https://www.onxmaps.com/onx-access-initiatives/corner-crossi...
> What they had done was place an A-frame ladder across an intersection of property boundaries, the location where four parcels of land meet at a point. They climbed up one side of the ladder from public land, and down the other side of the ladder, stepping kitty-corner onto a different parcel of public land. But in doing so, their bodies also crossed through the airspace of the other two parcels meeting at that point, which were private. Their trial, set for mid-April, will decide if they trespassed when they passed through that private airspace.
This sounds so constructed, as if they wanted to provoke the precedent.
It's not like they didn't have the source material to base the story on, so why can't they pass that along to the reader in this day and age, to credit the source?
But no, apparently a retold story in someone else's words is better than being able to read the 50-page document that actually lays out the ruling..
Then there is the other case of large agriculture or forest lands. Without a specific reason, you are not allowed as a land owner to close this off to the public. Forests are to be held accessible to the public (e.g. for nature recreation), even if you own them. Even for farm land with animals, it is usually accepted that people (hikers, mountainbike etc.) pass through these. In case of fences for animals, it is also generally accepted to climb over these (of course, you're responsible for damage either to the property or yourself*).
And a last anecdotal note: I have a friend who hikes with a group of 3-4 people every year based on (pretty) straight lines through Germany. They usually sleep on the ground (without tents) wherever they are when night comes. This is often on private land. Their experiences were almost all positive, land owners even come to bring them water, to talk etc. Some first watch curiously but are fine when the story is told.
* There's a strange ruling that you, as an owner, can be held liable for people hurting themselves on your ground, even when they're (e.g.) thieves trying to break into your property. I think this ruling is created to prevent land owners creating traps, where children can fall into holes etc.
Nobody should be the sole owner of a beach, lake, river, or mountain.
[https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=23&page=322]
It is quite an entertaining listen - 1:03 is where he explains the background and 1:08 onwards is where the interview starts: https://www.themeateater.com/listen/meateater/ep-342-getting...
[1] "Any damages Eshelman would claim for that alleged transgression would be limited to “nominal damages” and not the $7.75 million Eshelman had claimed in lost ranch value, the judge wrote."
Apparently to encourage railways railway builders were given every other square mile of land on each side of the railway. But that should only create 2 "rows" of checkers, each accessible either from above or below. The only way to create a full checkerboard would be to build multiple railways, in parallel, only 2 miles apart. I cannot believe people did that, so what am I missing here?
I’m all for property rights but if you own a big chunk of land …. this seems less consequential than someone stepping off the sidewalk onto my lawn, or an out of control kid crashing their bike into my yard…
Anyone using the ladder in the photo seems VERY considerate.
Link to judge's decision https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/opinions/22-cv-...
I can't imagine that if this was a significant cost for the party filing the suit that they would have prosecuted it.
Given the wording of the law (even absent the recent subsequent laws) you can't claim privilege over public land like that.
If the ruling were any different it would have been terrible for the idea of public lands being for public use.
So here is a mirror: https://archive.ph/vVoLH
He'd been a lot richer if he constructed a private road and charged a toll. He'd have defacto control of who crosses and it'd be quite profitable too.
Instead he got caselaw against him and is left with nothing. Lesson about greed here!
What sort of a sociopathic son of a bitch do you have to be to tie up so many resources on such a minor transgression? That dude eats babies for sure.
(I'm not justifying this claim, of course, just providing information in case anyone was wondering where the number came from.)
Edit: the number came from a real estate agent acting as an expert witness, who said he would drop the value by 25% or 30%; it's not a mathematical/geometrical argument.