in a discussion of private property rights. The odds of it happening are remote and if it did occur, the property owner would lose any attempt to claim the plane. The owner of the plane would be required to remove the plane as soon as practical and would be responsible for any damage that occurred is all.
Selling national parks to the "filthy rich" is also a pretty extreme example. It doesn't matter if there are people who would like to buy national parks, it isn't happening.
InformedConsent's talking about his/her privately owned but apparently publicly accessible dry sand beach is an excellent example because there are thousands of landowners in that predicament and those controversies are playing out in many jurisdictions.
I understand the lakefront examples but if local/State/Federal govt. doesn't own any lakefront property, then the public doesn't have access to the lake except for that which the private owners choose to allow. If govt. owns lakefront property and wants another way of accessing that property, then govt. can buy an easement or buy land, using eminent domain if necessary to acquire that property or easement. Those are the choices: private owner allowing access or govt. buying access. The public does not have a right to just trespass to get to the lake.
Owning 100 acres does mean one has less ownership rights than owning just 1/4 acre. Ownership is ownership.
Some owners don't want anyone on their property and that's OK. Some owners like myself like seeing people enjoy or use some of my property, and that's OK too. We each get to choose what works for us. The nature of my property in a little hamlet in Vermont is far different than InformedConsent's beachfront property. If I owned beachfront property I would not be happy to see litter left in the sand and I would be furious if anyone used my beach as a bathroom. I'd probably selectively allow people I know to use it, but I'd fight being required to allow general public access. I totally support InformedConsent's position. I would add that strangers coming onto a part of my land a quarter mile from my house as if it was a public park is not so intrusive as I suspect strangers appearing on InformedConsent's property is, beachfront lots tending to be on the small side.
Some of the examples being used are getting to be a bit extreme. In a country of about 330 million people one could find an example to prove any point one wants to make, but such an example would not represent the norm and would not prove the point.
The odds of someone landing a damaged plane on someone's property and that property owner trying to claim the plane as theirs is pretty far fetched and is a silly example to use in a discussion of private property rights. The odds of it happening are remote and if it did occur, the property owner would lose any attempt to claim the plane. The owner of the plane would be required to remove the plane as soon as practical and would be responsible for any damage that occurred is all.
Selling national parks to the "filthy rich" is also a pretty extreme example. It doesn't matter if there are people who would like to buy national parks, it isn't happening.
InformedConsent's talking about his/her privately owned but apparently publicly accessible dry sand beach is an excellent example because there are thousands of landowners in that predicament and those controversies are playing out in many jurisdictions.
I understand the lakefront examples but if local/State/Federal govt. doesn't own any lakefront property, then the public doesn't have access to the lake except for that which the private owners choose to allow. If govt. owns lakefront property and wants another way of accessing that property, then govt. can buy an easement or buy land, using eminent domain if necessary to acquire that property or easement. Those are the choices: private owner allowing access or govt. buying access. The public does not have a right to just trespass to get to the lake.
Owning 100 acres does mean one has less ownership rights than owning just 1/4 acre. Ownership is ownership.
Some owners don't want anyone on their property and that's OK. Some owners like myself like seeing people enjoy or use some of my property, and that's OK too. We each get to choose what works for us. The nature of my property in a little hamlet in Vermont is far different than InformedConsent's beachfront property. If I owned beachfront property I would not be happy to see litter left in the sand and I would be furious if anyone used my beach as a bathroom. I'd probably selectively allow people I know to use it, but I'd fight being required to allow general public access. I totally support InformedConsent's position. I would add that strangers coming onto a part of my land a quarter mile from my house as if it was a public park is not so intrusive as I suspect strangers appearing on InformedConsent's property is, beachfront lots tending to be on the small side.
If this is becoming such a prolific problem for all kinds of beach owners why isent the govt buying out easements? there is obviously public demand for this space to the point where its becoming prolific.
Instead of all the scuttle butt why doesn't someone put together a ballot measure or something to just go buy the requisite land. Get a federal grant or what ever.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but in the U.S., religious order parochial schools do a better job of educating K-12 students than do public schools, even when adjusted for socioeconomic level.
That's why 2/3 of Black and Hispanic adults support school vouchers. But Democrat politicians remain adamantly against them. Then again, as I said, 94% of teacher unions' political donations go to Democrats.
If this is becoming such a prolific problem for all kinds of beach owners why isent the govt buying out easements?
Because that isn't necessary. There are plenty of public beaches. The problem is solely one of people who mistakenly believe they're somehow "entitled" to trespass and don't have to respect anyone else's private property rights.
Quote:
Instead of all the scuttle butt why doesn't someone put together a ballot measure or something to just go buy the requisite land. Get a federal grant or what ever.
Why don't they, indeed? I've explained the reasons. Aside from the original high cost of buying the land, there's the annual ongoing cost to the rest of the property owners when that land is removed from the private property tax rolls. Doing so necessitates raising the tax rate on everyone else, and they won't agree to that.
If this is becoming such a prolific problem for all kinds of beach owners why isent the govt buying out easements? there is obviously public demand for this space to the point where its becoming prolific.
Instead of all the scuttle butt why doesn't someone put together a ballot measure or something to just go buy the requisite land. Get a federal grant or what ever.
So why don't you put together that ballot measure and see how it goes. My guess is the voters would resoundingly vote no given what it would cost for the purchase, for the ongoing maintenance and insurance costs, and as InformedConsent points out, the loss of property taxes on that very valuable land.
I don't know what State you live in but where I live just a handful of registered voters is all it takes to get an item on the ballot for Town Meeting (the formal name of our form of local govt).
If you mean a State buyout instead of local, the process is the same, just more signatures is needed is all. It too would resoundingly be voted down given the astronomical costs. You'd even see oceanfront town govts opposing it given the impact on local property tax revenues.
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.
