I don't consider myself a "tree hugger" or similar, but I am conscious of my paper usage to hopefully save a tree or two. I'm not a fanatic environmentalist either, but I do my best not to pollute the water or damage the soil we walk/drive on. A land owner in a nearby county with 50+ acres that has some of the most beautiful streams over granite shoals that I've ever seen... decides to open an off roading course over, through, and in those streams. Trails through spring heads, grading in the stream channel to create a "bog" for the off road vehicles. Broken tail lights/vehicle lights and broken parts are everywhere. After years of operation somebody apparently, finally, turned him in to the EPD. Now repair plans have to be prepared, approved and implemented. In a very short timeframe. It took three full days of fieldwork to map all the damage and a fair amount of office time to draw the basemap for the engineers. I can't, for the life of me, understand why anyone would think that was OK. I'm glad my part in it is over.?ÿ
Yes, I guess to answer the question.
Though like you, I do wish that people would respect that land, and not abuse the right of ownership.
We might be at the other end of that spectrum around here. I can't imagine what you describe happening for more than a few hours before all heck broke loose.
Dunno, owning land involves stewardship and responsibility, no matter the size or location or improvements.
Do they deserve the opportunity? Sure. But is ownership a right? We speak often about how important our work is because the lines that we run are coincident with adjoining landowners and thus affecting them, but the same concept can be applied to ownership itself - if you own a piece of land, it touches all its adjoiners and influences them as well as the land beyond, so owners by definition ought to be cognizant and mindful of that relationship.
In the same way that not everyone is competent to survey land, not everyone is competent to be a steward of land. We just choose to codify requirements for the former rather than the latter.
And some (myself included) might argue that the de facto requirement for being a steward of land has little to do with competence and everything to do with currency ($$$), which is a poor stand-in for competence in any arena.
(Of course, we're also speaking as if the ability to own land is a foregone conclusion, which in the annals of time is a fairly recent concept and, as some would certainly argue, detrimental to the land itself as well as those who claim it.)
It seems to me there is a subset of the population that really doesn’t care a lick about good stewardship of their land. There are too many properties in certain neighborhoods around here that are clearly occupied by hoarders where every square inch is covered on old dilapidated vehicles, broken down equipment, construction debris, you name it. One I’m familiar with actually slowly expanded their debris field over on to their neighbor’s property by some distance and then took them to court trying to claim adverse possession. The neighbor has a well kept home and garage. Word has it that the neighbor with all the junk ended up costing him 10k in legal fees defending his title. Now there is a tall solid wood fence on the property line blocking view of the eye sore. I’ve done several surveys documenting this type of encroachment and I’m very grateful they are not my neighbors.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
I hate looking at other peoples messes. Probably just need another law. You can never have too many laws. The other option is choosing to live in a community of like minded people and have an HOA.
Lots of things in life people don’t deserve. That doesn’t mean they don’t get it good or bad.
Abuse comes in two forms. One is the environmental travesty in the OP. The other is wasting the true economic stimulus for the community by doing NOTHING with the land. One thoughtless fool doing this is bad. Dozens within a small area doing this can cripple the local economy.
IF AND ONLY IF you can contain all that crap on your property. Streams have this bad habit of flowing onto property owned by others. If you want to live in filth go right ahead, just don't force the rest of us.
Andy
From a legal standpoint, it's impossible for an individual to actually own land.
Would you care to expand upon that statement?
Own or fully control?
Deserve? Deserve is a tricky word. Plenty of people don't get what they deserve in life, good or bad.
But to answer the question I would refer to the tragedy of the commons. The idea (loosely) being most people treat something better if they have a personal stake in it, in this case ownership of the land. If this sounds like a reasonable conclusion to draw then the occasional landowner who doesn't treat his own property well would be an anomaly and perhaps not worth worrying about.
But, in my opinion, it's hard to estimate how much of a problem poor stewardship actually is. I've driven through miles and miles of immaculate farmland but I've also driven through cities where people hurl burger king bags out their car windows like the ROW is their personal dump.
Maybe the ideal solution is to somehow group the slobs together so they can live in one big community dump, out of sight and out of mind from everyone else.
Maybe the ideal solution is to somehow group the slobs together so they can live in one big community dump, out of sight and out of mind from everyone else.
Didn't they make a movie?
If you think your land is yours, stop paying property tax and find out.
There is no natural right to own land. Land tenure is intended to be for the purpose of maximizing the use of it to benefit society. This is the theory behind adverse possession, they who use the land can over time obtain a title to it.
If you think your land is yours, stop paying property tax and find out.
Or Eminent Domain. The memo line on my property tax check always references ‘Rent for Tax Parcels X & Y’
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
In the colonial period the King could take land for highways without compensation, after all the property owners got it from the King in the first place. It was part of your civic duty like jury duty.
Although I agree with you; it's called Liberty, and EVERYONE has it. right, wrong, or indifferent; you don't have to like it, but he can, because of liberty. It's even worse (or better, if you're "them") if they have money.
I'm not trying too offend you, or anyone else, and I hope this doesn't turn into a political argument; just pointing out the facts...
@bill93 Real Property is different than personal property in that you get certain rights for a certain amount of time, subject to the rights of others. All only good for as long as your governments military can protect those rights for you. Assuming your particular government allows individual rights.
In our system in the U.S. Title contains a bundle of rights, some of which are retained by the public at large, some of which can be split among real individuals and corporate individuals. In addition Title is further limited and described by Tenure, or how long it lasts and whether it can be inherited/passed to heirs.
Probably most Americans don't know that is the system we've always had, and think they "own" real property like they can own a steak and consume it in any way they want (including well done which should be against the law).
Although I agree with you; it's called Liberty, and EVERYONE has it. right, wrong, or indifferent; you don't have to like it, but he can, because of liberty. It's even worse (or better, if you're "them") if they have money.
I'm not trying too offend you, or anyone else, and I hope this doesn't turn into a political argument; just pointing out the facts...
no one has unrestricted liberty to do whatever they want, even in the U.S.
Hey, a well-done steak is the only proper way to consume one. I thought only cannibals were bloodsuckers until I met people who would tell the cook to knock the horns off'm, drag'm across the grill and put'm on my plate.