16 ms·
6M Acres of Public Land in the US West Are Corner-Locked
- No1 4y ago“The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain have been for roads…” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
- jasonhansel 4y agoWhy is so much of the West still owned by the federal government? This isn't a widespread problem in most of the country.
- uncletaco 4y agoBecause it wasn't snatched up by homesteaders.
- tmpburning 4y ago> The Continental U.S. (i.e. lower 48) has about 1.9 Billion acres and the vast majority is undeveloped as only 69.4 million acres, or about 3.6% is urban. It probably is a good thing that 6M acres are land-locked...
- hsnewman 4y agoif you had read it, it is public land that is inaccessable by the public.
- tmpburning 4y agoThat is what I was thinking, the title was pretty clear and it is a good thing (if anything, probably a larger portion of the land should stay pristine).
- diordiderot 4y agoIt's not pristine. Private owners who lock it in use the land
- tmpburning 4y agoThey need to be prosecuted if they don't let the public use public land. How is that even a question... But for the record, I think that land-locked public land should be off-limit to anyone (aka, stay pristine).
- fooqux 4y agoFor what? They can use it as it's public.
- ohyoutravel 4y agoProsecuted for using public land?
- diordiderot 4y ago> To be prosecuted if they don't let the public use public land
- adamwong246 4y agoWhen the solar eclipse happened a few years ago, my friend used the geo data from their company to compute BLM land which overlapped with the "path of totality", so that we could find a free camping spot from which we could experience the solar eclipse at it's most impressive. One of the constraints on his search was that the land also needed to be accessible from a public road, because the natives take these land rights very very seriously. http://adamwong246.github.io/blog/18-Memories-of-Totality/index.html http://adamwong246.github.io/blog/18-Memories-of-Totality/in...
- xyzzyz 4y ago> because the natives take these land rights very very seriously. This is likely because if they stop enforcing them, they can lose it. If they allow people access as a matter of course, after some time in many places this will create a public right to access, which they can no longer restrict. This creates a real, material loss to landowners.
- googlryas 4y agoConcern #3: landowners wanting the public land to de facto become accessible only to them and their friends.
- californical 4y agoAND not having to pay property taxes on all of that land, since it’s not theirs
- imtringued 4y agoAlso, how did the checkerboard pattern happen to begin with? They don't want neighbors but they also don't want to buy the neighboring land, so having it landlocked in limbo is cheaper for them.
- Enginerrrd 4y agoA better question isn't how the checkerboard pattern happened as much as it is: How did this happen without easements being recorded! I feel like ALL land subdivisions should only be legal if an easement for access is provided.
- mikestew 4y agoAlso, how did the checkerboard pattern happen to begin with? You might want to reread TFA, the explanation seemed simple enough to me. And it isn't what you apparently think.
- jonnycomputer 4y agoI think that this is a very real factor, at least in some cases. The adjacent land-owners get to use that public land all the time, and they don't have all the bother of other folks using it along side them; in fact, I suppose, if they wanted to, they could try to charge for access to it (via a toll road). But in this way, it really isn't that different than similar issues around beach access. I'm sure the landowners have other concerns, some of them more legitimate than others.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- barnabask 4y agoHere’s a 6 minute explainer published 4 days ago from the channel Half as Interesting: https://youtu.be/Dr2a5YdQXX4 https://youtu.be/Dr2a5YdQXX4
- drc500free 4y agoWhat's oddly unsaid here is WHY private landowners would care if you pass over their land for a half second without stepping on it. And the obvious answer is that they are treating public lands as their own private game reserve by blocking access. The more interesting question is why the sheriff is colluding with them to enforce this, since the men were not apparently caught in the act of stepping over the corner. Rather the sheriff is using their state powers to provide security for a wealthy private citizen's misuse of public lands, and using the corner locking as a loophole to treat citizens on public lands as presumed trespassers. That seems like a more interesting story.
- killdozer 4y ago`the sheriff is using their state powers to provide security for a wealthy private citizen` That's the reason though, the police exist to protect the property rights of the wealthy.
- vt85 4y ago[dead]
- WalterBright 4y agoSecurity forces always cater to the people who pay them. This is why the police are funded with taxpayer money, rather than donations or direct payments. It's also why every citizen should be paying at least some tax, not just the wealthy.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoI'm tired of this cynical view. Did they break the law as it is written, yes or no?
