View for sale: $30,000 New owner of a lake fences it off when homeowners wouldn't pay.

St. Petersburg Times ^ | May 14, 2002 | ROBERT FARLEY

[Minutemen]

"One of my favorites is: What goes around comes around!
Mine is: Live by the Lake; Die by the Lake.

[Spin]

The man who is building the fences. Connolly.

[strela]

I'm even more a staunch supporter of "being a good neighbor."

[ThinkingMan]

You seem to be stuck on the homeowner paying him so that he won't do something- IT IS NOT THE FENCE THAT IS FOR SALE! The property is for sale. They are not paying 30k to stop him from doing something, they would be buying a tangible good.

If I wanted to open a car junk shop in my backyard, as you suggested earlier (assuming zoning regs and HOA would allow it, and we all know they wouldn't) I COULD offer my backyard to my neighbor for 30k as a courtesy- and my neighbor would then OWN the land.

What part of this simple business transaction is causing you so much grief?

[Poohbah]

What about Indian rights to fish in this lake? I am sure they would be glad to make some arrangement with the neighbours.

From what I saw of the shoreline, it's not a natural lake and was constructed very recently, and thus would not be subject to Indian treaties.

And when this jerk steps even a few inches into the someone else ground, I hope they will defend their PRIVATE property with the appropriate weapon.

Wow. Just because the guy is a jerk (an issue not contested by yours truly, but one that is immaterial to the case), you think his right to life, liberty, and property is subject to arbitrary revocation for trivial reasons. I hope that, if you ever damage someone else's property in a motor vehicle accident, the injured party is more reasonable and less robust in defending his property rights than you seem to be.

[Southack]

"What right do YOU have to enjoy MY lake?"

Ah, but is it your lake?

Do deeds and titles matter? Do boundaries matter? Do taxes matter? Is private property to be protected by law?

But hey, if you DO own a lake, then by all means enjoy it. Keep others out if you must.

I would.

[Sloth]

If I erected a privacy fence and you built something to look over it, I'd have you in court so fast your head would spin.

I don't see how that would be any different. As long as the observation deck is contained completely on their property -- no overhang, or danger of collapsing into your yard, etc. -- that would seem to be their right to erect it, just as this Connelly guy has a right to erect his fence.

[ET(end tyranny)]

If I erected a privacy fence and you built something to look over it, I'd have you in court so fast your head would spin

Are you saying that if one person builds a fence, that the neighboring people are then prevented from building decks, on their own property, for their own use???? Something wrong with that picture...... Nothing that one person does on their property should prevent other people from utilizing their property as they see fit. IMHO

[Joe Hadenuf]

Peter Cieslinski. Cieslinski, 44, who was just released from active duty in the Navy a week ago, said he can't believe the county would allow someone to come in and take away his view of the alligators, turtles and wading birds.

There's alligators in there? I would have thanked the SOB for putting up the fence.

[Protagoras]

I'm even more a staunch supporter of "being a good neighbor."

Good neighbors don't threaten to burn their neighbors property, for any reason.

[RISubVet]

The developer should be happy this is in FLA and not Massachusetts. We own a small waterfront property on the Cape. The neighbor (across the street) recently took it upon herself to remove a 30 ft. oak tree (from our property) that inconveniently blocked her view of the water. Due to the Wetlands Protection Act, our only form of recourse is to plant another tree and wait 30 years for it to grow. They don't allow ANY fences to be constructed within 150 feet from the water!!

[Labyrinthos]

I would be curious to know what kind of restrictive covenants, if any, run with the lake. Those survive tax sales and I would imagine the lawyer hired by the homeowners will be researching that.

I would research restrictive covenants and reciprical easements (which are every much a property right as the property rights of the fee owner), as well rights under the law of adverse possession and prescriptive easements. (Although adverse possession/prescriptive easement usually requires an adverse and notorious use over a 10 or 20 year period, those requirements are often satisfied absent an express grant of permissive use.) I would also look at the right of redemption.

[Wm Bach]

If they decided to seize his property, and he resisted with force, you can be darned sure they'd shoot him.

If I were suspected of loitering and resisted with force (as per your qualifier) you could be darned sure that they'd shoot me, too.

Eminent Domain is as old as the nation. Whereas the homeowners have a vested public interest in the lake, it is within the public's right to seek out a ruling of eminent domain over the lake.

If you think this is tyranny or communism, then the Founding Fathers were tyrannical commies, too, since they recognized the fact that property may be seized provided there is just compensation.

In any case, it is up to the courts to decide whether the original 1,000 clams is just compensation for the lake, or whether the owner can claim a loss of likely future revenues and seek more.

The owner has no right, either to shoot cops, or to take swings at their noses, just because they wish to serve him a summons for an eminent domain hearing. He has a right to do with his property as he pleases, unless and until his foolish actions as a public nuisance result in a takings under eminent domain.