Posted on 05/25/2018 7:44:47 AM PDT by dirtboy
I missed the “modern” in your post, which makes it pretty clear you were being sarcastic. Sorry about that.
I wasn’t being sarcastic, though. I thought I’d found someone that agreed with me. :)
As someone wrote me privately, it is all a matter of reasonableness. Common sense would help as well.
I should have used the /Sarc tag to avoid a misunderstanding.
Yes
I own 100 acres with 2 cemeteries on it. One of the cemeteries butts up to my lake, we've had people all the time try and use that access as an excuse to fish. Trash, parties, drug deals, ours is quite a ways off the road so people go there all the time do do everything except visit their relatives.
I got in a snitt with the county over it about 15 years ago and mowed a goat path about 2000' long from a road on the back side of the property, told the county "There's your access now" and gated it off. They threw a fit, but I pointed out I was giving them access, just not the fastest way they would like for their mowers. We reached an agreement when they repaired the damage to my yard and put down all new gravel, that I was maintaining on my own, and agreed to my rule that I can throw anyone off that is being a problem.
Seeing as they had no parking inside the fence we had them put up and so technically any car parked there was on my land I was paying taxes on, they agreed to be better partners in the arrangement.
Don't even GET me going on denying the public access when word got out there was a bald eagle nest on the back of my property, that was a whole other issue with the DNR and access as well.
“What are the landowners gonna do, deny families access to their buried ancestors?!”
how about the families keep their property?
Don't know if the family pays anything to the owner of the land. I know they don't have to, but wouldn't be surprised if they did.
As to whether that land would be considered a 'taking' under the Constitution, I'd say that I tentatively agree to that. However, I think those with an interest in the cemetery should be the ones paying for it, with the state only making sure they won't get jacked around by landowners.
The Fifth Amendment? What’s that, that Constitution thing? Nobody pays any attention to that old thing! Get with the times.
Yup. Common courtesy and politeness will go a long way.
From the article: "The trouble started in 2008, when Vail said he discovered an obituary for Micah Vail, an ancestor from the area, who allegedly was buried on the McLaughlin Farm, which is now Knick’s property. Vail believed other family members were buried there, too, including a Revolutionary War veteran. He said he sought permission from Knick to visit the property and claimed he had seen the tombstones there."
So, it's unlikely he knew anything before hand, which would also lend credence to the deed not showing anything at the time of sale (to respond to different post in which you replied to me that we don't know if it was in the deed).
The fact he didn't know, and still doesn't know for certain, only suspects, lends credence to the possibility it's not in the deed.
Why is it the landowner's responsibility when the parcel was never a public cemetery? It is the ancestors in between the guy who is suing and the ones who are buried who are at fault for not securing an easement.
Obviously we aren't going to figure this out and I read some of the owners attorney's website which is focused on the catch-22 she was caught in when filing in courts.
I hope we find out the outcome.
Most and likely all states have a law that says any cemetery which has been abandoned becomes the responsibility of the town. And it gives the Town the duty to clean it up. Obviously, if it’s landlocked, there MUST be some kind of access. It need not be written.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.