Another reasons to dislike a band member of Metallica. (Hiking,Yes Hiking,Related.)

[BeanoNYC]

James Hetfield put up a barbed wire fence on his property ending a 50 year easement allowing the access to public trails.

Douchin' with the wrong solution.

 

[Hawkshot99]

has erected a barbed-wire fence on his property

What is wrong with him putting up the fence? It is his property. He can do whatever he wants.

Hetfield's representatives have told county officials that the metal and barbed-wire fence is a response to vandalism on the property.

He put up the fence because people are causing problems.

How would you feel if people just start walking onto your property and vandalize it?

 

[BeanoNYC]

In doing so he's cutting off public access to public lands. They weren't hiking onto his property as much as they were hiking through to public lands. There has been an unwritten public easement in place prior to his purchase of the property.

 

[Hawkshot99]

There has been an unwritten public easement in place prior to his purchase of the property.

You would think that people would take care of his land then, since he can just pull away the rights.


And public land is shut down to the public all the time. In fact it is done by the same people who are bitching that they lost their trail..........They only want public land to exist if it is for them, if not they want it shut down

 

[BeanoNYC]

And public land is shut down to the public all the time. In fact it is done by the same people who are bitching that they lost their trail..........They only want public land to exist if it is for them, if not they want it shut down

Citation?

 

[Hawkshot99]

Citation?

Citation? All the federal land that gets turned into non-motorized by all the greenies so they can have peace. Then once they have it they dont use it and fight for more closed lands.....

 

[BeanoNYC]

All the federal land that gets turned into non-motorized by all the greenies so they can have peace.

That's a bad thing, Hawk? I'm confused here.

 

[Hawkshot99]

That's a bad thing, Hawk? I'm confused here.

Yes, yes it is............I am done here. There is no point in arguing this with you.

 

[BeanoNYC]

Yes, yes it is............I am done here. There is no point in arguing this with you.

I'm not arguing here, Hawk, I just don't see what your getting at. Perhaps we're on two sides of the conservation spectrum.

 

[Hawkshot99]

I'm not arguing here, Hawk, I just don't see what your getting at. Perhaps we're on two sides of the conservation spectrum.

Conservation is ok. But there is already way to much land "preserved" and yet they keep shutting down more and more "public lands"

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

Where's the lawsuit? I'm fuzzy on the details, but isn't there a legal concept out there called "adverse possession" about how you can lose certain private property rights to your land when you let somone use it uncontested for X numbers of years? In this case, the public had used the path for over 50 years, and when Metallica dude bought it he should have been aware of the use. Moreover, he let the use continue for 9 years....

Maybe "adverse possession" doesn't apply 'cause the owner allowed the public to cross his lands (even installing special gates for the hikers) and the public never had a claim of "ownership" on the land?

 

[BeanoNYC]

Where's the lawsuit? I'm fuzzy on the details, but isn't there a legal concept out there called "adverse possession" about how you can lose certain private property rights to your land when you let somone use it uncontested for X numbers of years? In this case, the public had used the path for over 50 years, and when Metallica dude bought it he should have been aware of the use. Moreover, he let the use continue for 9 years....

Maybe "adverse possession" doesn't apply 'cause the owner allowed the public to cross his lands (even installing special gates for the hikers) and the public never had a claim of "ownership" on the land?

No lawsuit, but it's probably coming.

 

[andyzee]

Here's a good one for you Beano. On Martha's Vineyard you could be charged for trespassing if you are swimming in front of someone's private beach. That term "private beach" is very vulgar to me.


(from: http://www.insidecapecod.com/main-marthasvineyard8.htm )

Many of the beaches on Martha's Vineyard are private. In fact, we only count a little more than a dozen public beaches out of all those 125 miles. The rest belong to the privileged few whose rights go down as far as the low-water mark, so you can't even swim by at high tide without being caught for trespassing!

 

[Rushski]

Many points made here. Hetfield is a self-serving goon who also thought he could take down filesharing. Don't believe his music is on iTunes, his loss.

Definitely torn on two of the topics discussed.

1. Public land is not always what it seems to be. Access to public land shouldn't be blocked, but a person's property rights are very important.

2. Conservation is very important to me. Motorized access does not fit in all areas. BUT, here in New England there is very little public land that allows ATVs/snowmobiles/4x4s to enjoy. Unless you want to go to Northern Maine and play tag with logging trucks.

 

[Greg]

Here's a good one for you Beano. On Martha's Vineyard you could be charged for trespassing if you are swimming in front of someone's private beach. That term "private beach" is very vulgar to me.


(from: http://www.insidecapecod.com/main-marthasvineyard8.htm )

Many of the beaches on Martha's Vineyard are private. In fact, we only count a little more than a dozen public beaches out of all those 125 miles. The rest belong to the privileged few whose rights go down as far as the low-water mark, so you can't even swim by at high tide without being caught for trespassing!

This is true of all beaches in Massachusetts which is not the norm in most states. In most states, the property owner owns up to the mean high water mark so in effect you could legally park your butt on the beach below that line. We discovered this when we got hassled by a property owner when out on the Cape last month. The ironic thing was we weren't even in front of that guy's property. He was taking it upon himself to speak for a neighboring property which was also occupied by a renter who had no problem with where we were.

 

[bvibert]

I hear where you're coming from Beano, but if people were really vandalizing his property then I think his actions were justified. IMHO he has no obligation to uphold verbal agreements made with former property owners. It sucks for people wanting to use the trail, but that's the way it is.

 

[roark]

It's obvious no one here is from CA.

If there was 'continuous and broad' public use of the trail prior to 1972 then public access must be maintained. EOS. Hetfield will have to take the fence down.

And beaches (except parts of Malibu) are almost entirely public (and most are accessed via public easements on private land).

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

It's his property..and Metallic Rocks..

 

[awf170]

It's his property..and Metallic Rocks..

Wrong. The first four albums rock, the fifth album is decent, and everything after that sucks ass.

 

[BeanoNYC]

This is true of all beaches in Massachusetts which is not the norm in most states. In most states, the property owner owns up to the mean high water mark so in effect you could legally park your butt on the beach below that line. We discovered this when we got hassled by a property owner when out on the Cape last month. The ironic thing was we weren't even in front of that guy's property. He was taking it upon himself to speak for a neighboring property which was also occupied by a renter who had no problem with where we were.

I learned that the easy way when I asked the owner of the place we were staying at if I can drink beer on the properties beach. He laughed at me and said I can do whatever I want short of rocking out with my cock out.

I hear where you're coming from Beano, but if people were really vandalizing his property then I think his actions were justified. IMHO he has no obligation to uphold verbal agreements made with former property owners. It sucks for people wanting to use the trail, but that's the way it is.

I'm hesitant to believe that his property was actually vandalized.

It's obvious no one here is from CA.

If there was 'continuous and broad' public use of the trail prior to 1972 then public access must be maintained. EOS. Hetfield will have to take the fence down.

And beaches (except parts of Malibu) are almost entirely public (and most are accessed via public easements on private land).

I was hoping you'd know the law in CA, roark. My original feeling was he could probably fence in everything up to that fire trail and make everyone happy.