Stafford Ferry CE

[Addicting]

In the will. And on his deathbed, Dad's last words ever spoken were "don't sell the guns." So now I'm stuck with a safe full of guns that I don't use but if I get rid of them, then I get the shit haunted out of me.


This is how property rights work. If you sell the land, you've denied your offspring their right. If you develop that land, same thing. The ownership of property doesn't mean future generations get to decide how you engage in business. If we accept that the other uses that would eliminate the land entirely from future family ownership is a right of the current property owner, then the logic behind perpetual easements follows similarly.

If future generations don't have the right to demand how Andrew Carnegie spent his money, then why would they have any input on what he did with land he owned? Land is an asset. Just like cash. What you do with your assets are your business. If the state is a partner becaue the citizens of that state find value in the conservation of working agricultural lands, then that is exactly what our government is set up to do - represent the will of the people in making decisions relative to issues within their constitutional scope. It's then up to the individual landowner to make the decision if that is right for them.

If you don't like perpetual easements, don't get one. Denying that tool to those who do want that tool denies the rights of landowners to make the decisions they feel are best for their land.

This is all based on if there is still a connection. What about when there is no connection?

 

[Straight Arrow]

How exactly? Same question as I post for Lamb?

With respect to Ted Turner, his conservation easement with the Nature Conservancy is "for perpetuity". I know because I read it.
His pledges for untold sums to UNICEF and other entities are part of financial planning for during his lifetime and thereafter.

 

[Addicting]

My parents, financial planner and accountant would disagree, my friend.

How do any of those folks have anything to do with the issue 647 years from now when we are not even a memory?

How would a hundred year easement be any less effective for the offspring you are referring to?

 

[Ben Lamb]

This is all based on if there is still a connection. What about when there is no connection?

Then it's still an issue of freedom relative to property rights and the ability to control the land you own/possess.

Selling the land denies the connected people their birthright. Should you be unable to sell land? Developing the minerals on a piece of land denies future generations the right to make choices relative to other things. Should we disallow mineral development?

If I own a piece of land, I get to decide what to do with it. It is mine. It is not future holders of the land. The same thing goes with any business or monetary wealth. It is not yet in the possession of those future owners. Therefore, it is not the future owners purview to decide what the current owner can or cannot do.

 

[BuzzH]

This is all based on if there is still a connection. What about when there is no connection?

Who cares if there is a connection or not? Further, why would you wrongly assume there would have to be?

Some folks want the piece of mind knowing THEIR private property, that they purchased or acquired, is going to remain the same.

There is no requirement or even desire to give you a reason why they enter a perpetual CE.

It's flat none of your business.

 

[Ben Lamb]

How do any of those folks have anything to do with the issue 647 years from now when we are not even a memory?

How would a hundred year easement be any less effective for the offspring you are referring to?

How do the citizens of 2024 have any say in what people did in 1350?

 

[Straight Arrow]

At the expense of other adjacent and future landowners in perpetuity? Yes.

The qualifying rhetoric you introduce above is yours personally and unrelated to the established private property right so thoroughly described by Big Fin.
Please review what was written, as you are apparently denying that right. Unfortunately, it's like debating on Hunt Talk, no one's mind is likely changed, but moreover US Constitutional Rights are completely uneffected.

 

[Addicting]

Then it's still an issue of freedom relative to property rights and the ability to control the land you own/possess.

Selling the land denies the connected people their birthright. Should you be unable to sell land? Developing the minerals on a piece of land denies future generations the right to make choices relative to other things. Should we disallow mineral development?

If I own a piece of land, I get to decide what to do with it. It is mine. It is not future holders of the land. The same thing goes with any business or monetary wealth. It is not yet in the possession of those future owners. Therefore, it is not the future owners purview to decide what the current owner can or cannot do.

Absolutely correct and your decision should stop when you are no longer the owner. Your decision should not be binding for eternity. I can compromise and agree to 20-60-100 years past your demise.

However, I won’t agree to anything that tries to make it perpetual.

 

[Addicting]

How do the citizens of 2024 have any say in what people did in 1350?

If the people in 1350 did everything perpetually your existence would be greatly different.

 

[Straight Arrow]

your decision should stop when you are no longer the owner. Your decision should not be binding for eternity.

Should being the operative term; ergo opinion in contradiction to established legal rights.
You certainly may apply it to your property rights, but not mine, nor that of this rancher near Stafford Ferry.

 

[HSi-ESi]

Just a simple hypothetical.

I own some land and am in the process of the sale of a perpetual CE.

You own some land and are in the process of the sale of time limited CE.

I'm not going to try and influence you to change to a perpetual CE. It is your property right to make decisions as you wish.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If the people in 1350 did everything perpetually your existence would be greatly different.

The King of England owned all of the land within the realm in perpetuity. It was his, given to him by God.

The Pope claimed all lands in Christendom and the Holy Lands as perpetual lands of the Church.

People have been doing things in perpetuity since we started to have some kind of hierarchy or legal system.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Absolutely correct and your decision should stop when you are no longer the owner. Your decision should not be binding for eternity. I can compromise and agree to 20-60-100 years past your demise.

However, I won’t agree to anything that tries to make it perpetual.

ok. So don't do anything in perpetuity and let others enjoy their freedom to do otherwise. Easy. We solved it!

People who get CE's are selling the development rights. That's what a CE is - the selling of part of the ownership to a separate party. In essence, they are selling a piece of their property. Someone else has that right now.

 

[Addicting]

The qualifying rhetoric you introduce above is yours personally and unrelated to the established private property right so thoroughly described by Big Fin.
Please review what was written, as you are apparently denying that right. Unfortunately, it's like debating on Hunt Talk, no one's mind is likely changed, but moreover US Constitutional Rights are completely uneffected.

His post is from his perspective. It is not from the perspective of the township planning commission, the master plan for zoning, the county commission planning board, the neighbors that complain at these meetings. The neighbors that have their private property rights squashed because someone else is exercising theirs.

Since Adam and Eve screwed the pooch there has been conflict. The constitution tried to address it. It failed and we have had to have these things called amendments done. Those amendments are not perfect either. There is still conflict, there always will be.

Someone’s rights are always going to be squashed. You cannot fire up your own commercial strip club in your back yard. But under free use, you should be able to.

So back to my original post, has anyone actually talked to the commission to see what the objection actually is? There is a compromise here and I bet it starts with the word perpetual being removed.

 

[Addicting]

The King of England owned all of the land within the realm in perpetuity. It was his, given to him by God.

The Pope claimed all lands in Christendom and the Holy Lands as perpetual lands of the Church.

People have been doing things in perpetuity since we started to have some kind of hierarchy or legal system.

And none of it worked so why are we still trying?

 

[Ben Lamb]

And none of it worked so why are we still trying?

King Charles III owns around 6.6 billion acres of land over the world.

So, seems like it kinda worked.

 

[Straight Arrow]

And none of it worked

Omnicience exceeded only by denial of established legal private propery rights.

 

[Addicting]

King Charles III owns around 6.6 billion acres of land over the world.

So, seems like it kinda worked.

Not here where we are discussing rights, he seemed to of lost it in a war.

 

[Addicting]

This whole conversation no one budged and negative assertions/assumptions were thrown around. The approach some of you have taken with me just because of my stance on perpetual.

I sincerely hope that you don’t take that approach if trying to dissuade the folks holding this up.

 

[Fire_9]

Spoke with one of the county commissioners today. They didn’t even know the public will be guaranteed access to this property…