big problem in Montana.

Daughter moved there, and on a recent visit, we experienced this ourselves. The east side of the Crazy Mtns. is a flash point. USFS Ranger fired for sticking up for public lands, then re-hired. Lots of corruption and payoffs. In many cases, landowners are wealth out-of-staters. Like Gianforte, their new US Congressman.


http://montanauntamed.com/montana-untamed/article_4aa991d4-e9e9-551f-9bc8-2e58d68d1899.html

<snip>

A Livingston-based district ranger for the Custer Gallatin National Forest will be reinstated on Oct. 23 following an internal review of his conduct in a hotly disputed public access case in the Crazy Mountains.

Alex Sienkiewicz was removed from his job on June 16 and reassigned to the forest’s work on a proposed mineral withdrawal in the Paradise Valley. Even after his reinstatement he will continue to work on the mineral withdrawal, said Teri Seth, acting public information officer for the forest.

Sienkiewicz, who has been a vocal advocate for maintaining and securing public access to public lands, was cleared by a human resources review, Seth said. The review was related to his conduct concerning Trail 115, a historical route that accesses the east side of the Crazy Mountains by first crossing private property — the Hailstone Ranch owned by Lee Langhus. In the past Langhus has said, through his attorney, that the trail does not provide a legal public easement across his ranch.

encroach on every tract of land within their reach. Not just public.

They are everywhere.

he's at the USFS and got re-assigned for advocating for trad public access points. it got turned around, but under the Asshole Administration, those Friends of Zinke will pull more and more weight.

steinkewicz, subject of this article?!

I didn't look at the link!

my excuse is that I'm at work...

Eom

Panama City Beach is basically unusable now unless you are staying in one of the high rise condos.

Locally, in Ponte Vedra Beach, there are beach access points. The home owners plant hedges, remove the signs etc. to block access.

So what did the local government do? Stopped the public parking on the side of A1A. Now you have to walk miles to get to the access points.

unless we're dealing with the crap beaches

tRump will reall fuck this up especially if he could use executive order (which i don't know)

Last edited Tue Jan 23, 2018, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)

In 1995 a rich land owner blocked off access to the Rio Grande in the Albuquerque area that had been used by landowners since at least the 40's with the original purpose to be watering their livestock. This was a very rural area because it is in the river floodplain. Over the years people started moving in to build houses on the available lands. People then started to use this access of a path of maybe a 100 yards from a road ending to the diversion channels as a recreational tool for walking and bike riding.

In 1995 the absent landowner wanted to sell the property (plus some other attached land) and was told by the surveyor that there was an established trail and that the New Mexico constitution allows for prescriptive easement that have been used that way for over 10 years to remain for the users. He was told to put up a fence to establish his ownership and stop users of the trail.

The owners of houses and lands in the immediate area that butted up against the open space land are what you could easily call "rich" including the vacant land that was in question now. That parcel was owned by a lawyer named Jonathan Sutin. The neighborhood went to discuss with him about having the trail restored for the use of everyone and that would he sell a small sliver for that purpose. He basically said- 1-Buy all the property ( about 5 acres at premium price, 2- find a buyer that would do that, 3- sue him.

The neighborhood took on the task of suing him for access. We had a pro-bono lawyer ( who had lived next door to these "rich" people ( Sutin's supporters) and went about the effort. We are talking hundreds of supporters (edited to add) for keeping access..

We were trying to establish a public prescriptive easement, not just a private one. There were many neighborhood meetings and fundraisers. Lots of support. It took a long time and ultimately we lost the fight. Process was about 7 years- lost finally in 2002.

Here are a couple of interesting points. It went to NM Supreme Court for final determination. The defendant (J. Sutin) was elected to the NM Court of Appeals during this time. Lost in local court but we went on. It bypassed the Appeals court.

The NM Supreme court was one of heavily conservative bent. It failed because there had been one instance where one of the plaintiffs had said that they had waved to one of the "rich" neighbors, hence they had given permission to use the path ( this was weird in it's reasoning because the path was not on their property). So be it. Of note about "rich" people: at one time in the neighborhood discussion with them one of them claimed that we ( the people who wanted a path) were just "wanna be's" and that we were jealous of their wealth- no joke- they said something like that.

At one time in the negotiations they proposed a restrictive access to just the plaintiffs and with a timeline that would eventually end. The neighborhood said- no way. This should be a public access and they would not take that deal.

Quite a process. It revealed the thoughts and just simply the exclusivity that "rich" people adhere to. But it also showed the determination and community consideration of others that went beyond their own specific benefit. Humbling indeed.

The NM Supreme Court ruling (rather detailed) is at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nm-supreme-court/1253882.html

I used to have regular confrontations with their security staff when I was doing my obsessive running and swimming routine.

Look, if you have security staff harassing random joggers passing your beach front property then you have way too much money.