Posted on 08/05/2021 11:03:06 AM PDT by Red Badger
Edited on 08/05/2021 11:48:37 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
CANTERBURY, N.H. — For almost three decades, 81-year-old David Lidstone has lived in the woods of New Hampshire along the Merrimack River in a small cabin adorned with solar panels. He has grown his own food, cut his own firewood, and tended to his cat and chickens.
(Excerpt) Read more at weartv.com ...
I guess sewage laws are for the weak. The guy was literally crapping in the water supply. For a long time. That place had to smell.
Let’s be honest…the guy is probably not pleasant to be around.
I guess it’s ok to live and crap into the water supply for 27 years?
Not exactly a frivolous issue.
Is there any evidence his crap got into the water supply? Leach fields would probably outlawed by such an approach. Millions of Americans depend on leach fields.
https://www.circleofblue.org/2015/world/infographic-americas-septic-systems/
The owner WAS letting a homeless bum live on his property for 23 years. He removed the permission when a bureaucrat started poking his nose into the owner’s bizness.
Instead, they want to impose that ‘charity’ on the landowner against his will.
***The owner was willing to let this homeless dude live on the property until some busybody bureaucrat poked his nose into the bizness.
Correct... busy body.
+1
Source, please.
the article posted
Really?
Where in the article does it say that the landowner was willing to let the squatter live on the land until the town officials got involved?
Where in that article does it state the squatter had permission to live there until the town officials got involved?
You originally wrote that it was the busy-bodies who caused him to get kicked out.
You made the claim that the busy-bodies were at fault, so back it up.
It is admittedly a difficult article to get to. There’s a powerpoint presentation that said he had permission of the previous owner.
I make the claim, so go and click on the article. As difficult as it is to get to.
https://news.yahoo.com/decades-woods-hampshire-man-forced-112145837.html
Lidstone has claimed that years ago, the owner gave his word — but nothing in writing — allowing him to live there. But in the eyes of the current owner, he’s a squatter and needs to go.
Property owner Leonard Giles, 86, of South Burlington, Vermont, didn’t even know Lidstone was there until the town administrator found out in 2015 and told him,
Yeah, you've been here long enough to know that's not how it works. If you made the claim, you have to back it up. I'm not going to do your research for you.
Regardless, I was able to access the article without any trouble and read it in its entirety before posting.
The article is a re-hash of what's in this article.
What you claimed was that he had permission from the landowner and that this changed once the 'busy-bodies' got involved.
Where is the quote attributed to the landowner as having made any such statement.
The squatter said he had permission. Yet, he also says that the site is a hunting/fishing camp and as such doesn't need to adhere to residential zoning ordinances.
The sole source of that quote in both articles comes from the squatter and no one else.
This is the same guy who claims the 'house' he's lived in for the past 27 years isn't his residence.
Yeah, you’ve been here long enough to know that’s not how it works.
***In anticipation of your snark, I posted the link and the excerpt. I detect that you are in gotta-be-petulant-no-matter-what mode.
If you made the claim, you have to back it up. I’m not going to do your research for you.
***It WAS in the article. So now it is time for you to back off.
Regardless, I was able to access the article without any trouble and read it in its entirety before posting.
***Oh, so you’re just being a jerk. Got it.
The article is a re-hash of what’s in this article.
***Kinda what I was getting at. The original article was written before it burned down.
What you claimed was that he had permission from the landowner and that this changed once the ‘busy-bodies’ got involved.
***The evidence supports that position. The family has owned the land since 1963, the guy said it was a verbal agreement and courts will acknowledge that if both sides proceed along the lines of a verbal agreement, then there was a verbal agreement.
Where is the quote attributed to the landowner as having made any such statement.
The squatter said he had permission. Yet, he also says that the site is a hunting/fishing camp and as such doesn’t need to adhere to residential zoning ordinances.
The sole source of that quote in both articles comes from the squatter and no one else.
***It was in the article. You said you read it. Perhaps the problem is in your reading comprehension capabilities.
This is the same guy who claims the ‘house’ he’s lived in for the past 27 years isn’t his residence.
***I saw the pictures, it was actually quite a nice looking ‘house’ and nice looking house. So what is your point when you say ‘house’? As far as the claim about residence, he seems to be trying to rest on the claim that it’s a hunting lodge.
Lidstone also claims it's not a residence, but a hunting and fishing camp despite the fact he's been living on the site continuously for the last 27 years.
Which lie should we believe?
Where is the quote attributed to the landowner as having made any such statement.
***I did not make that claim. I said he had permission. He proceeded as if he had permission, and for decades the owner proceeded as if he had permission. He had permission. Then, permission was revoked when a busybody bureaucrat poked his nose into the bizness.
Courts will look at how both sides BEHAVED. The guy lived on the property for 20 years, behaving as if there was a verbal agreement to live there. The owners let him live there until a busybody bureaucrat came along. It’s easy to believe both sides — the guy bothered no one until some apparatchik decided there were gonna be fees involved so it wasn’t worth the trouble to have the guy there.
The owner did the legal maneuverings for removing someone who no longer has permission to be on the property. It took 4 years.
I personally think that it was the owner who burned the house down.
What doesn’t make sense about the article is that it said the family owned it since 1963 but the ‘current owner’ claimed this guy was a squatter. He didn’t seem to do anything about it until the bureaucrat apparatchik came along. Sounds like CYA to me. But if the land ownership was transferred without notification there was someone living on it, there could be evidence of fraud.
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.