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

[Protagoras]

Your access to easement theory on the view is valid. And probably the winner....

Ding, ding, ding, ding! We Have a winner!

And that is why you are my lawyer on these threads!

untill we disagree of course :-)

[Lazamataz]

heh heh heh heh..... you pirate you....

[tacticalogic]

Anti-social behavior may lead to the development of corrective legislation. Pretty simple.

Do you think the lake owner is anti-social, or simply exercising his legal property rights?

[Dan from Michigan]

Sounds like it's an AHOLE thing to do. Legal though. Private property means just that.

[Labyrinthos]

No argument here.

[sakic]

The thread has evolved to talk about this in terms of morality but all that matters in deciding what should be done about the situation at hand should be handled in terms of legality.

The owner who erected the fence broke no laws that I'm aware of. If he has then it's a different story. The only immorality I've seen in this thread comes from those who "playfully" say that if they lived there they'd take matters into their own hands. They are the sole perps of immorality and illegality here.

[CharacterCounts]

IS their a Florida case or statute providing for a visual easement over your neighbors property? No such animal exists in Michigan.

[strela]

Being called silly by someone who defends the notion of taking the law into one's hands to take away a guy's legally erected fence on his own property ...

Put some ice on it. Repeating a Big Lie doesn't make it any more true.

[Poohbah]

What Big Lie is he repeating?

He offered to sell the lake. The response from at least some of the residents was the destruction of his survey stakes. There was never any effort to engage in any discussion with the owner of the lake. And you come along advocating arson.

[Lazamataz]

Then change how it is applied in your region. I have not seen them applied unjustly in my region.

[Roscoe]

Do you think the lake owner is anti-social

"For good measure, the workers painted a portion of the fence behind Alice Beehner's home bright pink and decorated it with sparkles."

The structure would appear to have been erected with the intent to damage the property values of adjoining owners. Such behavior, if legal, may lead to changes in the laws and regulations governing that area.

[RobbyS]

The county does not have a responsibility to review all of the homeowner/developer relationships underlying residential properties before issuing tax certificates that may eventually be redeemed for tax deeds.

Which is the underlying problem. Here we have a political matter which the county is not required/empowered to act upon. I would bet ten cents to a donut that some county offical was aware of this "opportunity" and passed on the information to a friend.

[Protagoras]

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.

The matter of ease of prosecution is not the issue. I might be mistaken but I thought that you were advocating doing something to the property in question intentionally in order to cause harm to the ajoining property in retribution for his actions. Please disabuse me about that if I am mistaken.