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
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.
