Printable View
Interesting topic with lots to discuss! I recently got involved in the Oregon scene. here is the link for information which might shed some light on your Washington situation: [url=http://www.oregonriverrights.com:701a4]www.oregonriverrights.com[/url:701a4]
There is increasing pressure to give public access away to private interests! Be aware of what the laws are in your area or be prepared to loose your access to fishing, etc.
It is always a fight to protect our trout streams. I do not know about Oregon in particular but in the nineties we saw a lot of posting of land and a lot of various levels of government doing 'deals' back here in the East. The past 5 or 6 years it seems to have leveled off. The 90's were a big Mall building time and the heck with aquafirs. Don't seem to be as many new malls being builtthese days. Just Walmarts...lol.
Very interesting Mantis. Im currently involved in a fight to get Walmart out of my hometown of Cornelius, OR. A supercenter noless! Traffic is already a zoo! These people dont give a damn about anyones livability. Pure capitalism of the worst sort! [url=http://www.corneliusfirst.org:51f44]www.corneliusfirst.org[/url:51f44]
PS: I was handing out flyers with the Halloween candy! Take that Walmart!
Probably the best long-term solution is to startup a non-profit group and get donations to actually buy out the landowner and then donate the land to the city/county/state (whoever). I do not agree with the city/cty/state taking the rights away from landowners, though and I do not believe in compelling landowners to allow others access to the water (be it lake, stream, river, etc.) without a compelling reason (at least the city/county in LF's article had a compelling reason, it was for maintenance).
OT to illustrate my point. There was a big battle a couple of years ago between civil war enthusiasts and a developer. The civil war enthusiasts were trying to get the county to severely restrict building by a developer on land that was a very minor civil war battlefield. They were able to tie the issue up in the courts to the point that the original developer sold the property to a new developer who reduced the size of the development, but nowhere near as much as the enthusiasts wanted. My whole feeling on the subject was that the battlefield could not get either State or Federal park status (the civil war enthusiasts tried that route) because it was such an obscure battlefield and a very minor battle took place there, that if they truly wanted to save it, they should have bought the land at fair market value and, not being able to do that (especially since property values skyrocketed in the couple of years it took them to investigate their options and tie it up in court), the courts should have thrown their case out the window and allowed the county to handle the situation. (Note: Don't remember the outcome, I think the new owner's development was approved.)
Just one word of warning about buying land through a non-profit organization to save it, if you can't get the city/cty/state to take over, and the group cannot keep the donations rolling in to maintain the property, I do not recommend selling it to the large conservency group (I will not name them) which has a habit of building its leaders mansions on these kinds of lands, although they do limit it to one or two, depending on the amount of land given, although, in their defense, they do fulfill their promises to keep the land open and undeveloped (except for the mansions as previously mentioned).
Paul
One problem with donating the land to the local/state government; THey may give it away! Seattle spent a lot of money buying open land for parks. Everyone loved it, but now they are having a budget problem, and the city is planning to or already have, gave one of the chunks of land to a local, private soccer club! THe problem; the remote control glider club that also used the parkland has been chased off the site by the soccer moms!
Dont forget too about the recent supreme court ruling that interpreted land being taken for public use under immenent domain now includes commercial development by private developers! With this ruling, open land and privatly owned land can be claimed for a lodge to be built under immenect domain, using the potential tax revenue to justify it.
It was John Adams that said "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
I remeber a line from a great science fiction movie; "Never give up, Never surrender!"
Jeff
Jeff,
I guess you could attach a covenant or right of way or some kind of rider onto the title for the land that would protect access to the river if the city/county were to sell the land to make up budget shortfalls. Where there's a will, there's a way (and a politician looking to close that loophole)!
Paul
Gandalf,
That "large concervency group" that you mentioned has saved vast amounts of important lands.
More than any other group of it's kind.
Sometimes they they end up with a less desirable piece of land that they will sell to raise money for the more important spaces.
They know what they are doing and do it well.
------------------
Support politicians who support the environment
Gandalf,
Something like that could work. In the case I mentioned about the park getting turned over to a soccer club, something in the title to mandate that the park is open to the public is a good idea. Something can be done. The first thing that the recipient of these kind of land deals would say about allowing others to use the land would be about money. Why should the soccer club pay for garbage disposal, mowing of the grass, painting of lines, for the general public? It always seems that money gets in the way of good ideas. That is why the city is looking at doing this. They cannot afford to maintain the parks, so they are looking to have the predominant user take over the maintenance. My feelings are that if you are the lucky recipient of these land deals, allowing the general public to use the land free of charge is the cost of accepting the deal. I am glad I dont live in Seattle.
Jeff