Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AG intervenes in Shingle Shanty case

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by WaterRings View Post
    I am not an "arm chair expert" like most everyone else on this forum.
    I've been seeing these words mentioned here more and more often whenever discussion/debate gets contentious. Do we really need to be "real experts" in order to have and voice an opinion? The DEC has "real experts" in the field of forestry and in managing our wilderness areas, but what would happen if they did away with the public commenting sessions for UMPs and other management decisions simply because many members of the public are "armchair experts" (and there certainly are quite a few of them!)? To belittle or lessen the opinions held by others simply because you have more knowledge and experience in the topic of discussion, and then to further belittle the entire discussion as a whole and refuse to participate in it further isn't going to sway those who disagree with you.

    Originally posted by WaterRings View Post
    As the law reads now the case with Phil Brown boils down to a simple trespass case.
    How does the law read now? And, more importantly, how does your interpretation of the law imply that Phil's case is a simple trespass case? The only argument that you really give to back this up is that you are an expert in the field of surveying. That's like me saying "Apples are a fruit, because I'm an expert on fruits." It might be true, but I won't be convincing anyone who isn't an expert on fruits if they think about it.

    That's certainly not to say that your argument is without merit, you just don't provide enough information for the reader to determine the validity of the facts upon which your opinion is based. I'm definitely curious to know more about your viewpoint, especially since as a licensed surveyor there is a lot you could share on the topic that everyone else here would certainly benefit from hearing. You state quite emphatically that you have a lot of knowledge about the subject, and just as emphatically that Phil is in the wrong. What you don't state is why, and without this key link between the extensive knowledge base you have and your opinion, your post won't change anyone's mind.

    Help us to not be "armchair experts" and gain a better understanding of the situation.

    Originally posted by randomscooter View Post


    Only one comment ... 99.999%
    Originally posted by redhawk View Post
    And I'll bet a dime to a dollar that if it was the other way around, that the AG was entering the suit to enforce the rights of some property owners, you wouldn't have an issue with it.
    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?

    Comment


    • #77
      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?
      The argument of many to few is being used to invoke an emotional response in favor of the land owners, since it's easy to imagine hordes of many people invading your private property/space. Your, in my opinion, correct recitation of the reciprocal component to the many to few argument is counter to invoking the emotional reaction that is being lobbied for when the few become the many.
      EULA: By reading this post and associated disclaimer, you are consenting to agree with the opinions disclosed within. If you disagree with this license agreement, you may not return it for a refund.

      Comment


      • #78
        The rights of the many vs the few and the rights of the few vs the many, are what our legal system was/is designed to protect. However, those rights are largely already defined. The argument that an internet poll or newspaper survey should weigh in on the outcome, means those historically defined rights no longer matter. Just a more modern evolution of the lynch mob. The law of private property protected the rights of the individual against the masses. The law of easements protects the rights of the public against the few.

        Water Ring's position is really the first direct statement of the landowners perspective in this discussion. Is there some emotion in it, absolutely, but no more emotional than many of the pro-paddling statements made so far. The funny thing about emotions is that we all have them, they belong to us and nobody has the right to say they are not valid to us. So when you start the analysis, take the emotion out of it, assume both sides believe the correctness of their position.

        Just keep in mind that most prospective jurors who actually get notices for jury duty and who actually show up, the people who may ultimately decide the factual issues in the case, are probably going to be property owners.

        Comment


        • #79
          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?
          I was letting my cynical side show through. The 0.001% to which I was referring would be the lawyers, not the paddlers or the land owners. I hope I'm wrong.
          Scooting here and there
          Through the woods and up the peaks
          Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


          "Pushing the limits of easy."™

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Paradox6 View Post
            The rights of the many vs the few and the rights of the few vs the many, are what our legal system was/is designed to protect. However, those rights are largely already defined. The argument that an internet poll or newspaper survey should weigh in on the outcome, means those historically defined rights no longer matter. Just a more modern evolution of the lynch mob. The law of private property protected the rights of the individual against the masses. The law of easements protects the rights of the public against the few.
            and that is the difference between our Republic and a 'democracy'.

            Comment


            • #81
              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.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Paradox6 View Post
                The argument that an internet poll or newspaper survey should weigh in on the outcome, means those historically defined rights no longer matter.
                I never said that the newspaper poll should weigh in on the outcome. I just thought it was interesting and decided to share it.

