-
California Fencing Bill 1404
Seems like a good idea:
David K-
I don’t know if part of the Bill includes the cost of surveying the line first.
In Ontario we have the Line Fences Act:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90l17_e.htm
Cheers,
Derek
-
7 Replies
-
The last case they could find was 1964, the law was written in 1872 and they think they need a new law? Why?
Why do I think that after the new law goes into effect things will get worse, not better. Just saying.:-(
-
> The last case they could find was 1964, the law was written in 1872 and they think they need a new law? Why?
>Well, the lawyers just can’t have landowners resolving fence disputes without seeking court involvement for another 49 years can they??
-
The bill is offensive in that it forces a person who does not want a fence at all to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she won’t benefit. I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole law is thrown out by a court.
-
Aston,
I think your misinterpreting the new law. It sounds like the under the old law the property owner could send the adjoining land owners a bill for their share of the fence and by statute they were required to pay, no matter what. As a note, Oregon law is this way. The new law at least gives you a way out of paying.
John
-
That Law Assumed Farmed Areas Benefited From Fences…
…And the cost of farm fences was not excessive.
Today fences are built for other reasons: security, privacy, confining vicious children and animals.
Considering the above:
Why should I share the cost of protecting my neighbor’s obscene amount of goods?
Why should I pay to block my view of the neighbor’s comely wife when she sunbathes or swims “au naturale”?
Why should I pay to confine the neighbor’s pit bull when I would sooner “shoot the bitch”?
Having a secure fence may lower the neighbor’s insurance premium, am I entitled to part of his savings?
If I pay a share of the fence required by law around his pool, do I get to swim in it?
This is why our country is going broke, too many people want others to pay for the wants.
Paul in PA
-
Just because the new version of the law isn’t as bad as the old version doesn’t mean it’s good.
Vermont has a similar law, requiring fences, but the Vermont Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional with respect to non-agricultural properties.
-
That Law Assumed Farmed Areas Benefited From Fences…
I believe, in WA state, the fence law requires you to share the value of a fence, and its maintenance, if its presence creates an enclosure for you.
This is true, even if the fence predates your use of it as part of your enclosure.
-All thoughts my own, except my typos and when I am wrong.
Log in to reply.