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

[bvw]

Then there was nothing criminal. You admit that by your lack of follow-up substantiation. People can landscape, people can build fences. If the landscaping causes a gully that erodes the ground around a fence post -- so be it.

[CharacterCounts]

I read through the first 250 posts and have not seen this question, which I beleive is important: That is, Why did the homeowners only buy land to within a few feet of the lake and not into the lake? A very likely scenario is that they did not want to own a part of the lake becasue their tax assessments would be greater. If this is the case they were too cute for their own good.

[Protagoras]

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

Thousands upon thousands of farmers and others own private lakes and ponds all over the country. They routinely keep others out.

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

Private property no longer exists in this country. The government has established first claim on it long ago and they are stepping up the pace with which they exert those "rights" all the time through enviromental laws, zoning laws, real estate taxes, asset forfeiture and mob rule. It didn't take long for people to catch on that they could control (and thereby own) other people's property by employing govenment to do their dirty work for them.

Many, many of them are so called conservatives. They exist on this site in great numbers, and the difference between them and liberals on this issue is nil.

PS, you seem to know this so I'm addressing your comment but not really you.

[Boatlawyer]

As to the "right of redemption" it seems to be addressed in the initial tax certificate procedure. From what I read, briefly, it seems the certificate holder must keep the certificate (which generates only interest) for two years before it can be converted to a tax deed.

[Poohbah]

Uh-oh, you broke-a da code!

[Protagoras]

A very likely scenario is that they did not want to own a part of the lake becasue their tax assessments would be greater. If this is the case they were too cute for their own good.

Great speculation. Bump

[bvw]

You're right that the $210K valuation for tax assesment I threw up was ridiculous, but not so ridiculuous that I don't think it shouldn't be tried -- the lake-owner could appeal the high assesment, and the cost of that appeal would be a factor against his un-neighborliness.

[Lazamataz]

I agree. Condemn the formerly-lakefront homes and sell them to more reasonable persons, who will not be predisposed to violence.

Condemnation under Eminent Domain is not a legal process based upon presdisposition to penal criminal acts. It is a legal process whereby which a government or municipal quasi-public body to acquire property for public use through a court action, in which the court decides that the use is a public use and that there are compelling reasons to allow such public use, and determines the compensation to be paid to the owner.

The condemnation of this lake would be quite easy and the public-use argument could be made rather handily in this particular case. I know you don't like it, but it is law.

[Flyer]

the 4-acre lake

It's a pond.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

If the owner decided to erect a statue of himself in the lake or build an ugly boat, I doubt anyone could say anything.

Here's a fellow who's found one way to blow off steam. The link was sent to me. I don't know this fellow or live in Ga. It's a hoot. Pictures and all!

[Wm Bach]

He said he used the paint and sparkles "to warn workers to stay away from that site.

Riiiiight. And I put a lime green amc Gremlin up on blocks in the front yard to "warn people about the dog". *wink wink nudge nudge*

If you believe that one, I have a bridge over a soon-to-be-condemned lake to sell you.

[Lazamataz]

I would also look at the right of redemption.

Good point! I forgot about that.

[Protagoras]

If the homeowners take action of the illegal kind, they'd be far worse than moral slobs. They'd be breaking laws that they should be imprisoned for.

I understand your general point but I would opine that breaking laws is not always immoral and that committing an immoral act is worse than breaking a law. In this case it would be immoral and illegal. One deals with God's law and one with how man interacts with other humans.

[ThinkingMan]

As I said- there are risks involved for him, but the potential payoff is worth assuming that risk.

Thanks for the update on the domain name issue- I was not aware of that development.