My friends brother bought a property several miles out of town that was zoned agriculture. He started a game farm and hunting lodge with all county permits and approval. No problems until years later land development built residential housing near the game farm and the new property owners convinced the county to rescind the permit for the game farm and hunting lodge citing a "game farm and hunting lodge" wasn't agriculture. So he was forced to close operations. He then proceeded to start a pig farm which caused the nearby neighbors even greater distress, but, the county said the pig farm was perfectly good. He's still farming pigs.
A couple of decades ago, people in Colorado tried to outlaw pig farming cause it was too stinky. That's what we get for not teaching farming to our children. Everybody thinks food comes from the store.
I love to kayak fish. One day I launched at a culvert on a county road and went down the creek to a natural lake and began fishing. A homeowner came out and started yelling at me that the lake was private. I just kept on fishing and ignored him and moved to the other side of the lake, not wanting to get into a fight. Half an hour later a county sheriff motioned me to shore. He asked me how I got onto the lake, and I explained how. Then he apparently told the angry homeowner there was nothing he could do as I had not trespassed or broken any laws. A month later I returned and found a wire fence across the creek loaded with debris. I returned to my vehicle and called the DNR to report it before going elsewhere to fish. I found out later the same homeowner had erected the fence to keep me or others like me out. What he hadn't bargained on was the DNR. He was fined $8,000 and sentenced to 60 hours of community service for obstructing a protected water way.
Nice outcome. Small streams, and artificial culverts may not be legally navigable, so they don't always provide a legal access even when the lake itself would be fair game.
@@suedenim9208 that depends on the waterway and who owns it. In this case it sounds like county or state. Even if it was private property you can still get nailed as the land owner for messing with a stream.
If you are harrassed while hunting/fishing with a fishing/hunting license, this can seriously elevate the crime the other person is perpetrating on you.
Several years ago a retired Judge bought a piece of farm land about a quarter mile from our Model Airplane Flying Field. The Model Airplane site had been in use with the approval of local governments for over 40 years. The Judge did everything he could to shutdown the flying site but he lost in every court. He got his way after the land was annexed by the city of Omaha and local officials decided that he was right. To their credit the city built an even better flying site at a nearby park adjacent to a lake. Now we have both a 200' asphalt runway and a seaport. BTW, the Judge died 2 months after we moved our flying field.
Karma. Was it a heart attack? One of "The Big Ones" where the heart practically seizes up and you grab your chest, and just fall over in excruciating pain for a moment and then blackness? Because that would have been a classic "May God Strike Me Down" ending for the man.
The Werefrog remember that case. It was so stupid. As far as The Werefrog am concerned, if it's there when you move it, that's your own look out. It's like people who move in near a church or monastery that rings its bells every hour or during services or whatever, then complain that they ring the bell.
@@CardboardBots That's nothing. Read the news. Far darker stuff happens on a daily basis. Wondering how some spiteful self-important braggart with apparent connections and "old friends" met his end, barely registers these days.
I can't count the number of times I've seen reports of homeowners complaining at city council meetings about airport noise. It always begs the question, did they not know buying a house under a flight path near an airport would have them hearing noise made by airplane engines?
In the early/mid 1990s I lived in a suburb that was established in the 1970s about 2-3 miles from an oil refinery that had been built in the early 1960s.. There were residents that demanded that the refinery should move!
worse, a lot of those complainers work at or for those airports, or for companies that wouldn't exist without those airports. It's the same where I live. Airport's been there since the 1920s, people move in next door and immediately start complaining that the airport should be closed... While living in houses that received extra noise insulation courtesy of the airport... About 15 years ago the main airport here decided to play some games with the worst complainers. They deliberately put incorrect departure times for some flights on their public announcements, noise complaints came in for those specific flights hours before those flights had even departed. When confronted, several of them admitted that they were being paid by "environmentalists" to file complaints against the airport.
If the airport moved in after you bought your property, you might have a case. But if the airport was already there, and you bought property next door, don't complain that the airplanes make noise. You will get nowhere, and people will hate you.
Technically you have the right to quiet enjoyment of your property, it's in the bundle of right. So the airport "should" install newer sound proof windows and a/c units for those house that they ruin "quiet enjoyment" for neighbors. As a homeowner, you own the land from the center of the earth to the highest skies of your property. So a plane overhead does go into your airspace. But you probably lost that right a long time ago
@@Honkers716 Great now i am picturing a Karen hearing thay and shooting down any planes with a SAM site or doing a unholy screech that breaks the neighbor.
Here in Las Vegas, Nevada, we had a pig farm for many year on the north side of the valley. When it was established it was in a remote location far from its nearest neighbor. I grew up about 10 miles from the 'pig farm', and when the wind was right you could smell it. In the 80's developers bought up the land adjacent to the 'pig farm' and built houses on it. The home owners there complained constantly about the smell, but the pigs were there first. Another example is Nellis AFB. Developers bought up the land on the south end of the runway and built houses there. Soon after the home owners were complaining about the noise. Nellis is an extremely active training base, flight operations can take place 24 hours a day, especially during the annual 'Red Flag' operations. Again, the USAF was there first, your poor decisions have consciences.
and I'm sure the development companies made sure to have public showings for their expensive houses and condos only during lulls in the training schedule at Nellis, so as to deceive the customers into thinking there wouldn't be many aircraft movements...
Reminds me of this: Luke AFB is west of Phoenix and is rapidly being surrounded by civilization that complains about the noise from the base and its planes, forgetting that it was there long before they were... A certain lieutenant colonel at Luke AFB deserves a big pat on the back. Apparently, an individual who lives somewhere near Luke AFB wrote the local paper complaining about a group of F-16s that disturbed his/her day at the mall. When that individual read the response from a Luke AFB officer, it must have stung quite a bit. The complaint: 'Question of the day for Luke Air Force Base: Whom do we thank for the morning air show? Last Wednesday, at precisely 9:11 A.M, a tight formation of four F-16 jets made a low pass over Arrowhead Mall, continuing west over Bell Road at approximately 500 feet. Imagine our good fortune! Do the Tom Cruise-wannabes feel we need this wake-up call, or were they trying to impress the cashiers at Mervyn's early bird special? Any response would be appreciated. The response: Regarding 'A wake-up call from Luke's jets' On June 15, at precisely 9:12 a.m. , a perfectly timed four-ship fly by of F-16s from the 63rd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base flew over the grave of Capt. Jeremy Fresques. Capt. Fresques was an Air Force officer who was previously stationed at Luke Air Force Base and was killed in Iraq on May 30, Memorial Day. At 9 a.m. on June 15, his family and friends gathered at Sunland Memorial Park in Sun City to mourn the loss of a husband, son and friend. Based on the letter writer's recount of the fly by, and because of the jet noise, I'm sure you didn't hear the 21-gun salute, the playing of taps, or my words to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques as I gave them their son's flag on behalf of the President of the United States and all those veterans and servicemen and women who understand the sacrifices they have endured.. A four-ship fly by is a display of respect the Air Force gives to those who give their lives in defense of freedom. We are professional aviators and take our jobs seriously, and on June 15 what the letter writer witnessed was four officers lining up to pay their ultimate respects. The letter writer asks, 'Whom do we thank for the morning air show'? The 56th Fighter Wing will make the call for you, and forward your thanks to the widow and parents of Capt Fresques, and thank them for you, for it was in their honor that my pilots flew the most honorable formation of their lives. Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom. Lt. Col. Grant L. Rosensteel, Jr.
We have a similar problem in Florida, I'll refer to as "Wet Foot/Dry Foot Access". As a 5th generation Florida Native, I've always understood that the sand up to the base of the dunes was public access. However, a couple of years ago the state of Florida passed a law giving beachfront property owners the right to keep the public off all dry sand from the base of the dunes down to the high tide line. In some areas that's a significant stretch of sand. Not to mention that beach access is shrinking all the time. Fewer and fewer crossovers with little or no parking for citizens to actually get on the beach. When I was a kid there were very few buildings along the beachfront and we kids would play in a maze of trails in the dunes under the canopy of sea grape trees. Those days are gone. Even more irritating, some homeowners along the intercoastal will yell at boaters who fish too close to their docks, like they own the water too! I want my state back!
Where I grew up, there was one small apartment building on the beach, and I think a tiny strip mall and a few beach houses a few miles south. Now it's wall to wall condos on A1A. Fortunately, Brevard County obtained several beach parks. I noticed recently that they now have pedestrian access between aforementioned apartment building and a new condo. In the early 1970s you could park your car on the shoulder of A1A, walk over the dune down to the beach. They were already getting bossier by the late '70s. The county's basically run by military retirees and engineers, not surfers. LOL
It's not always as simple as median high tide or wet foot/dry foot. For instance, if federal, state and local funds were used to reconstruct an eroded section of beach, the adjoining property owners (our beloved beachfronters) effectively granted the people a 99-year easement across the sand that was bought and paid for with taxpayer money. Although this little detail wasn't widely reported when the law was passed and is still largely unknown, most of our Florida beaches have been reconstructed within the last 99 years. Our right to access is protected through these associated easements. Median high tide generally doesn't apply.
I've always thought, in these situations, that the property line should be a set distance from the house. The bit where you said about people buying next to a farm or a speedway made me think of something that happened about 25 years ago in one of the outer suburbs of Perth (Western Australia) about 70 kilometres from where I live. A family had run a successful free range chicken farm for 40 years. They sold eggs and free range chickens to the big supermarkets as well as smaller customers. Then a couple of neighbouring mixed use farms were sold to a developer and up went a housing development. Well lots of houses got built and pretty soon the chicken farm had LOTS of neighbours and people started complaining about the noises and activities coming from the farm. After lots of legal back and forth the courts decided the people who'd bought homes in the housing development had a right to live in peace and not be disturbed by "farm" sounds, so the farm had to go. I've always thought the ruling was TOTALLY UNFAIR as the farm was there first and the home owners knew it was there before they bought. The farming family had no choice but to sell to the developer at a loss.
"The farming family had no choice but to sell to the developer at a loss." Of course, we all know this was probably the reason for the ruling, not the "peace" of the neighbors.
One time I was working on site in NJ at a sewage treatment plant. The plant was built in the 60's at relatively remote location at the time. The town built ballparks adjacent to the plant. About 25 years later a developer bought the land adjacent to the ballparks and built high-end condos. The new condo owners apparently never bothered to find out what the plant was. Needless to say, the complaints about the aroma came in when the wind was blowing the right direction. The last I know the plant was still there.
This is why I'm glad to live in a "right to farm" community. There are 4 working orchards and several working farms in our town and our bylaws protect their right to operate from silliness like this.
Happened to me been a dairy farmer for 50 years had a family bought a small property quarter of a mile down the road moved out from the city. Tried to get the sheriff to stop me from milking before 9 in the morning as the noise distrurbed them when the sheriff told them he couldn’t do that they tried suing me the Judge threw out the case and told off their lawyer.
City people are idiots sometimes. I am a country/City girl-raised in the country and love it but prefer to live in the city and have access to electricity water and heat year round. But Country people are extra idiotic in the city sometimes too! Worse than both of them are suburbanites who are out of place everywhere! LOL!
I live in a small housing development surrounded on all sides by farmland. When I bought the house, I had to sign documents stating that the farms are going to operate at all hours of the day and night on occasion and will be loud sometimes. I knew what I was getting into though. I can't remember the last time I heard them at night, so it hasn't be bad at all. I like the little area.
I used rent a beachfront house for a week every year when the kids were little. It was beautiful and the owner had explained the high-water rule to us. Everyone along the beach was respectful and pleasant. The one problem, like you mentioned, was the neighbors kids. They would come down to their parents house with a group of friends and have big fire and whole lot of beer. My only problem was that they didn’t properly douse the fire and also disposed of glass beer bottles in the fire. My kids were small and could step on that glass or still hot embers and get seriously injured. Luckily it never happened but to keep the kids safe, I would do the clean up. It always bothers me when people think only if themselves and care little about what might happen.
This is an issue at every beach, be it on lakes, rivers, creeks, oceans, bays, or anywhere people drink, camp, and build fires. You can fix ignorance with education, mental issues with drugs and therapy, but there is no fix for stupid.
In South Australia, a club that I belonged to purchased a valley within a farm for a rifle range. It was perfect and approved by the authorities as safe for long range and short range rifle shooting. As part of the deal, we purchased a strip of land wide enough for a wide driveway. We had contractors grade and form a compressed gravel driveway, about 3 miles long, from the roadway to the rifle range and put a sign up saying “Rifle range” so that people could find us (we offered day permits to use the range). The farmer sold blocks of land (unserviced) along the driveway for about a mile, say 40 blocks. After a while the new residents, who gave their address as “x Rifle range road” complained to the council (city) that the road was difficult to drive on and should be bitumanised. At that time, they discovered that what they thought was a road was in fact a driveway, owned by our club, and that there was a rifle range at the end of the driveway! They petitioned to have the rifle range closed and lost. Strictly, we could have denied them access but we didn’t as the farmer was probably at fault. Even though they did not have a formal address, the postal service delivered mail addressed to Rifle Range Road, the water was connected and electricity was reticulated to their houses (as a spur off our line to the range that we had paid for). After a while it all settled down and the range is still there and in daily use some 60 years later.
I bought my house on the glide path to a big airport, about 8000 ft from the end of the runway. I knew what I was doing and understood that there was a noise abatement ordinance in place restricting most air operations between 10 PM and 7 AM. Most often the flights are taking off over my house, so they climb rapidly and often turn before they are directly over my house. It's worse when they are landing as they have to follow the glide path which is directly over my house and at a lower altitude. I have lodged complaints when the air operations are outside of the specified hours and the airlines get fined, the money going to the city library system. Eventually, the worst offender ceased operations at the airport. Like you said, know what the rules are before you buy.