                Originally posted by Paradox6 View Post
                Water Ring's position is really the first direct statement of the landowners perspective in this discussion. Is there some emotion in it, absolutely, but no more emotional than many of the pro-paddling statements made so far. The funny thing about emotions is that we all have them, they belong to us and nobody has the right to say they are not valid to us. So when you start the analysis, take the emotion out of it, assume both sides believe the correctness of their position.
                There's nothing wrong with displaying emotion. I wasn't faulting Waterring's statement because he was emotional. As a land owner who has had problems with trespassers in the past, he certainly has sympathy with the land owners in the Single Shanty Brook case, and no one should fault him for feeling the way he does.

                My response was doing just what you say- take the emotion out of it. On the surface, his post looks like an impassioned statement that one would feel cold to disagree with. When you strip away all the emotion in his post, though, there's not really much there. He makes some good statements about the impracticality of pushing this issue and spending public money on such an issue when the state is broke, but as to exactly why Phil is in the wrong, he doesn't elaborate, other than to say Phil is wrong and he knows this for sure becuase he's "not an armchair expert." It's too bad, because it sounds like he has a lot of experience with similar situations that we could all benefit from having him share.

                Originally posted by fisher39 View Post
                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.
                If the property owners are so sure of their legal standing, shouldn't they be glad to have the opportunity to prove it in court? The cost of doing so aside (and I agree that there are certainly better things money can be spent on), isn't it a good thing for the issue to be finally taken to a court of law where it will be decided on definitely? Don't all property owners stand to benefit from a ruling in favor of the land owners, as it will solidify their rights through precedent? That was my point.

                Comment


                • #83
                  I would argue that the state intervention benefits noone let alone .0001%.

                  There is no arguement that private landowners own that stretch of SSB and the owners did not "license, invite, or privilege" Phil's presence.

                  Under that definition, a person does not transgress when he enters or stays in a place open at the time to the public, unless he is specifically warned not to enter or remain. The fact that some portions of the premises were open to the public, including the defendant, does not mean that he has a privilege with reference to closed-off portions.

                  Phils and the state's argument is that the waterway should not be closed-off they do not dispute ownership.

                  That is why it's a simple trespass case.


                  Said firmly from my armchair.


                  RE Deshatt: I don't know anyone that wants to defend rights or privileges they currently enjoy in a court of law. Actually that would be unwise, said politely.
                  A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post

                    RE Deshatt: I don't know anyone that wants to defend rights or privileges they currently enjoy in a court of law. Actually that would be unwise, said politely.
                    If they feel those rights are being violated, I sure bet they do.
                    “Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves.”

                    ~John Muir





                    Photos

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by DSettahr View Post
                      If the property owners are so sure of their legal standing, shouldn't they be glad to have the opportunity to prove it in court? The cost of doing so aside (and I agree that there are certainly better things money can be spent on), isn't it a good thing for the issue to be finally taken to a court of law where it will be decided on definitely? Don't all property owners stand to benefit from a ruling in favor of the land owners, as it will solidify their rights through precedent? That was my point.
                      Whoever said that wasn't the case? WaterRings didn't seem to be objecting to the fact that this dispute has ended up in court, but rather the fact that this dispute was generated in the first place, and that the DEC and the AG have intervened on behalf of the activists when such a trivial percentage of New York taxpayers would benefit from the state's "quest to expand the law."

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by randomscooter View Post

                        Only one comment ... 99.999%
                        Randomscooter, you're a numbers guy, right? Any guesses as to the percentage of the people of the state of New York who have benefited from the various SSB threads here on ADKForum?
                        The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by neil View Post
                          randomscooter, you're a numbers guy, right? Any guesses as to the percentage of the people of the state of new york who have benefited from the various ssb threads here on adkforum?
                          .0007

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by sp_nyp View Post
                            .0007
                            you are far too generous
                            “One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds.” ~ Aldo Leopold

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by fvrwld View Post
                              you are far too generous
                              You are probably right, I underestimated the 20 million state population

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Cost of course is an important consideration, and I'd say the cost is commensurate with the benefit.
                                Last edited by fisher39; 03-09-2011, 06:03 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X