Search results

But it is functionally the same whether there is an easement or a change to the rights of property no? Changing the rights of property makes more sense to me because it still leaves landowners with the freedom to develop/change their land and control the other rights established by property...

I does feel like you are not hearing what I'm saying yeah. The places where I have stated an actual proposal past saying freedom to roam sounds cool I have specified that there should be some required distance away from developed areas that people must stay, you are correct that if someone threw...

That's really neat, I was imagining something much bigger.

The technical wording of the bill though retains private property, it is only made publically accessible through easements. Even though it is advertised as public land it is not it is a network of public land and private easements "According to Pogue P. and Lee V., 1999, "Providing Public Access...

Do you have a picture/dimensions of what you figured out? I found this site but what they refer to as a bolt doesn't seem like it fits

But they aren't public land. Plain and simple many miles of Oregon beach are owned by private citizens, not the Public, just as many miles of streams (riverbed and all) in Montana are owned by private citizens. It does not feel like a reasonable answer to the question to just say well I believe...

Yeah I've heard varying things, from some of the stuff I've read it's legally pretty unclear today since judges have been unwilling to give more specific rulings about how to apply the law moving forward as whichever direction they go will piss people off.

Looking into Montana's more it looks like they use easements at least from reading the subtext of the SB 497 bill here, so it is still people fishing/wading/recreating on private property

Yeah I know, the boat part is Oregon's definition of navigable, I think Washington's is to float a pallet of wood or something similar I'm pretty sure someone mentioned it earlier in this thread. I think Oregon has some weirdness in that it does not define what type of boat, like does it have to...

Below the high water mark is only public land on navigable rivers, whatever the state defines as navigable, so I guess a more specific question would be do you support the recent bill in Montana that would have changed their stream access laws, given that it does allow people to wade on private...

They aren't my kids I don't think I would raise children, if I had them, to get in other people's space willy-nilly not least for their own safety in the future and not getting into bad situations. It is nice to see the kids running around outside and having fun though, I think if they were my...

Sorry, I said not applicable because freedom-to-roam laws would typically not apply/give a wide berth to a developed area which the houses in a typical suburban neighborhood would absolutely be. Thanks, everyone for engaging! it's really nice to hear everyone's perspectives, I'm gonna try to...

If I am interpreting you correctly this means you support removing public stream access laws correct? Landowners put a large investment into buying riverside property and pay taxes on that property and access to the river makes those taxes and initial cost higher, they may even have spent...

Yes but suburban, so not really applicable to this conversation, even so, I don't really mind when kids in my neighborhood run through my yard or workers for the city or utility companies come into the backyard without asking to check meters or do powerline maintenance. I recognize that some...

Would a similar opposition apply to dam removals? Would you oppose a dam removal because landowners bought lakeside property, and their property value will certainly fall post-removal? Is there a point where you think the potential public good outweighs the landowners potential loss?

Yeah, It's not a great political climate to question which rights property owners have, makes me kind of sad though it seems like the majority of people recognize most current infringements as relatively good things such as restricting dumping like @Jake mentioned or stream and beach access...

But they already do meet in some places, such as the Oregon Beach Bill or stream access laws, I'm wondering what it would take to expand it further.

That's really a really interesting perspective, why do you think time in place changes the level of support you have for a policy over your opinion of the policy itself? Are there other situations where you think historical precedent/weight can outweigh your personal support for policy change?

Oh! I can't believe I forgot this recent thread too! This proposed bill (that thankfully did not pass) would have restored property rights to owners of bankside property on many Montana streams by restricting the freedom to roam, but I suspect that the vast majority of people in this thread/on...

Sorry, I meant like the typical tort case historically