Used to scuba dive in a lake whose homes were owned by multi-millionaires. Boat captain took us to an under water wall. Didn't use a nearby dock, didn't touch the land. A person comes out and is yelling at us. The captain responds back that "you don't even live here. I have the permission of the owner to allow us to dive here. I asked for permission only out of respect to the owner. I don't even need his permission, this is a public lake. We'll be gone in a little over an hour." She wanted to call the police - such a Karen.
I've been on one wall dive, and it was pretty cool, especially since it was before our shark dive and sharks were already showing up, but you do have to keep a close eye on your depth gauge, especially since we didn't have dive computers back then. I just tried to stay above the rest of the group, especially since I was a bit out of shape at the time and wanted to conserve a bit of air and the group had to head back when even one person started getting low on air.
"We'll be gone in a little over an hour." That part should never have been mentioned. That part Implies that you are compromising a little, when there is zero reason to.
@@shawbros Never compromise to a Karen if there are witnesses. I only say the later so you don't get a sexual assault charge for looking at her the wrong way.
When people tell me they're gonna call the cops my reply is "Good! Call someone who matters because your opinion doesn't!" The one time someone did call the cops, They ended up nearly shitting themselves when I brought up pressing charges for hunter/fisherman harassment.
Just wanted to note that in some states people are allowed to walk above the high-water mark to clear an obstacle which can be anything from a rock to a dam and more. I apologize if this has been said a thousand times previous as I didn't read back too far
Disney learned this lesson on Wabasso Beach, just north of Vero Beach, Florida, when they fenced the beach off from their little resort there out into the water. Someone sued and Disney very reluctantly removed the fence. You don't own the beach.
@Steven Strain That's slightly different, because he isn't fighting ownership of the beach (which has always been the law - to the mean high tide mark), but the California Coastal Commission law that requires that he maintain an easement for people to access it through his land. As Steve mentioned, that isn't the law in most places, but it is in California. I'm not saying California is wrong (I certainly made good use of such easements growing up there), but it is a different issue than ownership of the beach itself. Under federal law, he might just win, because (unlike the case in the video) he's fighting about property he actually does legally own. I hope he doesn't though, because California's laws regulating public access to beaches is what makes their beaches so much better than those where the uber-rich can exclude everyone else, or develop right up to them so no one gets to enjoy them.
@@Androctonus84 he might well have very valid security concerns for which to need to close off that access. I know someone who has survived 3 assassination and 2 kidnapping attempts (that I know of, there may have been more) in the past 18 months alone. They employ a private security force, live in a walled compound with electrified fencing on top of said wall, etc. etc. One of those attempts on their lives was in such a beach front California property (they were renting it) where a team of armed assailants tried to get in past the security fencing. Had that fencing not extended into the water they'd have succeeded and a bloody firefight ensued that'd have no doubt left several people dead. In the end they managed to get away using fast boats while the attackers tried to get over the walls and fences. Police didn't arrive until they were gone but before anyone breached the compound. I know that's an exception. But valid reasons do exist for such extreme security measures.
@@jwenting If security is that much of a concern, the property owner could negotiate with the municipality to replace an easement through the middle of their property with one or more easements at the edges of their property. And THEN they can build their razor-wire-topped walls with surveillance cameras, motion sensors, and roving guard patrols.
@@jwenting Sounds more like a reason for a rich prick that has made some extreme enemies to not live on a beachfront property where the law requires public easement through his property. Sure he might have security concerns, but that isn't anyone's problem but his own.
I was canoeing on the little river in Ohio once, and I was with my kids and their friends and we stopped near but not on the shoreline. We had only stopped to switch seats and go over some tips on canoeing. Well Karen came out and start threatening to call the cops, I informed her the river is considered an navigable waterway and the state owns to the traditional high water mark. She wanted me off the rocks that were clearly underwater in the spring and winter. The kids were furious when I said; kids it is lunch break and I went about setting up a campfire. She threatened to call the cops, I said go ahead, make sure you call the DNR guys because the cops do not have jurisdiction. She left in a huff, we ate lunch, I made a fire and made some coffee. We waited about 45 mins and no one ever showed. When we got to the canoe rental base, they told me she called. The owner said she calls at least 50 times a year, I showed him how to put a block on her number; as that option was in "a friendly user trial at the time". A few weeks later I was by there and stopped by, he said she had not called once, but showed up one day and tore into him. He then proceeded to get a restraining order on her, because the cops came during her rant and arrested her. My favorite property story; is a group was suing the landfill that was in existence 50 years before they built their homes.. Too funny, it did not stink then, it grew....
This exact same thing has been happening for decades on the Gulf Coast in the Florida Panhandle. Destin and the surrounding areas are lousy with folks buying up beachfront property and not understanding you DO NOT OWN THE BEACH. Lawsuits and arguments for years and years. The locals, as in the people who actually live there year round, don't care about No Trespassing signs and you would regularly see them taken down or moved up to the high tide line. The greedy developers have recently started suing over Public Access Walkways to the beaches, claiming they're detrimental to their investment.
@@knerduno5942 If you buy a beach front home on the Ocean then you accept that as a risk. Anyways, I'm pretty sure you'd be more concerned about you're house being in the ocean than people being able to walk next to you're house.
@@cptjaxie1925 depends on the location. A few years ago in sw FL due to beach erosion they were dredging sand back up onto the beach. Due to storms and erosion. Those lawsuits where over adding 100 yards to the beach making it a longer walk to the water from the condos...surprisingly they got nowhere against the corps of engineers as well as the state, environmental regulations etc.
I always learn something watching Mr Lehto. I remembered years ago going to a shooting range out of town, well housing started to get built up around the shooting range. People didn't like the noise and they signed a petition to shut it down. They couldn't do it.
There is a mental defect that makes some people think they can control the area around their property, like the street parking in front of their house. I remember a case where someone bought a house in the heart of the French Quarter New Orleans then proceeded to complain about the noise.
Or the people vacationing and all day long snapping pics of every angle of your place and even some sneak onto your porch ,yard etc to be in the photo. Trespassing signs only meant for those that have bad intent is what some think,others dont care. The shot is worth it, If youre seen in your yard close or far,they have to talk or enve get you attention so they can talk to you. Thats why many owners are never visible. I cant imagine being a celebrity and trying to do anythin in peace whe in public. No wonder some celebs are so hostile to some of the public. Oh it gets worse...short term rentals ...Ok Im over done
My favourite is people who build homes adjacent or under the flight path of airports and then complain that aeroplanes make nose. Interestingly land in such locations sell for lower prices for that very reason.
This battle has been going on in California for decades. Many Pacific Coast beaches are blocked by cliffs, sometimes extending into the water. One infamous beach blocker is the cofounder of Sun Microsystems, who cut off access to Martins Beach.
Here in New Jersey it's a huge issue along the Atlantic coastline. The wealthy people with beachfront property often want to own it and bar everyone all the way to the ocean. Of course that beach erodes continuously and is replenished with state and federal money but somehow they still want it all to themselves. Surfers and fishermen have been fighting legal battles over this for decades and there is some legislation which guarantees the right to be on the beach as well as have access to the beach. Some snotty little towns have tried to get around this by restricting parking anywhere nearby and other slimy maneuvers :-( Some legislation which is supposed to guarantee access would be the public trust doctrine, N.J. Admin. Code § 7:7-16.9, S1074 and a lot of others. It's a big issue but unfortunately Utube won't let me paste links.
here in ohio...the state owns 30 ft beyond the high water mark...you can maintain it if you want but you cant stop people from using it...as erosion takes place your property shrinks
I used to work on Grand Cayman. Our main resort would charge $5.00 USD to access the beach in front of the resort. Meanwhile, the tourists didn't know it was a public beach that could be easily accessed. MInd you, they did provide towels, outdoor showers and lounge chairs on the beach which were worth the entry fee.
If it was just a "Beach is that way!" Deal mean old ripoff but since you get towels and access to the showers and chairs, it better but the wording wouls trip people. I would if a resort in the states can buy a section of beach?
@@Subject_Keter They were bussed to the resort by the Cruise Line and brought to the entrance where payment was requested. The government allowed this on the condition that payment wasn't mandatory. The tourists were never told it's a public beach and you could refuse payment. I did see a few that knew better.
@@Tugela60 Exactly. GC is actually very good about providing public access route to the beach, and there's a fair chance there was an access right of way within a few hundred feet of where people got off the bus.
9:18 This is what is done in Florida. If you _want_ to lounge on the Hillsboro Mile (a.k.a. The Millionaire's Mile), you are free to do so. You'll just be parking 10 miles away, and walking down the beach to get there. Good luck.
Why would anyone want to go out of their way just to lounge on that beach when there are plenty of beautiful free beaches in Florida. This video is about people crossing in front of house's on a lake or the ocean when there is no other way at all to get to a body of water . Also that is not done in Florida, that is what is done on the Hillsboro Mile.
In Australia, the property boundary is 20 feet past the height tide mark , depending on state, this includes rivers , streams , lakes and other water areas.
In Texas Beaches are state Highways and all boat able water ways are public right of ways with 10' from waterline as public access so you can beach a boat and have access to land is needed.
Ownership only to the high water mark is normal, and AFAIK Maine is the only stupid coastal state that grants property ownership to the low water mark. Depending on topography that can be a significant amount of land because of the tidal range. Considering that the public shoreline goes back at least as far as the Code of Justinian over 1500 years ago I have no idea how Maine screwed things up so badly.
@@suedenim9208 they actually didn't if you think it through. If you have a titled lot that extends 30ft onto the beach but the low waterline is 100ft out, then you own that 30ft, they just don't sell the other 70ft. It means that they have defined property lines that tend not to change. Now elsewere that 30ft could 1 year mean you own 20ft, next year 15ft, year after 20ft, it changes constantly every year. But you can bet that the moment someone has an accident on the beach, even if they were 25ft out, suddenly that's your property and your liable and not the state. Frankly this is one of those laws that is badly written. Yes beaches and waterways should be public access, but they should do it by not allowing land to be "sold" or titled on them. Pick the high water mark, go 5ft further inland, and draw a line, that land is now all the way out to the other shoreline/international waters, is now state/federal property and can not be sold. Alternatively make it so all land in that area has a mandatory easement allowing public access and limited liability, as this would be required for docks.
The high water, high tide mark is commonly used as the place your water front or beach front property ends. So at high tide, passers by would need to walk in shallow water, and at low tide they can walk on the exposed beach.
Similar but different: We have lived in our house now for 14 years and it is located next to a mainline railroad. When we were looking to purchase it, the real estate agent told us that the city council was going to extablish quiet zones for the two crossings near us so the trains wouldn't have to toot. For one, I worked for a railroad and ran trains on that line, know about quiet zones and how difficult they are to set up. Second, the area we live is not incorporated, which was one of the reasons we wanted to live there, out in the country; no city council (or HOA thank goodness!!). So yeah, our real estate agent lied to us but I knew it. We bought the place and neither the trains nor the agriculture going on around us bothers us.
You worked for the rr so your aware that actually nothing can be done even at state level unless said rr agrees to be good neighbors. The old rr land grants are pretty well absolute for the aforementioned rr to be immune from most state and federal actions.
this is a problem in places like Colorado too. the red rocks amphitheater is frequently getting hit with noise complaints because some developer decided to build houses nearby a place where loud concerts happen frequently. its sad too because it usually just turns into the farm, or venue, or airport eventually gets bullied out by the housing complex despite having been there first.
Never really thought about this, but it's just been common practice my whole life so I never really noticed. It's the same in Ohio. People just walk on the beachfront, I just walk on the beachfront, and nobody ever had a problem.
"Pacific Legal Foundation?" uh... Do they know that the entire coastline of California is public property also? Many rich people have contested this, and rightfully lost. Every year some homeowners will put up a fence or "no trespassing" signs to block public access to the beach. Apparently they do not think the law applies to them.
Personally, if I had beach front property and people were walking by on the shoreline, I'd just say hi, introduce myself, be kind, maybe even make some new friends. I don't live on beach front property (we chose not to go for an expensive deal on that), but I do live on a very large corner lot right near the entrance to a huge city park, so i get a lot of people walking past. On nice summer days I make sure anyone who needs a rest or wants to stop in has a friendly place to do so. It's easier to be kind than it is to be a jerk.
A similar situation happened up here in Canada many years ago. With the case in Canada, the owner took it up a notch more by building a fence right down into the water. It caused a big uproar and many things happened including the fence being chainsawed and lit on fire. Eventually the owner moved out and the new owner got rid of the fences and welcomed people to walk along the property line near the water.
Every time I see someone put up a post or video about silly property rights/law I just chuckle. I live in Maine, our posted law boils down to 'if the land isn't posted, and you're not being a dick, then it's fine. If you're going to do something that may be unwelcome, like put up a tree stand or use an ATV where there isn't an obviously manmade trail, ask first. Our 'implied access' doctrine is a surprisingly potent and simple solution to all this silliness.
You cracked me up when you mentioned the farm. I almost fell off the couch when you mentioned the racetrack. You can hear the dragstrip in Denver for miles. Still isn't nearly as bad as living near a large sheep farm.