- uncletaco 4y agoIt's ambiguous as there's no law on the books which specifically states that stepping over a property corner from public land to public land is illegal. And no state has passed a law on corner crossing one way or the other. Which is the point the article is making. You may be tired of the cynicism but some of us are tired of willful ignorance.
- 762236 4y agoThere clearly should be right-of-way across the corners.
- sli 4y agoThere should be right-of-way regardless of where you cross if the only way to access public land is to cross privately-owned land, specifically as one of many factors to disincentivize this stuff. The landowner should have zero recourse to stop people if they're blocking off public land.
- MereInterest 4y agoAgreed. Right of way to any public land, and right to disassemble any barricade that infringes on that right of way.
- kylecordes 4y agoSeems like a pretty narrow law could fix it. Easement of 3 feet at corners of very rural land where there is public land on either side. Surely such a "taking" of 0.000001% of private holdings could be tolerated - incredibly tiny compared to large swaths of easement on most properties across the country.
- larsiusprime 4y agoSummary -- there are public lands in the US that supposedly belong to us all, but private landowners have literally "enclosed" them by encircling them with privately owned plots. It's legal to BE on the public land, but it's not legal to trespass on private land. So unless you can magically teleport onto the public land, you have to trespass to get there. This allows private landowners to effectively hoard public land for themselves even though they don't own it, because only they can access it. The catch is "corner crossing" -- stepping diagonally OVER the property boundary from public land to public land, avoiding the ajoining private parcels. However, it's legally ambiguous in some areas whether you are violating the "air rights" of the private lands as your foot glides over them without ever actually setting foot on the dirt. In Norway this would all be obviated by the "right to roam" law that states that anyone may move freely through privately owned land so long as: - It is uncultivated - You don't leave any mess/trash - You don't stay more than one night if you camp
- CubsFan1060 4y agoIn Norway, if you tripped and broke your ankle on the landowners land, could you sue them?
- magicalhippo 4y agoNot unless you tripped due to a tripwire set by the landowner, or similar edge cases like that.
- CubsFan1060 4y agoThat's part of the problem in the US. Hunter tripped on a branch? That's a lawsuit!
- uncletaco 4y agoThere are virtually zero situations where a landowner is liable for the injury of trespassers in the middle of nowhere.
- saagarjha 4y agoRelated, from earlier this month: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33753467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33753467
- froh 4y agoaccess to forests is permitted to all. in other countries, that is. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bwaldg/__14.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bwaldg/__14.html so there is no "trespassing" in "forests". I'm amazed "landlocking" even is a thing.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- judge2020 4y agoHow do you know there isn't a secret underground base and trampling on the dirt above is trespassing in the owner's eyes?
- froh 4y agomilitary bases are not forests. so there is a fence. "private secret bases" do not exist, not legally, and given the density probably neither secretly. why should they?
- throwawaaarrgh 4y agoWe need the UK's Walking laws. Any footpath over private land is considered a public right of way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_in_the_United_Kingdo...
- IanCal 4y agoThat doesn't sound quite right. It's not just any path, it's more that there are old specific protected paths. It's a weird mix of the land being owned but publicly usable, but if you were starting from a much newer country it'd be easier to just publicly own the path.
- nicoburns 4y agoIt is specific paths, but they’re not all historical. New ones can be and are created https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/paths-in-england-and-wales/changes-to-the-path-network/creating-a-right-of-way.aspx https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/paths-in-england-and-wale...
- avianlyric 4y agoFootpaths wouldn’t help you with corner crossing in the US. UK footpaths only work because the footpaths themselves long predate the legal system that enforces private property rights in the UK. There are no established footpaths in the US that predate US property rights, mainly because European colonists simply ignored the existence of indigenous peoples land claims. But the US legal system generally considers the issue of indigenous land rights a resolved issue (even if the indigenous peoples would beg to differ). So there’s no dispute you could use to create the universal concept of public footpaths on private property in the US.
- permo-w 4y agoand in the UK trespassing is not a crime
- 4y ago
- wernercd 4y agoWhy wouldn't this fall into stuff like public easement?
- MereInterest 4y agoIn my not-a-lawyer understanding, easements can only ever preserve an existing path, but cannot create a new path. That is, a public easement would only exist if a path already exists, and that path remains in continuous use. If public land exists and is not accessible, the current legal system would not allow for the creation of an easement.
