Heh heh ... :)
I did talk to the park rangers today, and they said they'll install signs as they don't want to maintain the trail at their expense either.
And they said that they will put up a trail cam to see what the number of people are.
You're losing your credibility.
Up until now you were pretty much logical. But now you're not.
If the public wants to use my land, they can *pay* me for the costs incurred.
I'm not asking for that, but they're not offering to pay either. So it makes no sense for me to have my tools stolen when they're sitting on my yard, and to have my kids accosted by foul-mouthed strangers, and to have my peace and quiet disturbed, and my costs for maintenance and my risk for liability and my inability to close a road, etc., if they're not willing to pay for their fair share.
Nobody is offering - and I'm not asking - but anyone who wants to use my land should compensate me for the loss and that compensation is so high that any one individual isn't willing to shoulder that cost.
Are you?
I agree with you that closing the road is too onerous. Signage is what we need.
Legally that's the wrong set of words, but the concept is correct. The correct set of words is described in this PDF:
I don't know if that one-day-a-year road closure is actually needed, but it does seem like a good insurance policy to do so, which *proves* that you
*can* do it.The police were called this weekend, and they didn't stop me; which is the point that we're establishing that "we" have control of the road access.
I did take a picture and posted it already:
Yeah. Tell that to the personal injury lawyers. :)
It doesn't matter. If you let someone on your property, you're responsible. If you don't stop someone from being on your property, you're responsible. If you tried to stop them, and they still came on, you're still responsible, but you have a better case (and they have a worse case).
Thanks. Would you like to pay my premiums?
I own the road, and my insurance costs me thousands of dollars every year.
OK. Up until now you were reasonable. You have absolutely no idea how much money it would costs to improve a road that is about a half mile long.
It's more money than I own.
From your armchair seat, that's understandable. But not from mine.
The zoning out here is 40 acres to a property. Anything less than 80 acres can't be subdivided.
Oh, it was much worse. The police were even offended enough to not even write up a report when they called the police on me for blocking the road.
I'll stop responding if you continue down this disrespectful tack.
You can write what you want on Usenet; but you should also be a tiny bit logical when you write stuff.
Did you see the picture of the roadblock?
That was up for two entire days, from 7am to 5pm, and the police were called by an irate biker and they showed up and explained that I need better signs.
Do you think they would have let me block a public road? Do you think whomever you are intimating has an easement would let me block them from passing?
While I do understand that this is the wild west of Usenet, you have to be somewhat logical in your accusations.
My title company knows of no easements other than the other property owners. That's all I can tell you. There is nothing being ignored.
The road exists for the other people. I own most of the road, although they own their portions too. There is no way to travel from the public road to their house without driving on my property and on their property.
So, the answer is that "I" own a substantial portion of the road in its entirety, and they own a portion also.
We're all in agreement that the sole purpose of the road is to serve the people who have the benefit (and who paid for long ago) of an easement.
I was talking within the context of the thread. But in more detail, That's easy to avoid without closing the whole road off to the bicyclists.
It's the wrong set of words for what you had wanted to accomplist.
These are the wrong set of words for what I want. Check with your minister and see which he says are better.
You're still thinking about your original goal. I'm telling you the alternative, that can satisfy your understandable desire not to create an easement but which will also allow the bicyclists to use the road.
I'm not going to go into what's wrong with your picture, because I'm not interested in furthering your goal, only my alternate suggestion.
Your home insurance will handle nuisance suits, if there are any.
Who told you that? Your lawyer? You need another one.
You're already paying them. You may not know your lot's boundaries but the insurance company does.
That's what I just said, you're already paying them.
They're not going to ask for any improvements. Nothing will have changed.
So I'm right.
So what did they say?
You don't consider the goal of behaving with love for your neighbor** to be logical? Wow.
**Neigbhor in the Bible doesn't refer to the people who own the lot next door. It refers to people in general. If you don't claim to have a religion and you don't find the Bible holy, than I woudln't be on this topic, but I first asked if you adhered to a religion and you didn't answer, so I'm talking as you affiliate with one that holds the Bible holy.There have been no costs incurred.
Have any of your tools been stolen? Were your kids exposed to bad language at any other tmie than the while you were arguing with the bicyclists? I think you shoudl do what the police said to do.
You haven't lost anything yet, and you won't.
You don't have anything I want and I don't even like you.
What was disrespectful. You snipped what he was replying to, so it's harder to tell what he meant, but I went back and looked and he's referring to what the other homeowners on your road might not be telling you.
He ends his sentence in a question mark, so he's plainly suggesting a hypothesis. What is disrpectful about that? That he suggests you would ignore it? Well maybe they haven't told you about it, or for all he knows, they told you once and you dont' believe them, but I dont' see how either is disrspectful. Things like that happen.
And it was logical too.
Sure. If no one was complaining, or in this case, no one but people who had already passed through.
"The police are not there to cause disorder; they are there to preserve disorder." ;-)
You mean "whoever". He was clearly suggesting the bicyclists had an easement, and they did not "let you block them". They rode through despite your objection and then called the police.
That applies equally to you.
They are referring to easements that have been registered with the county clerk's office, not those that havent' been adjudicated yet.
Really? Didn't the previous owners and the other current owners allow it? Why?
Not sure about the uniform or employment status but here Sunday deliveries are done with official USPS Grumman LLVs.
You might want to do a bit of reading. Can trespassers sue? Implied consent? Attractive nuisance? I wouldn't want to get sued even if only just because of the inconvenience. There are better ways to spend time than talking to attorneys or sitting in court.
Some cut here and there.
Camera reviews here:
A thread that you apparently either haven't been reading in order or in it's entirety.
"How do you know what order I read the posts in, if I red (sic) that post at all?"
Just sayin'
Assuming that's true, it's just further prove that standardized tests don't evaluate common sense.
That would break my heart. I would have loved to have heard the complete conversation with the bicyclists. What did you say to them before they told you to shove your cones up your ass sideways?
Yeah. That impresses me as much as the people who put chairs out on a public street to mark 'their' parking space.
That was the same cops that said it wasn't marked as a private road on their map?
The bicyclists? Yeah, you stopped them right in their tracks.
Accusations?
Have you contacted the county?
You actually own the road? Your neighbors have an easement so they can use your road or else their property is landlocked? You built and maintain the road?
Police offend very easily. They're particularly offend by having to do extra paperwork for some homeowner's dispute with the public.
If it's really your road with no easements and not owned by a HOA, can you put up a gate?
Nice idea!
I like them.
They're about 200 bucks.
I can string a power cord to the road, so I'll look for less expensive cameras that can connect to the mains too.
Thanks. Inexpensive trailcams might be a nice topic in and of itself.
It was never allowed.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.