[geargrrl]

dunno how many of you are lurking out there. Anyway, it has come to the club's attention that a 23 acre parcel adjacent to all the trail, in fact that has trails on it is slated for develpment. A lawyer has come forward who is putting together some legal action to try and preserve that part of the trails. Right now what is needed is anyone who has been a long time user in that area who would be willing to sign an affadavit of use. More information, inlcuding a map of the exact location, will be posted as it becomes available on the club website. If you'd be willing to be on this list, the contact info is on the club site at http://www.fttrc.org

thanks everyone,
geargrrl

 

[MinorThreat]

I'm going to revive this thread now that I have seen the maps of the area in question. I've enjoyed these trails, but would not call myself a long-time or frequent user. I think I understand what the attorney is up to, but would like some clarification: what "legal action" is he planning specifically? It looks like he's trying to force some adverse use maneuvering.

While I'd like to see trail access kept, I think this is the wrong tack. This is private land we're talking about. I feel it's OK to ASK for easement but not to try to force it. I've never bought the "well we've been trespassing for X number of years so we should be able to continue to do so" argument. I had no idea that it was not all city land down there as many people probably did not. But that does not mean that we now have some innate right to continue on as before.

I think rather than throwing in with the attorney, the FTTRC ought to approach the developer/owners directly and try to start a constructive dialogue.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Is this similiar to Squatters Rights? I think that is what it is called. When you maintain and use the land for X amount of years without objections.....it becomes yours, or you have some rights due to tresspassing for a certain length of time.

I always laughed at that in college business law, oh so many years ago.

Rhino

 

[MinorThreat]

Is this similiar to Squatters Rights? I think that is what it is called.

If I recall correctly, it's 'adverse use.' Similar to 'adverse possession' (i.e. - your fenceline took in a portion of your neighbor's land and it remained that way uncontested for seven years, so now it's yours). Happens with easements and such most often.
As a landowner, I have a real problem with people thinking they have a God-given right to continue what was an illegal use of someone else's land just because they've done so for a certain amount of time. The best way for people to preserve ground is to put their money where their mouths are and buy some ground. Then they can legitimately decide how it gets used.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

I'm going to revive this thread now that I have seen the maps of the area in question. I've enjoyed these trails, but would not call myself a long-time or frequent user. I think I understand what the attorney is up to, but would like some clarification: what "legal action" is he planning specifically? It looks like he's trying to force some adverse use maneuvering.

While I'd like to see trail access kept, I think this is the wrong tack. This is private land we're talking about. I feel it's OK to ASK for easement but not to try to force it. I've never bought the "well we've been trespassing for X number of years so we should be able to continue to do so" argument. I had no idea that it was not all city land down there as many people probably did not. But that does not mean that we now have some innate right to continue on as before.

I think rather than throwing in with the attorney, the FTTRC ought to approach the developer/owners directly and try to start a constructive dialogue.

I have not a clue about this specific situation, but the topic could be a good debate. MinorThreat brings up a very good point, imo. If MTB's go after private land owners, what kind of message does that send? If I've got a large parcel of land which I let people recreate on, and then heard about this - I'd shut it down immediately. Why would a land owner risk losing autonomy just so others could play? Slippery slope logic for sure, but why would the land owner not try to cover their butt - just in case. Attempting to strong arm our way onto private land can't be good thing.

 

[geargrrl]

as I understand it the idea is to work with the property owner to maintain trail access, to possibly make some sort of agreement, but not to force action or prohibit the development. I personally have a call in to the lawyer who is behind all this, so that there can be clarification of what action exactly he has in mind. He's not a club person, and everything I'm getting is coming from someone inbetween, hence the caveat. I haven't talked to him yet. The club, per se, has not taken a position yet. The original post was just passing on the information for folks interested in signed an affadavit of use. More information will be posted as it becomes available.

For those of you not familiar with the area, just for reference we are talking maybe a 1/2 (? short) mile of trail on the edge of peice of property that is adjacent to a large trail system in a city park/conservation area.

 

[geargrrl]

lot of good thoughts here. One challenge in our area is how to maintain public access to public land that has adjacent development. Not preventing developers from doing their thing, ( sure that would be great but let's be realisitic) but maintaining access to public land. Another challenge we have is educating people that just because they ride trails on undeveloped land, it doesn't give them the right to do whatever they please on the land without permission - Beacon is a good example of that. There may be opportunities to develop MOU (memo's of understanding) with different landowners, which are documents that define partnerships for trail use,access, and maintenance with different pieces of property.

Boise has a lot of good models for public/private partnerships, and land access for trail users. They are light years ahead of Spokane in open space management. They have done a fanstastic job of perserving the ridgeline for future generations.

There could be an educational component too, teaching the value of open space and access, instead of viewing land as a commodity and open space as wasted land.

Please excuse my ramble - thoughts and discussion is good, and there's definite learning curve as to how the system works and how to work within the system, to the benefit of bikers.

geargrrl

 

[MinorThreat]

That's what I appreciate seeing - - a learning/talking/dialogue approach. When I first got the e-mails about the attorney's plans, little warning bells went off for me. I know you were just trying to help 'spread the word,' but I was leery of everyone just 'jumping on board' giving their names to this attorney before we had a clear picture of what he was up to.