- fdr 4y agoThis phenomena has been somewhat frustrating to me trying to plan hiking routes around North Lake Tahoe and Truckee. It's somewhat vexing how deteriorated recreation in the wilderness is because of this land ownership pattern. Even with a corner easement, it's not always the sensible place to have a trail. The result is many public squares that cannot be used as intended. The problem is less prevalent farther to the south.
- btown 4y agohttps://gearjunkie.com/outdoor/hunt-fish/wyoming-corner-crossing-lawsuit-damages https://gearjunkie.com/outdoor/hunt-fish/wyoming-corner-cros... More context on the specific case in question. From Sep. 2022.
- banana_giraffe 4y agoOf note is the case mentioned at the top of the article has been resolved. The defendants where found not-guilty of the charges of trespassing, and a related charge is expected to be dropped. [1] No idea if this sets any sort of precedent. I suspect not, given how much of a quagmire all of this is. [1] https://www.wyomingnews.com/rawlinstimes/news/prosecutor-seeks-to-drop-new-charges-in-corner-crossing-case/article_871e1786-86a2-59b1-ad80-49cefa46a731.html https://www.wyomingnews.com/rawlinstimes/news/prosecutor-see...
- idlephysicist 4y agohttps://archive.vn/R13o9 https://archive.vn/R13o9
- rentiak 4y agoThe criminal case was resolved. However they’re now stuck in a civil suit. http://www.buffalobulletin.com/news/article_8b1117bc-254e-11ed-be46-db441a0cbd3a.html http://www.buffalobulletin.com/news/article_8b1117bc-254e-11...
- boomboomsubban 4y agoFrom the original article >Their criminal case, currently set for April 14th, will take place in a local court and therefore will not establish legal precedent. The civil case is in Federal court so will establish precedent.
- aaron695 4y ago[dead]
- xwdv 4y agoIt seems to me no matter what the law says, private land owners could enforce their corners by simply building enough fencing at corners such that for a person to cross into public land they would have to undoubtedly trespass on an owners land to get around these fences.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agobigger ladders
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- docheinestages 4y agoThat's a cool way to explain memory fragmentation.
- hsuduebc2 4y agoIn some European countries you must let people pass. So even if you are landlocked it doesn't really matter. Ofcourse there is much more people so this issue would be here much bigger.
- jonnycomputer 4y agoYes, that is what I was thinking. I seem to recall that that is the case in Sweden, at least.
- coffeebeqn 4y agoThe US west is very sparsely populated outside of a few big cities. Wyoming for example has 1/10th of Swedens population density
- mmcgaha 4y agoIn Maine, great ponds are considered public and you must allow public access even if your land surrounds the water. This does not mean that you have the right to trample their farms or ride your dirt bike, but you must allow access at least by foot. I think this should be the model for all public land.
- robomartin 4y agoMeanwhile, in California: I live within walking distance of a lake. We take frequent walks there. If I so much as touch the water with my big toe, I could get a ticket/citation. If I insist, I could be arrested. If I jump into the water (even wearing a floatation vest), same thing. You are only allowed to be in the water while lifeguards are present, and only for a few seconds if you fall off your paddleboard or something like that. If you are walking along the shore with water up to your ankles, lifeguard or not, you could be cited. No, this is not a source of drinking water at all. Every time I go to the lake I have the same thought: So much for "land of the free". Note: Yes, of course, I understand this is mostly because people have sued and extracted money from the State/County, etc. That's likely the root cause. The solution isn't to ban everyone.
- mmcgaha 4y agoWe are much more liberal here in Maine. You can basically go anywhere you want on unimproved land so long as it is not posted no trespass.
- mcv 4y agoWhy? And on what basis would people sue the state/county? If it's public land, shouldn't people simply be allowed to swim at their own risk? And do I understand correctly that paddleboarding is allowed? Because that really makes no sense.
- robomartin 4y agoPeople have drowned. Lawsuits have extracted millions of dollars. That's the best explanation I can offer. Yes, paddleboards are allowed. Kayaks too. No power boats. Don't ask, I don't have the answers. I can tell you I have seen people do truly stupid things on the lake. Like load-up a canoe with people and ice chests and go into the lake when they obviously have no clue what they are doing. We've been kayaking this lake for 25 years. I wear a vest every time. And I am an excellent swimmer with open water experience. If you don't respect water, you die, it's that simple. Once you get to the point where everyone is a victim despite their stupidity, the only option left is to restrict absolutely everyone to the extent possible. That's the way I see this may have evolved. I don't know.
- ummonk 4y agoPrivate landowners should have to pay property taxes on any public land that is inaccessible to the public but accessible to them.