Had a similar thing happen in my home town in Prince Edward Island Canada. There’s a small beach by my parents house at the end of a public road and someone bought a piece of land next to the beach and built a cottage on it. Not sure how they managed to get a permit for it but anyway. After it was built a bunch of signs started showing up on the road saying private beach and they started putting up no trespassing signs and tried to block public access. The signs and blockades mysteriously disappeared and someone had to replace a bunch of windows in there cottage. Probably not the best idea to piss off the locals that live there year round
I recall looking at property in PA some years back; I can’t recall if it was a private lake or not but it was a man-made/created lake. The deeds actually granted property/building rights from the road to an arbitrary line 20’ from the low water mark (from where the lake was drained to in the winter), though there was a clause allowing the public use of the water for boating and swimming. All but 1 parcel around the lake was private with a single parcel being publicly accessible and usable, though I believe it may have been managed by a private entity and not public land. It wasn’t a big lake and I believe had a 10 HP motor limit for boats but I recall thinking that it was quite odd as any other beachfront places we looked at had property rights ending at the high water mark, excluding docks. I’m guessing this is because they were man-made lakes, of which there were quite a few in PA. One nice thing about some of these lakes were their fisheries permits which allowed fishing for residents and visitors, for which they could charge a small fee, without needing a PA fishing permit; which was nice as PA fishing/hunting permits get pricy for out of state residents, excluding disabled veterans.
It's fairly common for the state to have owned the land under rivers and large lakes from the time they were granted statehood. That original ownership is why 5th amendment claims of taking fail. OTOH, unless the state was the one that created an artificial lake they probably don't own the land that was flooded when the lake was created, or the shoreline bordering the lake. In some states there might be a public right to navigate on the water overlying the private lakebed, but sometimes the right to navigate is limited to a property right attached to adjoining parcels. FWIW, later his summer I'll be spending a few days at a place on an artificial lake in NY, and I've found that the lake , *and a few feet of the shoreline* are privately owned. I don't know the exact details, but none of the "lakefront" properties actually own to the water and I'm guessing all access apparently comes in the form of an easement of some sort. I presume the lake owner originally owned most of he bordering properties, and HOA dues cover access and dam maintenance among other things.
@@suedenim9208 a lake which is totally surrounded by a single property owner can effectively "own" a lake. If it's a man made lake you can own the land under it also, however who owns the water is not normally the landowner. Water rights and all that. In addition runoff and streams are highly regulated. At my location of I want a lake I just need to dig a big hole and a bit of landscaping to direct water to it (though directing water really isn't needed). However I do have to insure that under flood conditions the water goes where the state wants it and the overflow is clean (no contamination with petroleum etc). Always consult with a local civil engineer for design and get the appropriate permits.
Apparently this property owner figured that he owned to the water when he bought the place and now is going to fight to the death. Now that he knows the reality it seems to me that he'd give this fight up and move on if for nothing else his health. You've got to choose your battles wisely. This case parallels exactly what I've seen around here. A wheat farmer will sell a lot adjacent to his 800 acre wheat field, they'll build a house on it and fence it in and everything is just fine UNTIL summer comes along. No shade trees and it gets 140° in the sun, dust from planting and harvesting blankets his property, poison chemicals drift everywhere in his living space and he can't even grow a garden without it shriveling up, not to mention 10 months out of the year he feels sick. At some point you have to be thinking to yourself I made a mistake, I learned, now I'll move on.
communities that insert themselves in the midst of nice neat dairy farms,because of the beautiful & tranquil appearance ,but when reality sets in( the 24 hr smell) the people drive the stinkin industry out Temecula ,Hemet,Sanjacinto valley area in Calif
Eh, if people want to be dumb and destroy their own lives over stupid things let em. Then use them as examples to show your kids what not to do in life.
Back in the eighty’s/nineties I lived in a tiny village in the northeast of England. I was eight hundred yards away from a farm. Several times a year the farmer spread large amounts of chicken manure on his fields. A week of interesting aroma. Just a few days of not putting washing out to dry outside. Plus he had peacocks. Not the quietest of birds. Still beats city living.
@@michaelshaw8370 You got to love chicken manure as fertilizer. I used to put a shovel full from the chicken coop into a 7 gallon bucket and mix it with water then dump it on tomato plants a little bit at a time as to not burn them. I supported all the restaurants in our 25,000 population town all summer and fall with my 50 tomato plants growing humongous tomatoes with flavor unstoppable. I supported myself for a good 5 years doing this. Chicken shit does wondrous things to vegetables if you use it sparingly, that enough makes you love the smell!!
Southern end of major city Hamilton NZ in one area bordering on rural there are the following, Airport, Kart Racing track, Gun club Range, Major indoor/outdoor events centre. Some of the farms nearby were subdivided into lifestyle blocks where "townies" moved to and they all complained about and tried to get the above closed down or moved (yes even the airport) as well as complaining about the nearby farms that were still operating as farms.
You use the example of a farm or a drag strip. The flip side to this is if enough people move into that area, they can ultimately put an end to both of those businesses with enough lawsuits and city support. I've seen it happen. The city grows around rural areas that become suburbs, businesses that had been there for 20 years are slowly choked off until they are forced to close.
Absolutely true. The world-famous Laguna Seca Raceway has been forced to severely limit activities because enough wealthy people moved out to the desert and built homes near the track.
I grew up on Long Island and we belonged to a private beach. Same thing. As long as you’re walking below the high tide line it’s public. As it should be.
Some people from down state Michigan are building a Lake Michigan beachfront home next to the place we rent. They have put up "NO Trespassing" signs on the beach in front of the house. What is amusing is that their land was surveyed and the signs are well outside their actual lot line. In fact, where they placed their signs were underwater 3 years ago.
Shoot! My Calif. house's rear property runs into National Forest. I thought I owned, in a zig-zag fashion, all the way to the Canadian border. I'm sooo disappointed by this ruling. I apologize to all those that I said, "Hey you kids, get away from there!", in Montana.
Yes, some people in Ogden Dunes have their nose way too high. I grew up with friends in Beverly Shores (just east of Ogden Dunes), they knew the beach was public access. Though some years it was not clear as the distance from the seawall at the house was sometimes 300' from the water and some years the water was at the seawall and people could not walk past without climbing up their yard and walking on their patio. They just made the access to the patio difficult from the rest of the beach. Rarely did people try to get off the beach by walking up their stairs and patios, along the side of the house to get to the street. Those got yelled at and to use the public access stairs a block or two to either side of the houses.
aka due diligence. In property that is a widely exclaimed phrase,but some apparently think they are the exception. "Think theyre the exception" that is the biggest mind set and problem with trespassers I notice
Property tax is calculated using an assessed value that is based on what neighboring parcels of land sell for. The actual amount of tax you pay is the proportion of your assessed value compared to the total assessed vale in the town and indexed off the towns budget. So, if your assessed value comprises 0.01% of the taxable jurisdictions total value, and the jurisdiction has a budget of $100 million, your tax due would be $10,000. It does not matter if your assessed value increases year by year, provided your neighbors assessed values increase by the same amount and the jurisdictions budget stays the same.
I’m a retired New Jersey Professional Land Surveyor. Several years ago I was employed to perform a survey of a privately owned lake. Years ago a real estate development company subdivided the land surrounding the lake. Lots were created “surrounding” the lake. The “surrounding” lots were sold out. Very expensive homes were built on the “surrounding” lots. The real estate development company retained ownership of the lake to include a three foot strip of dry land around the lake. Over time the surrounding homeowners gradually encroached to the water line to include docks, cabanas, water pumps, etc. The owners of the lake, including the dry three foot strip of land, would have a land survey performed every so many years. A survey report was prepared for each individual “surrounding” home owner instructing the homeowner to remove all encroachments. In this manner the owner of the lake preserved their exclusive ownership rights. Needless to say many of the “surrounding” owners were not happy!
@ 1:19 what i would do, before even watching the video, is walk into the water making sure i am ankle deep and keep going. A lake is technically a "navigable waterway", and in Texas where i am, is state property and specifically not private property. I have actually done this.
Here in TN you have to be floating in a river. The owner owns the land and you're not allowed on it. If floating on through no one can say a word. I'm not sure about lakes. All of our Tva Lakes seem to be the same though.
Depends on the lake All lakes aren't navigatable by definition. However the state owns the water in it and in most jurisdictions the land under the lake for natural lakes.
@@duanesamuelson2256 in Texas any waterway that touches state land is a public navigable waterway. River passing through private property. Or 2 small lakes connected by a small channel that goes under a state bridge makes it public water. Did battle over that one personally with bexar county SO and TPW set em straight. So that's in Texas. Results may vary by jurisdiction. This is my experience not a guess or supposition.
For more than 150 years the Long Island Rail Road operated a freight yard and locomotive facility in Long Island City. The land was zoned "Industrial." In the past 15 years some developer petitioned to have the land zoned as "General Use." Well it is true that the steam engines are long gone, most of the freight tracks paved over as a park, and the car floats remain only as an historic treasure. And land developers built tall condominiums facing the train yard. People come in to inspect the property on a weekend, and all is quiet. They move in. Then on Monday morning the trains come in. Dozens of them. And they leave their locomotives running all day long. Noise and Smoke! And the new homeowners are upset. They want to sue the railroad. A railroad wholly owned by the State of New York. "Can't you at least shut off the engines?" Nope, not happening, you want that we should bring back the steam locomotives. We can do that you know. This was a rail yard for 150 years before you were born, and that is how life is. BTW: We do have a lake on our property here in North Dakota, and while the state may own the lake and the beach, it is entirely on our property with no public access. We refuse to allow State Game and Fish to stock the lake as that would open it to the public for fishing (and littering, loud music and motor vehicles.) Cows are welcome. Moo.
The freight yard. I can't answer specifically for long Island however due to concessions and grants made in the 1800's during the rr expansion congress gave the rr's land with rights that actually supercede state and much federal control. Even rr which are non existent those easements still exist. It's why you'll see the rr with no notice or explanation just shut down state roads sometimes for extended periods of time. It's up to the local or state to make alternative arrangements. Usually rr are good neighbors and do work with the locals, however I was talking to a NYSEG employee in upstate NY that they had had to ask to use a road which had been built on an old rr right of way with no remaining tracks for access to a service area every time because some (idiot) at the state tried to exert their non existent authority.
Was looking at houses in Olive Branch MS (Just south of Memphis across the state line) when I was 10 or 11. Looked at one house that was super close to some rail tracks. Parents asked how loud it got, and the agent just said "It's a railway, why do you think this house is selling for so cheap?". I'll never get how stupid people have to be to move next to air Stations, railways, naval bases, farms, industrial centers, race tracks, and/or other OBVIOUS NOISY LOCATIONS, and then bitch and whine about it. Paperwork should really contain a page purely dedicated to someone acknowledging that sometimes SHIT GETS LOUD, and you KNOW THIS GOING IN, and have no right to bitch and complain, or otherwise be an unreasonable asshole.
@@duanesamuelson2256 Federal land grant were never made to east coast railroads. They were made to new lines west of the Mississippi to encourage development etc. The Federal Government got in return lower freight rates and troop transports, so it was not really a land giveaway.
For a moment I thought this was about a celebrity 'owning' a beach and put up fences with private police to keep people out despite at least one court order.
I saw a news piece of a condo that tried to claim a municipally built sidewalk as part of their "private property" because they sold their units on the premise of "private beach access".
Here in MD particularly Anne Arundel County. Its 10 feet from the mean high tide. BUT. the county helps out the wealthy waterfront owners by making the areas around public access to water, ",No Parking" for a mile or so adjacent to undeveloped parkland. That essentially makes it the private property of the neighboring properties. Unless you want to hike in a couple of miles to access the water. Anne Arundel has over 400 miles of shoreline if you followed the contour of the waterways. It doesn't have one public boat ramp or swimming beach. (Truxton Park is City of Annapolis. Sandy Pt is State of MD). It does however have not 1 but 2 public golf courses.
In some jurisdictions there is some additional strip 10 feet or so above the high water mark, simply for the case of high tides and the difficulty of defining the exact "normal" high water mark.
Hi Steve, I have encountered this in MN as a developer. I believe these laws also refer to rivers and streams as well as lakes per the DNR. Also the ordinary high water line is described as the 100 year high water mark for any navigable waterway. and Navigable is described as any body of water that you could even canoe within the same 100 year history ie: Native Americans, trappers etc. This is also a large part of the Army Corp of engineers work for the upper mid west out of Chicago. You can also picnic if you like or camp if allowed by State Law to do so and the property owner just has to smile and bear it. Now this is just how I remember it and laws do change so this is not legal advice for you or your viewers. David
My Grandfather and later my father owned a home on Cape Cod with a similar problem. Some of these property descriptions were written during Colonial times. It was ocean front so it involved the Feds and the the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It originally said something like "50' into the water during low tide", sometime during the 1950's it was changed to "50' into the land during high tide". Public access issue also became mute when the town purchased two adjoining properties and made a public boat ramp. I don't remember any issues with the public when my Dad owned it during the 60's, 70's and 80's when I went there. It was a great place to spend summers as a kid.
we have that here Ontario, Canada. Its' called a shore road allowance. 66ft from the high water mark. You can buy that section, but most people do not, and assume that it is theirs.
A few miles from my residence exists a very small industrial park. When I moved in, the industrial park was mostly abandoned and underutilized. A couple of years ago, a new company moved in to the park. They rehabilitated all of the buildings and invested tens of millions of dollars in new equipment. Now, everyone is angry because you can faintly hear the equipment MILES AWAY. The city won’t do anything. The State won’t do anything. And the Federal Government won’t do anything. One day I decided to look around and do some digging. As it turns out, what they are doing is important enough and valuable enough that all levels of government will protect them. On another note, I found it quite interesting when I saw the entire complex had power when the entire city was out. Turns out that whatever they are up too is so important that the utility ran separate lines all the way from the complex to the substation.
@@corymcthrash I am intentionally omitting a few details that I know about the complex. You are correct, they have several massive backup generators. However, I know for a fact that the utility really did run dedicated lines to the substation.
