BeanoNYC
Active member
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.
Douchin' with the wrong solution.
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
What is wrong with him putting up the fence? It is his property. He can do whatever he wants.has erected a barbed-wire fence on his property
He put up the fence because people are causing problems.Hetfield's representatives have told county officials that the metal and barbed-wire fence is a response to vandalism on the property.
There has been an unwritten public easement in place prior to his purchase of the property.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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!
It's his property..and Metallic Rocks..
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 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.
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).