View Single Post
Old 03-09-2011, 09:21 AM   #81
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,006
Originally Posted by DSettahr View Post
I agree with Hawk... I'm confused that those on the "private property rights" side of the discussion can argue that one of the negative aspects of the case is that it benefits so few people. If Phil loses, won't that have helped to solidify the rights of every New York State resident who owns property? If private property rights, and the defense of those rights, is what this case is about, then doesn't it potentially benefit a group of people far larger than the group of recreational paddlers who would use this route?
Property owners should be thankful for the opportunity to fend off the State's "quest to expand the law to open up Shingle Shanty and similar waterways to everyone" as the Times Union so candidly puts it? Is this some sort of 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' argument?

The only thing that property owners should be happy about is that this dispute is finally entering the realm of due process. Let's hope it stays there until a meaningful decision is made, and that the apparent efforts of the AG, the Sierra Club, the Times Union and others to rhetorically bludgeon the property owners into abandoning their effort to get a fair hearing are unsuccessful.
fisher39 is offline   Reply With Quote