A more interesting case is a private island. Where I'm from, the beaches also belong to the public, and that includes private islands. People can get on a boat, and go spend the day on the beach there. Someone I know who owned of these had his island declared a natural preserve, so he was able to repel all tourists. Must be nice to have that kind of pull with the establishment.
my father managed to get our garden declared a nature preserve. Not to stop people going there (it was fenced in anyway) but because of the subsidies for grounds maintenance that come with it. Of course it also comes with serious restrictions, like what plants you can put in, what if any buildings you can erect, even restrictions on when you can mow the lawn. It's a tradeoff.
A couple bought a house that the driveway was across the road from the trap range at a local Sportsman's club. They, along with a bunch of people from a housing development that had recently been built in the area tried to get the Club that had been there since the 1940s shut down. The Town Board basically laughed at them. They got a some people elected to the town board and passed and ordinance to stop the shooting. It ended up in court with the Sportsman's Club winning.
The same is true of the shoreline along California and the Pacific Ocean , I recall that a law was put in place over 40 years ago called the California Coastal Act to ensure public access to the shoreline .
Yep, and that act required developers of new beachfront communities, as well as existing neighborhoods to provide and post coastal access paths every so many feet. A lot of the Malibu wealthy were really chapped with that...
That's a little different. The law has always made ocean beach public property up to the mean high tide mark. The California law requires beachfront property owners to allow access to the beach by way of an easement through their property. So unlike the case in the video, you've always ben allowed to walk along the beach, but the California law also says that there has to be public access allowed to the beach, even if all the property along the coast is privately owned.
LOL ... about 20 years ago in my area - their were newcomers who were upset about a farmer raising sheep because they made noise; it turned out of course the area was zoned for agriculture.
A similar situation to the pig farm is an airport. I know our airport grew from a small regional airport to a large international airport over time. The problem was that the planes got larger and louder and had a longer and lower approach to land and take off. The land owners who originally could barely hear the planes eventually couldn't sleep at night and sued. The airlines were forced to approach at a higher altitude than was economical and drop down at the last minute, like a bombing run. Even the pig farmer would have a lot of trouble if they increased from 100 pigs to 10,000. They would have local, state and federal agents all up their G.I. tract.
We have something similar where I live . But you may only own to the high water mark on the beach. But you cannot be made to provide a right of way to access the beach. Myself and my neighbors have pur properties posted private no trespassing. The nearest public access to the beach is about a mile and a little bit down the shoreline
Here in NJ I can appreciate this issue. There's a few towns (check out Deal for one) that are constantly having battles over access to and usage of the beach.
@@2pugman I assume you're talking about by Jenks and Tiki bar? I know they claim a big part of the beach. Seems like they own the town. I live down by LBI. Land of no parking or bathrooms.
@@veramae4098 build a couple of cottages and rent them out on airbnb. Those pallet cabins that have their own electricity and can be put up in a day/week
I knew a guy that use to fish the shoreline of Old Mission peninsula by walking the shore line. Lots of rich people there that own shoreline property. He told me that people would come running out yelling at him get off of their property. He said he would try to educate them but they would have none of it. They would keep yelling and threatening, and he would keep fishing. Side note: Gordie Howe and William Milliken lived on the the West side of old Mission Peninsula.
Hey Steve, my mother works at a motorcycle Dealership where they just built a PRESCHOOL behind it. The Moto dealership works on Harleys etc.. When they built it, we all bet money on how long it will take the preschool to complain.
I have been at a private camp on the shore of a lake... and while annoying, we didn't do anything about it. What we took issue with is the wish of those people to trespass and use our facilities within the property (usually bathrooms)
I moved next to an international airport. I knew that planes would potentially be overflying my purchased property, and that they would be LOUD. One property owner (perhaps a group of property owners) who had moved to the area around the airport thought it would be a great idea to waste money buying billboard advertisements protesting the F-15 jets that take off with full-afterburner during practice intercept flights from the Air National Guard base that is also on the airport - a base that had existed long before these property owners had been born. 🙄🤦♂️ It could be they even tried to use undue influence in Washington, D.C. because there was an attempt to have the base closed, or the Intercept Wing (with the F-15s) that was stationed on the base moved to a different base - one of very few that defends the west coast. The state governor's office managed to put a stop to that. I guess I'm a bit more tolerant because when I was stationed in Alaska, my dorm room was adjacent to the runway where the same F-15s were taking off at all hours, and in Texas, even noisier jets would overfly my dorm.
I'm an Air Force brat, grew up living in base housing. I would have to get re-acclimated now but at one time I would not even notice airplanes unless someone else mentioned them. 🤓🍻
It all depends on the owner's property line vis a vis the 'ordinary high water mark'. Because of erosion or accretion of shorelines, sometimes there are shore areas along a water body that can be traversed without crossing private property. At the same time the owner does not lose his rights of his property if erosion causes the water to move inland. They still own to the aforementioned property line. This is a stickier question on man made lakes where some people own "out into the water", again depending on where the property line actually lies.
Judge: 'Please show me proof that you were in possession of the property that was taken from you.' Petitioner: "I have this chart showing the extent, and dimensions, of my title holdings, Your Honor.' Judge: 'The title describes in legal, and in binding, terms the boundary of your holding. What is the description, and what is the convention in Law that operationalizes the terms?' Petitioner: But, I have this nice map.....' Judge: 'Sir, you cannot have anything 'taken from' you which you have never possessed. Do you understand my meaning?' Petitioner: 'But.....but....this map...' Judge: (..keeps silent, but slowly raises one of his eyebrows...)
*one time, in my youth, I was looking at a house with a realtor, and did not know that there was a railroad track, what seems like inches from the back of the house. needless to say, when a train came through, I decided this place was not for me 😊*
It’s the infuriating how often this comes up. Honestly the state should put up signs on this guy’s property saying ‘beach is for everyone’ and charge him the cost for the signs
Informative video 👏 "pigs on a farm next door. Can you stop them farming? Vehicles make load noise on Saturday and Sunday on a drag strip. Can you stop them?" OMG 🤣 I laughed out loud 😂
"Omg my neighbors exist! Can you remove them from this planet k ty byez!" Speaking of that, my family lives in a Equestrian District and they arw scared of the horsies... big old things up close but on the sideway? Mostly fine.
I used to get this surf fishing at the jerseys shour water front homes only owned to the high tite mark at the time. Most private beach properties have been taken if the beach was rebuilt
Steve I know people that bought land next to airport then complained about the noise of the aircraft taking off and landing also know someone that bought house next to capitol speedway then complained about how loud race cars were.
@@TheObsesedAnimeFreaks yes to you that makes sense,but put yourself as the other person...would you recognise those same rules? Laws can be changed,if you have enough influence and or money
@@carbonstar9091 what reasonable person thinks that an unmarked beach with someone's house up on it is free to walk on? NO reasonable person that's who. you can own up to the waterline and past it, as far as I am concerned and there is no reason why anyone would expect otherwise. what world do you live in where property rights aren't a thing?
I know of places in Michigan that have public accesses and the property owns near that access do everything they can to make use of that access difficult or impossible. Example; getting the local government to prohibit parking near the access. In one case parking is at least a 1/2 mile away. In another case the locals placed large boulders, and I mean large 3-5 feet across, all through the access. These boulders did not just happen to show up by themselves. As the access is down a steep hill access was almost impossible without injury. I also have seen times when signage pointing to an access was often removed as soon as it is replaced.
That even covers commercial property and all waterways that flow into it. They also cannot build walls to extend their properties. Fortunately there are several empty lots and access roads to that beach.
Love it. I especially liked Steve's comments about people complaining about things around their property they should have known about before buying it. They recently built several neighborhoods of very nice homes at reasonable prices (something rare in the Denver metro area) near a regional airport. The houses were very tempting, but I did not want to live next to an airport, so I passed. Now that everyone has moved in, the neighbors are suing the airport because the planes make noise when flying over their homes. Who would have guessed planes make noise when flying 200 feet overhead? LOL. The selfishness and foolishness of humanity is without apparent limit.
sounds like my state, there was a s small amusement park in the middle of a residential area for decades, recently people (new owners) complained, forced them to limit their hours and eventually drove them out of business...because of the noise....that was there 1st.
I saw a house online that was $60,000 it was a weird crappy house 🏠 4 bed 1 bath? But still 60 for the land itself is very cheap so I looked it up on Google maps and basically through the driveway are traintracks with railroad crossing gate right next to it
Seen the same, while studying I used to work at a number of nightclubs, most of which had been at the location for decades(or at least, a nightclub had been there for decades), yet so many people move in, then starts complaining about there being a nightclub open. Fuck sake... I could understand if you live somewhere and a new thing opens.. but moving somewhere and then complaining....
@@blest5132 Yes, but they can't do that. They've tried, and they've failed. It's a lovely walk down the crescent-shaped beach of Isla Verde, from the cemetery to the beachfront of the fancy American hotels. It's been many years since I've been there, so I imagine some things have changed. But not this particular law. The beaches belong to the public.
Lake Oswego Oregon home owners on the lake have denied public access to the lake. It is allegedly owned by the HOA. There are public parks on part of the lake. There is a dispute going on against the privatization of the lake by the wealthy land owners.
I have property with access to federal public land and lake. Unfortunately, people think they are allowed to access the public land by driving through my private property. There is access via a state section of land, but the state bulldozed the vehicle access and made it walk in only, about a half mile. This has caused a few heated discussions with people who think they can drive through my property to access it. Water rights and access is very convoluted, and some rights aren’t codified, but are settled by old case law. That makes it very difficult to find, and several bodies of water has different rulings.
You might be able to bring action on the state for creating a public nuisance. One could argue that they have committed an unlawful "taking" of your property by shifting this burden on you.
This is true for almost every piece of property. Here in Texas there are a few pieces of property that has been in continue ownership since before the lakes were created. In these few cases they still retain ownership of the land under the water. the state is granted use of the water above the ground and any dry land is still private property. It is an interesting compromise when the lakes are built.
I think they had a valid complaint. If the property line is shown to include all of the beach, then that's sleazy suggesting some law people aren't aware of states otherwise. If this were done in the private sector, then it would be considered deceptive. If the seller disclosed opposite information from the law, then the homeowner should be able to sue them for what would be considered the loss in value of not owning that parcel of land.
My parents owned beachfront property. They understood the 'high water mark' rule, but we keep people from using our trail to the lake. Not so much that we didn't want people to use it, but we didn't want the liability if they injured themselves, nor did we want it to become a public right of way. Folks sold it about thirty years ago for about $200k, recently sold for $1.4 million. I wanted to buy it back but not for that money.
![“อ.เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม” มาตามคำเรียกร้อง แหกศาสตร์ฮวงจุ้ย เตือนสติอย่างมงาย | แฉ 7 พ.ย. 67 [1/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5fc4S3xBNfc/mqdefault.jpg)
My friends brother bought a property several miles out of town that was zoned agriculture. He started a game farm and hunting lodge with all county permits and approval. No problems until years later land development built residential housing near the game farm and the new property owners convinced the county to rescind the permit for the game farm and hunting lodge citing a "game farm and hunting lodge" wasn't agriculture. So he was forced to close operations. He then proceeded to start a pig farm which caused the nearby neighbors even greater distress, but, the county said the pig farm was perfectly good. He's still farming pigs.
👍😀😀😃😅😅🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂
Yesssss yessss yesss good bring some cows and milk them 0400 am.yeaaa and chickens with lots of roosters
A couple of decades ago, people in Colorado tried to outlaw pig farming cause it was too stinky.
That's what we get for not teaching farming to our children.
Everybody thinks food comes from the store.
Personally I think chickens smell a heck of a lot worse. But God bless him for doing the pigs!
@@ugh635 Agreed. I could clean out hog barns and cattle sheds but that first shovel full in a chicken house and you get hit with ammonia....
I love to kayak fish. One day I launched at a culvert on a county road and went down the creek to a natural lake and began fishing. A homeowner came out and started yelling at me that the lake was private. I just kept on fishing and ignored him and moved to the other side of the lake, not wanting to get into a fight. Half an hour later a county sheriff motioned me to shore. He asked me how I got onto the lake, and I explained how. Then he apparently told the angry homeowner there was nothing he could do as I had not trespassed or broken any laws. A month later I returned and found a wire fence across the creek loaded with debris. I returned to my vehicle and called the DNR to report it before going elsewhere to fish. I found out later the same homeowner had erected the fence to keep me or others like me out. What he hadn't bargained on was the DNR. He was fined $8,000 and sentenced to 60 hours of community service for obstructing a protected water way.
This makes me so happy.
Nice outcome. Small streams, and artificial culverts may not be legally navigable, so they don't always provide a legal access even when the lake itself would be fair game.
Nope! Stand your ground or call the police on him!
@@suedenim9208 that depends on the waterway and who owns it.
In this case it sounds like county or state.
Even if it was private property you can still get nailed as the land owner for messing with a stream.
If you are harrassed while hunting/fishing with a fishing/hunting license, this can seriously elevate the crime the other person is perpetrating on you.
Several years ago a retired Judge bought a piece of farm land about a quarter mile from our Model Airplane Flying Field. The Model Airplane site had been in use with the approval of local governments for over 40 years. The Judge did everything he could to shutdown the flying site but he lost in every court. He got his way after the land was annexed by the city of Omaha and local officials decided that he was right. To their credit the city built an even better flying site at a nearby park adjacent to a lake. Now we have both a 200' asphalt runway and a seaport.
BTW, the Judge died 2 months after we moved our flying field.
Karma. Was it a heart attack? One of "The Big Ones" where the heart practically seizes up and you grab your chest, and just fall over in excruciating pain for a moment and then blackness? Because that would have been a classic "May God Strike Me Down" ending for the man.
The Werefrog remember that case. It was so stupid. As far as The Werefrog am concerned, if it's there when you move it, that's your own look out. It's like people who move in near a church or monastery that rings its bells every hour or during services or whatever, then complain that they ring the bell.
