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

[sakic]

Law deals with legalities not moralities. No one ever goes to prison, nor should they, just for being immoral or amoral. They should go for breaking the law. I'd despise living in a country that shipped people off to prison or killed them based on someone's perceived morality. That's why we have laws.

The story in this thread has zero to do with morality. It is 100% about what is legal and illegal and that's the only thing that matters.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

[Let me try that again.]

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!

Redneck neighbor

[Protagoras]

And does the fence act as a dam then? It might. Pictures don't show it.

Typically they do not. I just had one built on my property yesterday by coincidence. But if they do change the flow they would be in violation of another's property rights as well. Any violation counts, not just some.

[bvw]

The water issue is true also in PA, I've heard it brought up before the local zoning boards. Still, it might be that a gully is usually a natural thing, and as long as it forms incidentally to other work and is not of great magnitude, it would be hard to press a case against the homeowner it forms on.

[ThinkingMan]

Is that the house right above Garden of the Gods road?

[Poohbah]

Guarantee if it was me, he'd be taking down the fence, else he'd find his hand nailed to it, that being my first instinct with guys like that....

And if that was my fence, my first instinct with people like you would be to send you to the morgue and sue your family for the cost of the ammunition used...

Here's the problem with using vigilante justice: the target of said justice may very well decide to engage in some "justice" of his own...and to use much more effective (read: lethal) methods to achieve it than you would like to be on the receiving end of.

[Lazamataz]

No problem. That would be about right for unloading a newly created EPA Superfund site onto the county.

Illegal dumping of toxins is a very serious felony, and unmanned cameras are proliferating. Since the neighbors are likely to be very vigilent, given the circumstances, it would be awfully risky for anyone to attempt this felony act.

[Joe Hadenuf]

he can't believe the county would allow someone to come in and take away his view of the alligators

Why in the hell would anyone want to live within feet of a pond full of alligators anyway. LOL!

[bvw]

That's the a sample of fruit of being un-neighborly, and why Judge's have to make property decisions for the sake of peace as well as liberty.

[Mamzelle]

re:(((Actually, all joking about ass kicking aside, in this particular instance, depending on Florida law, the neighbors can claim a visual easement to this common area, since that was the existing use when they bought in, and the understanding of all parties invilved. The descriptions and uses remain the same, the only things that got wiped by the tax sale were the liens.

They very well may wind up with the fence removed, and he may be out $1000 and the cost of a long 6 foot fence (plus a few cans of pink spray paint), as well as his lawyer fees, just for being a complete ass****.)))

What about making adding to that, a claim for adverse possession ?

[Trailerpark Badass]

Holy cow! Private property rights and diligent enforcement of laws pertaining to them are what separates this country from the Third World. I can't believe that some of the "grown-ups" on a supposedly conservative forum don't recognize their almost sacrosanct value.

The same arguments are used by "land reformers" around the world to steal what is not theirs, and it seems we have our own little amen chorus of communist sympathizers who can't een recognize the value of the rule of laws, not men.

Amazing and sad.

[RobbyS]

The people who had their house on the lake thought it was a common possession. Face it, this guy is trying to hold up these people by exploiting a legal loophold. The county failed to protect the homeowners property rights. It should have offered them the first rights to purchase rather than let this adventurer swoop in and buy the lake.

[Poohbah]

Illegal dumping of toxins is a very serious felony, and unmanned cameras are proliferating. Since the neighbors are likely to be very vigilent, given the circumstances, it would be awfully risky for anyone to attempt this felony act.

Hey, I wouldn't even be in the state during condemnation proceedings, I'd let the lawyers handle it and try to ease my sorrows with a vacation. But I sure wouldn't bother defending a piece of property that the Almighty State was in the process of depriving me the use and enjoyment of.

[NittanyLion]

The people who had their house on the lake thought it was a common possession.

If I think I own half my neighbors lot, that don't make it so. Perhaps these folks should have investigated what they actually own a bit more closely, in order to avoid a rude surprise like this one.

[Southack]

"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."

In one of my business dealings, I came across a small city government, completely corrupt, which had a nasty habit of first encouraging new development and then later condemning the property and taking for themselves.

As a thinking businessman, I was well aware of their past history. With large smiles they greated me when I first met them. They encouraged me to clear the land, fill the ditches, and build my buildings. They wanted to sell me their city property for just such development.

I made only one small change to their contract. Instead of a sale, I insisted that they lease me the land for an extended period of time. They must have thought that I was an even bigger fool than the earlier developers, as they agreed with even larger smiles on their faces.

Time passed and I developed the land just as I had planned. Predictably, this small government agency then tried to have my development condemned and confiscated.

They were stunned, however, to learn that they couldn't condemn property that they had leased. The judge sternly told them that condemnation proceedings were null and void against a lease that they themselves had signed.

Of course, I was the one who left the room smiling after that. I had known what I was doing all along. Now they have to suffer my business development for decades to come, all on their own city property (some 8 acres of it, too).

There is a lesson there for people who need to own land that can't be confiscated, and yes, there is still private property in America (but just barely)...