@@calanon534 that's dark, yo
@@CardboardBots That's nothing. Read the news. Far darker stuff happens on a daily basis. Wondering how some spiteful self-important braggart with apparent connections and "old friends" met his end, barely registers these days.
Judge was just afraid that model terrorists might hijack the model planes and destroy his property.
I can't count the number of times I've seen reports of homeowners complaining at city council meetings about airport noise. It always begs the question, did they not know buying a house under a flight path near an airport would have them hearing noise made by airplane engines?
In the early/mid 1990s I lived in a suburb that was established in the 1970s about 2-3 miles from an oil refinery that had been built in the early 1960s.. There were residents that demanded that the refinery should move!
worse, a lot of those complainers work at or for those airports, or for companies that wouldn't exist without those airports.
It's the same where I live. Airport's been there since the 1920s, people move in next door and immediately start complaining that the airport should be closed...
While living in houses that received extra noise insulation courtesy of the airport...
About 15 years ago the main airport here decided to play some games with the worst complainers. They deliberately put incorrect departure times for some flights on their public announcements, noise complaints came in for those specific flights hours before those flights had even departed.
When confronted, several of them admitted that they were being paid by "environmentalists" to file complaints against the airport.
If the airport moved in after you bought your property, you might have a case. But if the airport was already there, and you bought property next door, don't complain that the airplanes make noise. You will get nowhere, and people will hate you.
Technically you have the right to quiet enjoyment of your property, it's in the bundle of right.
So the airport "should" install newer sound proof windows and a/c units for those house that they ruin "quiet enjoyment" for neighbors.
As a homeowner, you own the land from the center of the earth to the highest skies of your property. So a plane overhead does go into your airspace. But you probably lost that right a long time ago
@@Honkers716 Great now i am picturing a Karen hearing thay and shooting down any planes with a SAM site or doing a unholy screech that breaks the neighbor.
Here in Las Vegas, Nevada, we had a pig farm for many year on the north side of the valley. When it was established it was in a remote location far from its nearest neighbor. I grew up about 10 miles from the 'pig farm', and when the wind was right you could smell it. In the 80's developers bought up the land adjacent to the 'pig farm' and built houses on it. The home owners there complained constantly about the smell, but the pigs were there first.
Another example is Nellis AFB. Developers bought up the land on the south end of the runway and built houses there. Soon after the home owners were complaining about the noise. Nellis is an extremely active training base, flight operations can take place 24 hours a day, especially during the annual 'Red Flag' operations. Again, the USAF was there first, your poor decisions have consciences.
and I'm sure the development companies made sure to have public showings for their expensive houses and condos only during lulls in the training schedule at Nellis, so as to deceive the customers into thinking there wouldn't be many aircraft movements...
@@jwenting I am sorry but those complainers deserve to live in the wild naked ans afraid style. Thought a Military Airport woild be calm?
@@jwenting hmm could be a misrepresentation case there potentially
Reminds me of this: Luke AFB is west of Phoenix and is rapidly being surrounded by civilization that complains about the noise from the base and its planes, forgetting that it was there long before they were... A certain lieutenant colonel at Luke AFB deserves a big pat on the back. Apparently, an individual who lives somewhere near Luke AFB wrote the local paper complaining about a group of F-16s that disturbed his/her day at the mall.
When that individual read the response from a Luke AFB officer, it must have stung quite a bit.
The complaint:
'Question of the day for Luke Air Force Base:
Whom do we thank for the morning air show? Last Wednesday, at precisely 9:11 A.M, a tight formation of four F-16 jets made a low pass over Arrowhead Mall, continuing west over Bell Road at approximately 500 feet. Imagine our good fortune! Do the Tom Cruise-wannabes feel we need this wake-up call, or were they trying to impress the cashiers at Mervyn's early bird special?
Any response would be appreciated.
The response:
Regarding 'A wake-up call from Luke's jets' On June 15, at precisely 9:12 a.m. , a perfectly timed four-ship fly by of F-16s from the 63rd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base flew over the grave of Capt. Jeremy Fresques. Capt. Fresques was an Air Force officer who was previously stationed at Luke Air Force Base and was killed in Iraq on May 30, Memorial Day.
At 9 a.m. on June 15, his family and friends gathered at Sunland Memorial Park in Sun City to mourn the loss of a husband, son and friend. Based on the letter writer's recount of the fly by, and because of the jet noise, I'm sure you didn't hear the 21-gun salute, the playing of taps, or my words to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques as I gave them their son's flag on behalf of the President of the United States and all those veterans and servicemen and women who understand the sacrifices they have endured..
A four-ship fly by is a display of respect the Air Force gives to those who give their lives in defense of freedom. We are professional aviators and take our jobs seriously, and on June 15 what the letter writer witnessed was four officers lining up to pay their ultimate respects.
The letter writer asks, 'Whom do we thank for the morning air show'? The 56th Fighter Wing will make the call for you, and forward your thanks to the widow and parents of Capt Fresques, and thank them for you, for it was in their honor that my pilots flew the most honorable formation of their lives.
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
Lt. Col. Grant L. Rosensteel, Jr.
@Eric Johnson I would regularly make trips to Shreveport and Bossier Louisiana, occasionally I would get lucky and see B-52s flying around.
We have a similar problem in Florida, I'll refer to as "Wet Foot/Dry Foot Access". As a 5th generation Florida Native, I've always understood that the sand up to the base of the dunes was public access. However, a couple of years ago the state of Florida passed a law giving beachfront property owners the right to keep the public off all dry sand from the base of the dunes down to the high tide line. In some areas that's a significant stretch of sand. Not to mention that beach access is shrinking all the time. Fewer and fewer crossovers with little or no parking for citizens to actually get on the beach. When I was a kid there were very few buildings along the beachfront and we kids would play in a maze of trails in the dunes under the canopy of sea grape trees. Those days are gone. Even more irritating, some homeowners along the intercoastal will yell at boaters who fish too close to their docks, like they own the water too!
I want my state back!
Where I grew up, there was one small apartment building on the beach, and I think a tiny strip mall and a few beach houses a few miles south. Now it's wall to wall condos on A1A. Fortunately, Brevard County obtained several beach parks. I noticed recently that they now have pedestrian access between aforementioned apartment building and a new condo.
In the early 1970s you could park your car on the shoulder of A1A, walk over the dune down to the beach. They were already getting bossier by the late '70s. The county's basically run by military retirees and engineers, not surfers. LOL
It's not always as simple as median high tide or wet foot/dry foot. For instance, if federal, state and local funds were used to reconstruct an eroded section of beach, the adjoining property owners (our beloved beachfronters) effectively granted the people a 99-year easement across the sand that was bought and paid for with taxpayer money. Although this little detail wasn't widely reported when the law was passed and is still largely unknown, most of our Florida beaches have been reconstructed within the last 99 years. Our right to access is protected through these associated easements. Median high tide generally doesn't apply.
It's not "your" state.
@@Honkers716 more then the Out of Towners ruining everything.
I've had people who owned land along the intercoastal try to keep us from fishing under "their lights" while in a boat.
I've always thought, in these situations, that the property line should be a set distance from the house. The bit where you said about people buying next to a farm or a speedway made me think of something that happened about 25 years ago in one of the outer suburbs of Perth (Western Australia) about 70 kilometres from where I live. A family had run a successful free range chicken farm for 40 years. They sold eggs and free range chickens to the big supermarkets as well as smaller customers. Then a couple of neighbouring mixed use farms were sold to a developer and up went a housing development. Well lots of houses got built and pretty soon the chicken farm had LOTS of neighbours and people started complaining about the noises and activities coming from the farm. After lots of legal back and forth the courts decided the people who'd bought homes in the housing development had a right to live in peace and not be disturbed by "farm" sounds, so the farm had to go. I've always thought the ruling was TOTALLY UNFAIR as the farm was there first and the home owners knew it was there before they bought. The farming family had no choice but to sell to the developer at a loss.
And in a situation like you describe, it's like the court saying "..we need nice communities 'out here'...not food."
"The farming family had no choice but to sell to the developer at a loss." Of course, we all know this was probably the reason for the ruling, not the "peace" of the neighbors.
@@fredflintstone4715 The court was really saying that the developer had paid them off...
One time I was working on site in NJ at a sewage treatment plant. The plant was built in the 60's at relatively remote location at the time. The town built ballparks adjacent to the plant. About 25 years later a developer bought the land adjacent to the ballparks and built high-end condos. The new condo owners apparently never bothered to find out what the plant was. Needless to say, the complaints about the aroma came in when the wind was blowing the right direction. The last I know the plant was still there.
This is why I'm glad to live in a "right to farm" community. There are 4 working orchards and several working farms in our town and our bylaws protect their right to operate from silliness like this.
Happened to me been a dairy farmer for 50 years had a family bought a small property quarter of a mile down the road moved out from the city. Tried to get the sheriff to stop me from milking before 9 in the morning as the noise distrurbed them when the sheriff told them he couldn’t do that they tried suing me the Judge threw out the case and told off their lawyer.
City people are idiots sometimes. I am a country/City girl-raised in the country and love it but prefer to live in the city and have access to electricity water and heat year round. But Country people are extra idiotic in the city sometimes too! Worse than both of them are suburbanites who are out of place everywhere! LOL!
I live in a small housing development surrounded on all sides by farmland. When I bought the house, I had to sign documents stating that the farms are going to operate at all hours of the day and night on occasion and will be loud sometimes. I knew what I was getting into though. I can't remember the last time I heard them at night, so it hasn't be bad at all. I like the little area.
I used rent a beachfront house for a week every year when the kids were little. It was beautiful and the owner had explained the high-water rule to us. Everyone along the beach was respectful and pleasant.
The one problem, like you mentioned, was the neighbors kids. They would come down to their parents house with a group of friends and have big fire and whole lot of beer. My only problem was that they didn’t properly douse the fire and also disposed of glass beer bottles in the fire.
My kids were small and could step on that glass or still hot embers and get seriously injured.
Luckily it never happened but to keep the kids safe, I would do the clean up.
It always bothers me when people think only if themselves and care little about what might happen.
This is an issue at every beach, be it on lakes, rivers, creeks, oceans, bays, or anywhere people drink, camp, and build fires. You can fix ignorance with education, mental issues with drugs and therapy, but there is no fix for stupid.
In South Australia, a club that I belonged to purchased a valley within a farm for a rifle range. It was perfect and approved by the authorities as safe for long range and short range rifle shooting. As part of the deal, we purchased a strip of land wide enough for a wide driveway. We had contractors grade and form a compressed gravel driveway, about 3 miles long, from the roadway to the rifle range and put a sign up saying “Rifle range” so that people could find us (we offered day permits to use the range).
The farmer sold blocks of land (unserviced) along the driveway for about a mile, say 40 blocks. After a while the new residents, who gave their address as “x Rifle range road” complained to the council (city) that the road was difficult to drive on and should be bitumanised. At that time, they discovered that what they thought was a road was in fact a driveway, owned by our club, and that there was a rifle range at the end of the driveway! They petitioned to have the rifle range closed and lost. Strictly, we could have denied them access but we didn’t as the farmer was probably at fault. Even though they did not have a formal address, the postal service delivered mail addressed to Rifle Range Road, the water was connected and electricity was reticulated to their houses (as a spur off our line to the range that we had paid for). After a while it all settled down and the range is still there and in daily use some 60 years later.
I bought my house on the glide path to a big airport, about 8000 ft from the end of the runway. I knew what I was doing and understood that there was a noise abatement ordinance in place restricting most air operations between 10 PM and 7 AM. Most often the flights are taking off over my house, so they climb rapidly and often turn before they are directly over my house. It's worse when they are landing as they have to follow the glide path which is directly over my house and at a lower altitude. I have lodged complaints when the air operations are outside of the specified hours and the airlines get fined, the money going to the city library system. Eventually, the worst offender ceased operations at the airport. Like you said, know what the rules are before you buy.
Used to scuba dive in a lake whose homes were owned by multi-millionaires. Boat captain took us to an under water wall. Didn't use a nearby dock, didn't touch the land. A person comes out and is yelling at us. The captain responds back that "you don't even live here. I have the permission of the owner to allow us to dive here. I asked for permission only out of respect to the owner. I don't even need his permission, this is a public lake. We'll be gone in a little over an hour." She wanted to call the police - such a Karen.
You were going to dive into their savings and plunder it like a pirate ship arrrrgh!
I've been on one wall dive, and it was pretty cool, especially since it was before our shark dive and sharks were already showing up, but you do have to keep a close eye on your depth gauge, especially since we didn't have dive computers back then. I just tried to stay above the rest of the group, especially since I was a bit out of shape at the time and wanted to conserve a bit of air and the group had to head back when even one person started getting low on air.
"We'll be gone in a little over an hour."
That part should never have been mentioned.
That part Implies that you are compromising a little, when there is zero reason to.
@@shawbros Never compromise to a Karen if there are witnesses. I only say the later so you don't get a sexual assault charge for looking at her the wrong way.
When people tell me they're gonna call the cops my reply is "Good! Call someone who matters because your opinion doesn't!"
The one time someone did call the cops, They ended up nearly shitting themselves when I brought up pressing charges for hunter/fisherman harassment.
Just wanted to note that in some states people are allowed to walk above the high-water mark to clear an obstacle which can be anything from a rock to a dam and more. I apologize if this has been said a thousand times previous as I didn't read back too far
Disney learned this lesson on Wabasso Beach, just north of Vero Beach, Florida, when they fenced the beach off from their little resort there out into the water. Someone sued and Disney very reluctantly removed the fence. You don't own the beach.
@Steven Strain That's slightly different, because he isn't fighting ownership of the beach (which has always been the law - to the mean high tide mark), but the California Coastal Commission law that requires that he maintain an easement for people to access it through his land. As Steve mentioned, that isn't the law in most places, but it is in California. I'm not saying California is wrong (I certainly made good use of such easements growing up there), but it is a different issue than ownership of the beach itself. Under federal law, he might just win, because (unlike the case in the video) he's fighting about property he actually does legally own. I hope he doesn't though, because California's laws regulating public access to beaches is what makes their beaches so much better than those where the uber-rich can exclude everyone else, or develop right up to them so no one gets to enjoy them.
@Steven Strain
Borrow a trebuchet from a pumpkin chunker.
Substitute dead rats for pumpkins.
Launch toward a$$hole’s house.
Rinse and repeat prn.
@@Androctonus84 he might well have very valid security concerns for which to need to close off that access.
I know someone who has survived 3 assassination and 2 kidnapping attempts (that I know of, there may have been more) in the past 18 months alone.
They employ a private security force, live in a walled compound with electrified fencing on top of said wall, etc. etc.
One of those attempts on their lives was in such a beach front California property (they were renting it) where a team of armed assailants tried to get in past the security fencing.
Had that fencing not extended into the water they'd have succeeded and a bloody firefight ensued that'd have no doubt left several people dead.
In the end they managed to get away using fast boats while the attackers tried to get over the walls and fences. Police didn't arrive until they were gone but before anyone breached the compound.
I know that's an exception. But valid reasons do exist for such extreme security measures.
@@jwenting If security is that much of a concern, the property owner could negotiate with the municipality to replace an easement through the middle of their property with one or more easements at the edges of their property.
And THEN they can build their razor-wire-topped walls with surveillance cameras, motion sensors, and roving guard patrols.
@@jwenting Sounds more like a reason for a rich prick that has made some extreme enemies to not live on a beachfront property where the law requires public easement through his property.
Sure he might have security concerns, but that isn't anyone's problem but his own.
I was canoeing on the little river in Ohio once, and I was with my kids and their friends and we stopped near but not on the shoreline. We had only stopped to switch seats and go over some tips on canoeing. Well Karen came out and start threatening to call the cops, I informed her the river is considered an navigable waterway and the state owns to the traditional high water mark. She wanted me off the rocks that were clearly underwater in the spring and winter. The kids were furious when I said; kids it is lunch break and I went about setting up a campfire. She threatened to call the cops, I said go ahead, make sure you call the DNR guys because the cops do not have jurisdiction. She left in a huff, we ate lunch, I made a fire and made some coffee. We waited about 45 mins and no one ever showed.
When we got to the canoe rental base, they told me she called. The owner said she calls at least 50 times a year, I showed him how to put a block on her number; as that option was in "a friendly user trial at the time". A few weeks later I was by there and stopped by, he said she had not called once, but showed up one day and tore into him. He then proceeded to get a restraining order on her, because the cops came during her rant and arrested her.
My favorite property story; is a group was suing the landfill that was in existence 50 years before they built their homes.. Too funny, it did not stink then, it grew....
This exact same thing has been happening for decades on the Gulf Coast in the Florida Panhandle. Destin and the surrounding areas are lousy with folks buying up beachfront property and not understanding you DO NOT OWN THE BEACH. Lawsuits and arguments for years and years. The locals, as in the people who actually live there year round, don't care about No Trespassing signs and you would regularly see them taken down or moved up to the high tide line. The greedy developers have recently started suing over Public Access Walkways to the beaches, claiming they're detrimental to their investment.
Yes, but what happens when there is erosion, and your beach home now litteraly sits on the beach after something like a hurricane?
@@knerduno5942 If you buy a beach front home on the Ocean then you accept that as a risk. Anyways, I'm pretty sure you'd be more concerned about you're house being in the ocean than people being able to walk next to you're house.
@@knerduno5942 Oh that's easy. You whinge and moan until the state hires a barge to pump sand back onto the beach.
@@knerduno5942 lived here 30 years. The water still rises to the same spot it did when I was a kid.
@@cptjaxie1925 depends on the location. A few years ago in sw FL due to beach erosion they were dredging sand back up onto the beach. Due to storms and erosion.
Those lawsuits where over adding 100 yards to the beach making it a longer walk to the water from the condos...surprisingly they got nowhere against the corps of engineers as well as the state, environmental regulations etc.
I always learn something watching Mr Lehto. I remembered years ago going to a shooting range out of town, well housing started to get built up around the shooting range. People didn't like the noise and they signed a petition to shut it down. They couldn't do it.
There is a mental defect that makes some people think they can control the area around their property, like the street parking in front of their house. I remember a case where someone bought a house in the heart of the French Quarter New Orleans then proceeded to complain about the noise.
Or the people vacationing and all day long snapping pics of every angle of your place and even some sneak onto your porch ,yard etc to be in the photo. Trespassing signs only meant for those that have bad intent is what some think,others dont care. The shot is worth it,
If youre seen in your yard close or far,they have to talk or enve get you attention so they can talk to you. Thats why many owners are never visible.
I cant imagine being a celebrity and trying to do anythin in peace whe in public. No wonder some celebs are so hostile to some of the public. Oh it gets worse...short term rentals ...Ok Im over done
My favourite is people who build homes adjacent or under the flight path of airports and then complain that aeroplanes make nose.
Interestingly land in such locations sell for lower prices for that very reason.
same with move next to a gun range and complaint about noise or next to a pig farm about smell.
Or next to an active rail line crossing or rail yard
@@jamessimms415 or the girls idiot who started a car detailing business next to a museum that had an operating steam locomotive.
This battle has been going on in California for decades. Many Pacific Coast beaches are blocked by cliffs, sometimes extending into the water. One infamous beach blocker is the cofounder of Sun Microsystems, who cut off access to Martins Beach.
Here in New Jersey it's a huge issue along the Atlantic coastline. The wealthy people with beachfront property often want to own it and bar everyone all the way to the ocean. Of course that beach erodes continuously and is replenished with state and federal money but somehow they still want it all to themselves.
Surfers and fishermen have been fighting legal battles over this for decades and there is some legislation which guarantees the right to be on the beach as well as have access to the beach. Some snotty little towns have tried to get around this by restricting parking anywhere nearby and other slimy maneuvers :-(
Some legislation which is supposed to guarantee access would be the public trust doctrine, N.J. Admin. Code § 7:7-16.9, S1074 and a lot of others. It's a big issue but unfortunately Utube won't let me paste links.
here in ohio...the state owns 30 ft beyond the high water mark...you can maintain it if you want but you cant stop people from using it...as erosion takes place your property shrinks
I used to work on Grand Cayman. Our main resort would charge $5.00 USD to access the beach in front of the resort. Meanwhile, the tourists didn't know it was a public beach that could be easily accessed. MInd you, they did provide towels, outdoor showers and lounge chairs on the beach which were worth the entry fee.
If it was just a "Beach is that way!" Deal mean old ripoff but since you get towels and access to the showers and chairs, it better but the wording wouls trip people.
I would if a resort in the states can buy a section of beach?
@@Subject_Keter They were bussed to the resort by the Cruise Line and brought to the entrance where payment was requested. The government allowed this on the condition that payment wasn't mandatory. The tourists were never told it's a public beach and you could refuse payment. I did see a few that knew better.
To use the beach without paying you would need to go around the resort. The fee was for acess to the resort facilities, not the beach.
@@Tugela60 Exactly. GC is actually very good about providing public access route to the beach, and there's a fair chance there was an access right of way within a few hundred feet of where people got off the bus.
9:18
This is what is done in Florida. If you _want_ to lounge on the Hillsboro Mile (a.k.a. The Millionaire's Mile), you are free to do so. You'll just be parking 10 miles away, and walking down the beach to get there. Good luck.
Or enter by boat.
Why would anyone want to go out of their way just to lounge on that beach when there are plenty of beautiful free beaches in Florida. This video is about people crossing in front of house's on a lake or the ocean when there is no other way at all to get to a body of water . Also that is not done in Florida, that is what is done on the Hillsboro Mile.
I suppose you could also boat to the area, and either be ferried in on a rowboat or small launch, or swim to the beach from your anchored boat.
Having the righ to be on the beach does NOT mean local property owners have to make it convenient for you to get there. Getting there is your problem.
In Australia, the property boundary is 20 feet past the height tide mark , depending on state, this includes rivers , streams , lakes and other water areas.
I'm so happy that in the State of Oregon, all beaches on the Pacific Coast are *public* and that's the law. I love it!
Likewise Calif and some degree of access is guaranteed too, although I don't know the details.
In Texas Beaches are state Highways and all boat able water ways are public right of ways with 10' from waterline as public access so you can beach a boat and have access to land is needed.
Ownership only to the high water mark is normal, and AFAIK Maine is the only stupid coastal state that grants property ownership to the low water mark. Depending on topography that can be a significant amount of land because of the tidal range. Considering that the public shoreline goes back at least as far as the Code of Justinian over 1500 years ago I have no idea how Maine screwed things up so badly.
@@suedenim9208 they actually didn't if you think it through. If you have a titled lot that extends 30ft onto the beach but the low waterline is 100ft out, then you own that 30ft, they just don't sell the other 70ft. It means that they have defined property lines that tend not to change. Now elsewere that 30ft could 1 year mean you own 20ft, next year 15ft, year after 20ft, it changes constantly every year.
But you can bet that the moment someone has an accident on the beach, even if they were 25ft out, suddenly that's your property and your liable and not the state. Frankly this is one of those laws that is badly written. Yes beaches and waterways should be public access, but they should do it by not allowing land to be "sold" or titled on them. Pick the high water mark, go 5ft further inland, and draw a line, that land is now all the way out to the other shoreline/international waters, is now state/federal property and can not be sold.
Alternatively make it so all land in that area has a mandatory easement allowing public access and limited liability, as this would be required for docks.
It's the same in FL and Wisconsin. I think it's rare to be not public.
The high water, high tide mark is commonly used as the place your water front or beach front property ends. So at high tide, passers by would need to walk in shallow water, and at low tide they can walk on the exposed beach.
Similar but different: We have lived in our house now for 14 years and it is located next to a mainline railroad. When we were looking to purchase it, the real estate agent told us that the city council was going to extablish quiet zones for the two crossings near us so the trains wouldn't have to toot. For one, I worked for a railroad and ran trains on that line, know about quiet zones and how difficult they are to set up. Second, the area we live is not incorporated, which was one of the reasons we wanted to live there, out in the country; no city council (or HOA thank goodness!!). So yeah, our real estate agent lied to us but I knew it. We bought the place and neither the trains nor the agriculture going on around us bothers us.
You worked for the rr so your aware that actually nothing can be done even at state level unless said rr agrees to be good neighbors.
The old rr land grants are pretty well absolute for the aforementioned rr to be immune from most state and federal actions.
this is a problem in places like Colorado too. the red rocks amphitheater is frequently getting hit with noise complaints because some developer decided to build houses nearby a place where loud concerts happen frequently. its sad too because it usually just turns into the farm, or venue, or airport eventually gets bullied out by the housing complex despite having been there first.
Never really thought about this, but it's just been common practice my whole life so I never really noticed. It's the same in Ohio. People just walk on the beachfront, I just walk on the beachfront, and nobody ever had a problem.
"Pacific Legal Foundation?" uh... Do they know that the entire coastline of California is public property also? Many rich people have contested this, and rightfully lost. Every year some homeowners will put up a fence or "no trespassing" signs to block public access to the beach. Apparently they do not think the law applies to them.
Personally, if I had beach front property and people were walking by on the shoreline, I'd just say hi, introduce myself, be kind, maybe even make some new friends. I don't live on beach front property (we chose not to go for an expensive deal on that), but I do live on a very large corner lot right near the entrance to a huge city park, so i get a lot of people walking past. On nice summer days I make sure anyone who needs a rest or wants to stop in has a friendly place to do so. It's easier to be kind than it is to be a jerk.
AMEN...💯👍
Absolutely
A similar situation happened up here in Canada many years ago. With the case in Canada, the owner took it up a notch more by building a fence right down into the water. It caused a big uproar and many things happened including the fence being chainsawed and lit on fire. Eventually the owner moved out and the new owner got rid of the fences and welcomed people to walk along the property line near the water.
Every time I see someone put up a post or video about silly property rights/law I just chuckle. I live in Maine, our posted law boils down to 'if the land isn't posted, and you're not being a dick, then it's fine. If you're going to do something that may be unwelcome, like put up a tree stand or use an ATV where there isn't an obviously manmade trail, ask first. Our 'implied access' doctrine is a surprisingly potent and simple solution to all this silliness.
People in a new neighborhood in my town complained about campfire smell from a campground that had been there for over 45 years.
Ben is learning how to defend himself with a saber.
I never noticed that sabre there. Always looking at the one behind him.
@@abrahamlincoln9758 i am not sure what thw one below the lawyer dog sign is but damn. 3 sabers.
You cracked me up when you mentioned the farm. I almost fell off the couch when you mentioned the racetrack. You can hear the dragstrip in Denver for miles. Still isn't nearly as bad as living near a large sheep farm.
But Steve, what about the airspace above the beach?
Anyway, who knew a bunch of little Barbara Streisands lived in Indiana :-)
Big problems now in NW Florida with No Trespassing signs on State owned beaches.
Had a similar thing happen in my home town in Prince Edward Island Canada. There’s a small beach by my parents house at the end of a public road and someone bought a piece of land next to the beach and built a cottage on it. Not sure how they managed to get a permit for it but anyway. After it was built a bunch of signs started showing up on the road saying private beach and they started putting up no trespassing signs and tried to block public access. The signs and blockades mysteriously disappeared and someone had to replace a bunch of windows in there cottage. Probably not the best idea to piss off the locals that live there year round
My public use shoreline stops at the high water limit.
Usually marked by logs and other flotsam.
I recall looking at property in PA some years back; I can’t recall if it was a private lake or not but it was a man-made/created lake. The deeds actually granted property/building rights from the road to an arbitrary line 20’ from the low water mark (from where the lake was drained to in the winter), though there was a clause allowing the public use of the water for boating and swimming. All but 1 parcel around the lake was private with a single parcel being publicly accessible and usable, though I believe it may have been managed by a private entity and not public land. It wasn’t a big lake and I believe had a 10 HP motor limit for boats but I recall thinking that it was quite odd as any other beachfront places we looked at had property rights ending at the high water mark, excluding docks.
I’m guessing this is because they were man-made lakes, of which there were quite a few in PA. One nice thing about some of these lakes were their fisheries permits which allowed fishing for residents and visitors, for which they could charge a small fee, without needing a PA fishing permit; which was nice as PA fishing/hunting permits get pricy for out of state residents, excluding disabled veterans.
It's fairly common for the state to have owned the land under rivers and large lakes from the time they were granted statehood. That original ownership is why 5th amendment claims of taking fail. OTOH, unless the state was the one that created an artificial lake they probably don't own the land that was flooded when the lake was created, or the shoreline bordering the lake. In some states there might be a public right to navigate on the water overlying the private lakebed, but sometimes the right to navigate is limited to a property right attached to adjoining parcels.
FWIW, later his summer I'll be spending a few days at a place on an artificial lake in NY, and I've found that the lake , *and a few feet of the shoreline* are privately owned. I don't know the exact details, but none of the "lakefront" properties actually own to the water and I'm guessing all access apparently comes in the form of an easement of some sort. I presume the lake owner originally owned most of he bordering properties, and HOA dues cover access and dam maintenance among other things.
@@suedenim9208 a lake which is totally surrounded by a single property owner can effectively "own" a lake. If it's a man made lake you can own the land under it also, however who owns the water is not normally the landowner. Water rights and all that.
In addition runoff and streams are highly regulated.
At my location of I want a lake I just need to dig a big hole and a bit of landscaping to direct water to it (though directing water really isn't needed). However I do have to insure that under flood conditions the water goes where the state wants it and the overflow is clean (no contamination with petroleum etc).
Always consult with a local civil engineer for design and get the appropriate permits.
Hey Steve was watching some of your old videos. Love how the studio has grown :)
Apparently this property owner figured that he owned to the water when he bought the place and now is going to fight to the death. Now that he knows the reality it seems to me that he'd give this fight up and move on if for nothing else his health. You've got to choose your battles wisely.
This case parallels exactly what I've seen around here. A wheat farmer will sell a lot adjacent to his 800 acre wheat field, they'll build a house on it and fence it in and everything is just fine UNTIL summer comes along. No shade trees and it gets 140° in the sun, dust from planting and harvesting blankets his property, poison chemicals drift everywhere in his living space and he can't even grow a garden without it shriveling up, not to mention 10 months out of the year he feels sick. At some point you have to be thinking to yourself I made a mistake, I learned, now I'll move on.
communities that insert themselves in the midst of nice neat dairy farms,because of the beautiful & tranquil appearance ,but when reality sets in( the 24 hr smell) the people drive the stinkin industry out
Temecula ,Hemet,Sanjacinto valley area in Calif
Eh, if people want to be dumb and destroy their own lives over stupid things let em. Then use them as examples to show your kids what not to do in life.
@@tommygunn7745
Then they complain about high cost of dairy
Back in the eighty’s/nineties I lived in a tiny village in the northeast of England. I was eight hundred yards away from a farm. Several times a year the farmer spread large amounts of chicken manure on his fields. A week of interesting aroma. Just a few days of not putting washing out to dry outside. Plus he had peacocks. Not the quietest of birds. Still beats city living.
@@michaelshaw8370 You got to love chicken manure as fertilizer. I used to put a shovel full from the chicken coop into a 7 gallon bucket and mix it with water then dump it on tomato plants a little bit at a time as to not burn them. I supported all the restaurants in our 25,000 population town all summer and fall with my 50 tomato plants growing humongous tomatoes with flavor unstoppable. I supported myself for a good 5 years doing this. Chicken shit does wondrous things to vegetables if you use it sparingly, that enough makes you love the smell!!
Southern end of major city Hamilton NZ in one area bordering on rural there are the following, Airport, Kart Racing track, Gun club Range, Major indoor/outdoor events centre. Some of the farms nearby were subdivided into lifestyle blocks where "townies" moved to and they all complained about and tried to get the above closed down or moved (yes even the airport) as well as complaining about the nearby farms that were still operating as farms.
You use the example of a farm or a drag strip.
The flip side to this is if enough people move into that area, they can ultimately put an end to both of those businesses with enough lawsuits and city support. I've seen it happen. The city grows around rural areas that become suburbs, businesses that had been there for 20 years are slowly choked off until they are forced to close.
Absolutely true. The world-famous Laguna Seca Raceway has been forced to severely limit activities because enough wealthy people moved out to the desert and built homes near the track.
@@ateamfan42 You mean to tell me that race cars are loud?! PREPOSTEROUS! UNBELIEVEABLE! WHO COULD OF FORSEEN THIS?! Except....literally everyone.
I grew up on Long Island and we belonged to a private beach. Same thing. As long as you’re walking below the high tide line it’s public. As it should be.
Ben suffering under the sword again, sword (edit in front of) RES IPSA plate, Steve's RHS
Some people from down state Michigan are building a Lake Michigan beachfront home next to the place we rent. They have put up "NO Trespassing" signs on the beach in front of the house. What is amusing is that their land was surveyed and the signs are well outside their actual lot line. In fact, where they placed their signs were underwater 3 years ago.
Shoot! My Calif. house's rear property runs into National Forest. I thought I owned, in a zig-zag fashion, all the way to the Canadian border. I'm sooo disappointed by this ruling.
I apologize to all those that I said, "Hey you kids, get away from there!", in Montana.
Yes, some people in Ogden Dunes have their nose way too high. I grew up with friends in Beverly Shores (just east of Ogden Dunes), they knew the beach was public access. Though some years it was not clear as the distance from the seawall at the house was sometimes 300' from the water and some years the water was at the seawall and people could not walk past without climbing up their yard and walking on their patio. They just made the access to the patio difficult from the rest of the beach. Rarely did people try to get off the beach by walking up their stairs and patios, along the side of the house to get to the street. Those got yelled at and to use the public access stairs a block or two to either side of the houses.
Same thing happened to me, Guy hollers
" HEY CAN'T YOU READ " I replied NOT WELL
I went to Public Schools
My only advice to these property owners is to perhaps pay for a land survey to make sure they are not paying property tax on the PUBLIC BEACH.
Response: Of course you only pay for tax on your land
There will always be some excuse to continue raking in money for nothing.
aka due diligence. In property that is a widely exclaimed phrase,but some apparently think they are the exception. "Think theyre the exception" that is the biggest mind set and problem with trespassers I notice
They don’t tax you for beaches they do tax for beachfront and or view property. One way or another they will up your taxes.
Property tax is calculated using an assessed value that is based on what neighboring parcels of land sell for. The actual amount of tax you pay is the proportion of your assessed value compared to the total assessed vale in the town and indexed off the towns budget. So, if your assessed value comprises 0.01% of the taxable jurisdictions total value, and the jurisdiction has a budget of $100 million, your tax due would be $10,000.
It does not matter if your assessed value increases year by year, provided your neighbors assessed values increase by the same amount and the jurisdictions budget stays the same.
@@charlespaine987 But you can tell the state to maintain their beach property from debris, etc that piles up from the storms.
I’m a retired New Jersey Professional Land Surveyor.
Several years ago I was employed to perform a survey of a privately owned lake.
Years ago a real estate development company subdivided the land surrounding the lake.
Lots were created “surrounding” the lake.
The “surrounding” lots were sold out.
Very expensive homes were built on the “surrounding” lots.
The real estate development company retained ownership of the lake to include a three foot strip of dry land around the lake.
Over time the surrounding homeowners gradually encroached to the water line to include docks, cabanas, water pumps, etc.
The owners of the lake, including the dry three foot strip of land, would have a land survey performed every so many years.
A survey report was prepared for each individual “surrounding” home owner instructing the homeowner to remove all encroachments.
In this manner the owner of the lake preserved their exclusive ownership rights.
Needless to say many of the “surrounding” owners were not happy!
@1:26--"Lake Michigan is surrounded by a buncha states...INCLUDING Michigan"
Shocking! 😂
@ 1:19 what i would do, before even watching the video, is walk into the water making sure i am ankle deep and keep going. A lake is technically a "navigable waterway", and in Texas where i am, is state property and specifically not private property. I have actually done this.
Here in TN you have to be floating in a river. The owner owns the land and you're not allowed on it. If floating on through no one can say a word.
I'm not sure about lakes. All of our Tva Lakes seem to be the same though.
Probably not on an artificial like built on private land. A structure does not become public simply because there is water in it.
Depends on the lake
All lakes aren't navigatable by definition.
However the state owns the water in it and in most jurisdictions the land under the lake for natural lakes.
@@Tugela60 that's when it gets complicated with water rights. Generally the state "owns" the water even in a private lake.
@@duanesamuelson2256 in Texas any waterway that touches state land is a public navigable waterway. River passing through private property. Or 2 small lakes connected by a small channel that goes under a state bridge makes it public water. Did battle over that one personally with bexar county SO and TPW set em straight. So that's in Texas. Results may vary by jurisdiction. This is my experience not a guess or supposition.
For more than 150 years the Long Island Rail Road operated a freight yard and locomotive facility in Long Island City. The land was zoned "Industrial." In the past 15 years some developer petitioned to have the land zoned as "General Use."
Well it is true that the steam engines are long gone, most of the freight tracks paved over as a park, and the car floats remain only as an historic treasure. And land developers built tall condominiums facing the train yard. People come in to inspect the property on a weekend, and all is quiet. They move in.
Then on Monday morning the trains come in. Dozens of them. And they leave their locomotives running all day long. Noise and Smoke! And the new homeowners are upset. They want to sue the railroad. A railroad wholly owned by the State of New York. "Can't you at least shut off the engines?" Nope, not happening, you want that we should bring back the steam locomotives. We can do that you know. This was a rail yard for 150 years before you were born, and that is how life is.
BTW: We do have a lake on our property here in North Dakota, and while the state may own the lake and the beach, it is entirely on our property with no public access. We refuse to allow State Game and Fish to stock the lake as that would open it to the public for fishing (and littering, loud music and motor vehicles.) Cows are welcome. Moo.
The freight yard. I can't answer specifically for long Island however due to concessions and grants made in the 1800's during the rr expansion congress gave the rr's land with rights that actually supercede state and much federal control.
Even rr which are non existent those easements still exist. It's why you'll see the rr with no notice or explanation just shut down state roads sometimes for extended periods of time. It's up to the local or state to make alternative arrangements.
Usually rr are good neighbors and do work with the locals, however I was talking to a NYSEG employee in upstate NY that they had had to ask to use a road which had been built on an old rr right of way with no remaining tracks for access to a service area every time because some (idiot) at the state tried to exert their non existent authority.
Was looking at houses in Olive Branch MS (Just south of Memphis across the state line) when I was 10 or 11. Looked at one house that was super close to some rail tracks. Parents asked how loud it got, and the agent just said "It's a railway, why do you think this house is selling for so cheap?".
I'll never get how stupid people have to be to move next to air Stations, railways, naval bases, farms, industrial centers, race tracks, and/or other OBVIOUS NOISY LOCATIONS, and then bitch and whine about it. Paperwork should really contain a page purely dedicated to someone acknowledging that sometimes SHIT GETS LOUD, and you KNOW THIS GOING IN, and have no right to bitch and complain, or otherwise be an unreasonable asshole.
@@duanesamuelson2256 Federal land grant were never made to east coast railroads. They were made to new lines west of the Mississippi to encourage development etc. The Federal Government got in return lower freight rates and troop transports, so it was not really a land giveaway.
Being a beach I'm assuming you can access the beach from your kayak, canoe, liferaft, 1000-footer ore freighter, etc.
For a moment I thought this was about a celebrity 'owning' a beach and put up fences with private police to keep people out despite at least one court order.
I saw a news piece of a condo that tried to claim a municipally built sidewalk as part of their "private property" because they sold their units on the premise of "private beach access".
Here in MD particularly Anne Arundel County. Its 10 feet from the mean high tide. BUT. the county helps out the wealthy waterfront owners by making the areas around public access to water, ",No Parking" for a mile or so adjacent to undeveloped parkland. That essentially makes it the private property of the neighboring properties. Unless you want to hike in a couple of miles to access the water. Anne Arundel has over 400 miles of shoreline if you followed the contour of the waterways. It doesn't have one public boat ramp or swimming beach. (Truxton Park is City of Annapolis. Sandy Pt is State of MD). It does however have not 1 but 2 public golf courses.
ben is laying over the edge in front of RES IPSA
In some jurisdictions there is some additional strip 10 feet or so above the high water mark, simply for the case of high tides and the difficulty of defining the exact "normal" high water mark.
This is why I bought my house next to a cemetery, not a lot of people walking by, zombies though....
Lots of peace and quiet... OMG It's Michael Jackson!😁
Your right. But Dam Creepy 😬
Hi Steve, I have encountered this in MN as a developer. I believe these laws also refer to rivers and streams as well as lakes per the DNR. Also the ordinary high water line is described as the 100 year high water mark for any navigable waterway. and Navigable is described as any body of water that you could even canoe within the same 100 year history ie: Native Americans, trappers etc. This is also a large part of the Army Corp of engineers work for the upper mid west out of Chicago. You can also picnic if you like or camp if allowed by State Law to do so and the property owner just has to smile and bear it. Now this is just how I remember it and laws do change so this is not legal advice for you or your viewers. David
My Grandfather and later my father owned a home on Cape Cod with a similar problem. Some of these property descriptions were written during Colonial times. It was ocean front so it involved the Feds and the the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It originally said something like "50' into the water during low tide", sometime during the 1950's it was changed to "50' into the land during high tide". Public access issue also became mute when the town purchased two adjoining properties and made a public boat ramp. I don't remember any issues with the public when my Dad owned it during the 60's, 70's and 80's when I went there. It was a great place to spend summers as a kid.
we have that here Ontario, Canada. Its' called a shore road allowance. 66ft from the high water mark. You can buy that section, but most people do not, and assume that it is theirs.
A few miles from my residence exists a very small industrial park. When I moved in, the industrial park was mostly abandoned and underutilized. A couple of years ago, a new company moved in to the park. They rehabilitated all of the buildings and invested tens of millions of dollars in new equipment. Now, everyone is angry because you can faintly hear the equipment MILES AWAY. The city won’t do anything. The State won’t do anything. And the Federal Government won’t do anything. One day I decided to look around and do some digging. As it turns out, what they are doing is important enough and valuable enough that all levels of government will protect them. On another note, I found it quite interesting when I saw the entire complex had power when the entire city was out. Turns out that whatever they are up too is so important that the utility ran separate lines all the way from the complex to the substation.
They probably have backup generators, they will look like a big white or green trailer.
@@corymcthrash I am intentionally omitting a few details that I know about the complex. You are correct, they have several massive backup generators. However, I know for a fact that the utility really did run dedicated lines to the substation.
Yep. 2017 south of Muskegan I drove on a street through Lake Michigan water.
A more interesting case is a private island. Where I'm from, the beaches also belong to the public, and that includes private islands. People can get on a boat, and go spend the day on the beach there. Someone I know who owned of these had his island declared a natural preserve, so he was able to repel all tourists. Must be nice to have that kind of pull with the establishment.
Quite frankly, thats a little ridiculous and entitled of the people who would sail over and do that.
@@TSD4027 Yeah, I thought so too, which is why I was so glad he found a way to put a stop to it.
my father managed to get our garden declared a nature preserve. Not to stop people going there (it was fenced in anyway) but because of the subsidies for grounds maintenance that come with it.
Of course it also comes with serious restrictions, like what plants you can put in, what if any buildings you can erect, even restrictions on when you can mow the lawn. It's a tradeoff.
Preserve means they can't go there either.
@@TSD4027 Right? What kind of asshole would have the audacity to use public property?
A couple bought a house that the driveway was across the road from the trap range at a local Sportsman's club. They, along with a bunch of people from a housing development that had recently been built in the area tried to get the Club that had been there since the 1940s shut down. The Town Board basically laughed at them. They got a some people elected to the town board and passed and ordinance to stop the shooting. It ended up in court with the Sportsman's Club winning.
The same is true of the shoreline along California and the Pacific Ocean , I recall that a law was put in place over 40 years ago called the California Coastal Act to ensure public access to the shoreline .
Yep, and that act required developers of new beachfront communities, as well as existing neighborhoods to provide and post coastal access paths every so many feet. A lot of the Malibu wealthy were really chapped with that...
That's a little different. The law has always made ocean beach public property up to the mean high tide mark. The California law requires beachfront property owners to allow access to the beach by way of an easement through their property. So unlike the case in the video, you've always ben allowed to walk along the beach, but the California law also says that there has to be public access allowed to the beach, even if all the property along the coast is privately owned.
@@Androctonus84 That was literally my point
LOL ... about 20 years ago in my area - their were newcomers who were upset about a farmer raising sheep because they made noise; it turned out of course the area was zoned for agriculture.
A similar situation to the pig farm is an airport. I know our airport grew from a small regional airport to a large international airport over time. The problem was that the planes got larger and louder and had a longer and lower approach to land and take off. The land owners who originally could barely hear the planes eventually couldn't sleep at night and sued. The airlines were forced to approach at a higher altitude than was economical and drop down at the last minute, like a bombing run.
Even the pig farmer would have a lot of trouble if they increased from 100 pigs to 10,000. They would have local, state and federal agents all up their G.I. tract.
We have something similar where I live . But you may only own to the high water mark on the beach. But you cannot be made to provide a right of way to access the beach. Myself and my neighbors have pur properties posted private no trespassing. The nearest public access to the beach is about a mile and a little bit down the shoreline
Here in NJ I can appreciate this issue. There's a few towns (check out Deal for one) that are constantly having battles over access to and usage of the beach.
Try walking the beaches in Point Pleasant, NJ !
@@2pugman I assume you're talking about by Jenks and Tiki bar? I know they claim a big part of the beach. Seems like they own the town. I live down by LBI. Land of no parking or bathrooms.
@@veramae4098 build a couple of cottages and rent them out on airbnb. Those pallet cabins that have their own electricity and can be put up in a day/week
I knew a guy that use to fish the shoreline of Old Mission peninsula by walking the shore line. Lots of rich people there that own shoreline property. He told me that people would come running out yelling at him get off of their property. He said he would try to educate them but they would have none of it. They would keep yelling and threatening, and he would keep fishing. Side note: Gordie Howe and William Milliken lived on the the West side of old Mission Peninsula.
Hey Steve, my mother works at a motorcycle Dealership where they just built a PRESCHOOL behind it. The Moto dealership works on Harleys etc..
When they built it, we all bet money on how long it will take the preschool to complain.
I have been at a private camp on the shore of a lake... and while annoying, we didn't do anything about it. What we took issue with is the wish of those people to trespass and use our facilities within the property (usually bathrooms)
I moved next to an international airport. I knew that planes would potentially be overflying my purchased property, and that they would be LOUD.
One property owner (perhaps a group of property owners) who had moved to the area around the airport thought it would be a great idea to waste money buying billboard advertisements protesting the F-15 jets that take off with full-afterburner during practice intercept flights from the Air National Guard base that is also on the airport - a base that had existed long before these property owners had been born. 🙄🤦♂️
It could be they even tried to use undue influence in Washington, D.C. because there was an attempt to have the base closed, or the Intercept Wing (with the F-15s) that was stationed on the base moved to a different base - one of very few that defends the west coast. The state governor's office managed to put a stop to that.
I guess I'm a bit more tolerant because when I was stationed in Alaska, my dorm room was adjacent to the runway where the same F-15s were taking off at all hours, and in Texas, even noisier jets would overfly my dorm.
I'm an Air Force brat, grew up living in base housing. I would have to get re-acclimated now but at one time I would not even notice airplanes unless someone else mentioned them. 🤓🍻
The entitlement of people never ceases to disappoint.
It all depends on the owner's property line vis a vis the 'ordinary high water mark'. Because of erosion or accretion of shorelines, sometimes there are shore areas along a water body that can be traversed without crossing private property. At the same time the owner does not lose his rights of his property if erosion causes the water to move inland. They still own to the aforementioned property line. This is a stickier question on man made lakes where some people own "out into the water", again depending on where the property line actually lies.
Judge: 'Please show me proof that you were in possession of the property that was taken from you.'
Petitioner: "I have this chart showing the extent, and dimensions, of my title holdings, Your Honor.'
Judge: 'The title describes in legal, and in binding, terms the boundary of your holding. What is the description, and what is the convention in Law that operationalizes the terms?'
Petitioner: But, I have this nice map.....'
Judge: 'Sir, you cannot have anything 'taken from' you which you have never possessed. Do you understand my meaning?'
Petitioner: 'But.....but....this map...'
Judge: (..keeps silent, but slowly raises one of his eyebrows...)
Wouldn't that be fraudulent title by the agent? Or no?
Depends on the state.
*one time, in my youth, I was looking at a house with a realtor, and did not know that there was a railroad track, what seems like inches from the back of the house. needless to say, when a train came through, I decided this place was not for me 😊*
A bunch? I can think of only two others.
It’s the infuriating how often this comes up. Honestly the state should put up signs on this guy’s property saying ‘beach is for everyone’ and charge him the cost for the signs
should seize his land since never should be houses on beaches in first place never should sold public land
Informative video 👏 "pigs on a farm next door. Can you stop them farming? Vehicles make load noise on Saturday and Sunday on a drag strip. Can you stop them?" OMG 🤣 I laughed out loud 😂
"Omg my neighbors exist! Can you remove them from this planet k ty byez!"
Speaking of that, my family lives in a Equestrian District and they arw scared of the horsies... big old things up close but on the sideway? Mostly fine.
I used to get this surf fishing at the jerseys shour water front homes only owned to the high tite mark at the time. Most private beach properties have been taken if the beach was rebuilt
The entitlement is strong with this one.
Steve I know people that bought land next to airport then complained about the noise of the aircraft taking off and landing also know someone that bought house next to capitol speedway then complained about how loud race cars were.
Public access to shore and beach sounds reasonable, a good idea even. No fires, no parties, but access, being able to move in nature.
Its not. You should be able to own and manage up to and into the water front as far as the propertyine goes.
@@TheObsesedAnimeFreaks Nah. No reasonable person thinks that. Beaches are public property with few exceptions.
@@TheObsesedAnimeFreaks yes to you that makes sense,but put yourself as the other person...would you recognise those same rules? Laws can be changed,if you have enough influence and or money
@@TheObsesedAnimeFreaks You do own and control up to the property line. It's just that the property line is defined as the high water mark.
@@carbonstar9091 what reasonable person thinks that an unmarked beach with someone's house up on it is free to walk on? NO reasonable person that's who. you can own up to the waterline and past it, as far as I am concerned and there is no reason why anyone would expect otherwise. what world do you live in where property rights aren't a thing?
I know of places in Michigan that have public accesses and the property owns near that access do everything they can to make use of that access difficult or impossible. Example; getting the local government to prohibit parking near the access. In one case parking is at least a 1/2 mile away. In another case the locals placed large boulders, and I mean large 3-5 feet across, all through the access. These boulders did not just happen to show up by themselves. As the access is down a steep hill access was almost impossible without injury. I also have seen times when signage pointing to an access was often removed as soon as it is replaced.
Ben under the sword under the RES IPSA plate.
That even covers commercial property and all waterways that flow into it. They also cannot build walls to extend their properties.
Fortunately there are several empty lots and access roads to that beach.
Love it. I especially liked Steve's comments about people complaining about things around their property they should have known about before buying it. They recently built several neighborhoods of very nice homes at reasonable prices (something rare in the Denver metro area) near a regional airport. The houses were very tempting, but I did not want to live next to an airport, so I passed. Now that everyone has moved in, the neighbors are suing the airport because the planes make noise when flying over their homes. Who would have guessed planes make noise when flying 200 feet overhead? LOL. The selfishness and foolishness of humanity is without apparent limit.
sounds like my state, there was a s small amusement park in the middle of a residential area for decades, recently people (new owners) complained, forced them to limit their hours and eventually drove them out of business...because of the noise....that was there 1st.
I saw a house online that was $60,000 it was a weird crappy house 🏠 4 bed 1 bath? But still 60 for the land itself is very cheap so I looked it up on Google maps and basically through the driveway are traintracks with railroad crossing gate right next to it
Seen the same, while studying I used to work at a number of nightclubs, most of which had been at the location for decades(or at least, a nightclub had been there for decades), yet so many people move in, then starts complaining about there being a nightclub open. Fuck sake... I could understand if you live somewhere and a new thing opens.. but moving somewhere and then complaining....
It comes under navigatable waters law and federal law, and up to the high water line. However the land is a state issue.
Happens a lot in Hawaii.
Particularly since it's a holdover from Kingdom law.
Certain tech executives think they own the beach.
Amazed you dont see them having drones laser people for "vandalizint" the sand or sometginf wacko
it's a big problem in Puerto Rico too with the resorts trying to keep the locals off "their" property.
@@blest5132 Yes, but they can't do that. They've tried, and they've failed. It's a lovely walk down the crescent-shaped beach of Isla Verde, from the cemetery to the beachfront of the fancy American hotels. It's been many years since I've been there, so I imagine some things have changed. But not this particular law. The beaches belong to the public.
Lake Oswego Oregon home owners on the lake have denied public access to the lake. It is allegedly owned by the HOA. There are public parks on part of the lake. There is a dispute going on against the privatization of the lake by the wealthy land owners.
I have property with access to federal public land and lake. Unfortunately, people think they are allowed to access the public land by driving through my private property. There is access via a state section of land, but the state bulldozed the vehicle access and made it walk in only, about a half mile. This has caused a few heated discussions with people who think they can drive through my property to access it.
Water rights and access is very convoluted, and some rights aren’t codified, but are settled by old case law. That makes it very difficult to find, and several bodies of water has different rulings.
You might be able to bring action on the state for creating a public nuisance. One could argue that they have committed an unlawful "taking" of your property by shifting this burden on you.
This is true for almost every piece of property. Here in Texas there are a few pieces of property that has been in continue ownership since before the lakes were created. In these few cases they still retain ownership of the land under the water. the state is granted use of the water above the ground and any dry land is still private property.
It is an interesting compromise when the lakes are built.
I think they had a valid complaint. If the property line is shown to include all of the beach, then that's sleazy suggesting some law people aren't aware of states otherwise. If this were done in the private sector, then it would be considered deceptive. If the seller disclosed opposite information from the law, then the homeowner should be able to sue them for what would be considered the loss in value of not owning that parcel of land.
My parents owned beachfront property. They understood the 'high water mark' rule, but we keep people from using our trail to the lake. Not so much that we didn't want people to use it, but we didn't want the liability if they injured themselves, nor did we want it to become a public right of way. Folks sold it about thirty years ago for about $200k, recently sold for $1.4 million. I wanted to buy it back but not for that money.