- krasin 4y agoPublic land must be made accessible to the public. And the owners of the private land must maintain the public access road. Otherwise, we will get more inaccessible public beaches, like Vinod Khosla is currently holding hostage: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/08/california-sues-vinod-khosla-beach/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/08/califor...
- ghaff 4y agoIf there's a public right of way across my land, I don't see why I would have to pay to maintain it. Doesn't apply in coastal California of course but I'm certainly not going to plow public access in the winter to a location that I don't otherwise need access to.
- giantg2 4y agoTime for someone to start a non-profit helicopter/ultralight/balloon service to piss off the land owners by flying in. I generally hate eminent domain. But this seems like a good application - allow a 10' path/road as access.
- quickthrower2 4y agoOr use retired 747s
- daguava 4y agoThis is some public-land HOA shit, imagine purchasing land deeds just so someone cannot experience or use public land. These people deserve to get smacked down in court, and I hope they get fucked with the legal fees. They're misers, and contribute nothing to society.
- prepend 4y agoIt seems so weird to seek out and charge with criminal trespass too. This seems like there’s some shenanigans going for landowners who want to avoid property taxes by only buying part of public land.
- daguava 4y ago[flagged]
- mikestew 4y agoYou might want to finish TFA, as there are good reasons (as well as bad ones) listed further down. In short, people using public land apparently don't always stay on public land, and one rancher describes the negative effects of this. For example, people using private driveways for parking.
- ip26 4y agoI wonder whether law enforcement is able to patrol corner-locked public land, to enforce the laws being violated?
- mikestew 4y agoTFA specifically says, no, they are not able because resources are thin. One rancher is quoted as saying that if the enforcement problem were fixed, they wouldn't have a problem with corner-crossing. It's an article worth reading, that's all I'm saying.
- daguava 4y agoYou're conflating who needs to take care of that - if someone on public land doesn't stay on public land, when they are out they can be charged. I don't see why you need to change the narrative to be "OH WOE IS ME, THEY TOUCHED THINE PUBLIC, but pissed on thine private a bit". That can be charged with evidence. People MAYBE doing a crime is not a crime, and is a fucked up premise for you to persue, I'm disappointed in you. I hate to break it to you - the govt can define walking paths and public lines.
- mcv 4y agoWhat a bizarre situation. It seems rather pointless for land to be public when it's not accessible by the public. Banning access to that land because of such a corner case seems quite unreasonable. But I also question why this checkerboard pattern was used to often when there was no rule to allow public access to the public lands between them. I've got to assume that such access must have been implicit.
- daguava 4y agoMilli/Billis already use this to try to block public beaches as well - you get miles and miles of pristine beach access that the above-law money hoarders try to block access to. And when they're called out on it? SLAPP type suits. This is all about slapping down those who think money can alleviate law.
- kube-system 4y agoPublic land doesn’t always mean land open to the public. In this case, we’re talking about recreational public land, but there are other types of public land where public use isn’t a factor.
- nullc 4y agoWhat this doesn't mention is that when this land was set out the government decided that x% would be for public uses and-- not having any better criteria in mind-- whomever got tasked with doing the layout just checkerboarded the parcels. This creates a significant mess, especially when you want to own a large piece of land and not have it contain random public chunks-- which you'll either need to be an ass at restricting people's access to or have your own privacy invaded by people traveling to and using them (as well as potential legal liability). My understanding is that some land owners have had some degree of success purchasing additional pieces of land and trading them with the BLM to make their own property more contiguous. In any case, I see posters here assuming that the land owners like this situation... but I know for a fact that many don't and would prefer their property not be discontinuous.
- xmcqdpt2 4y agoIs it really invading anyone's privacy? Those parcel of lands are huge. I guess some people might build a house right at the corner...
- nullc 4y agoYou don't generally locate in these regions if your concept of privacy allows for strangers 1000 feet away. For this kind of privacy you go to Wyoming or Montana for--- think more along the lines of: "No stranger without an expectation of getting shot at can see me at my home." The property you use is surrounded by a large buffer zone that no one should ever be in and the nearest part of that buffer zone is so far from any of your structures that they can hardly be seen from it. This isn't to say that the corner cross itself is the problem. The people complaining about the corner crossings presumably don't want people entering the islanded public land that takes them deep into their property. Because then you've gotta worry if someone lurking around in that land is just using it peacefully, or if they're gonna cause you trouble. (which can also be accidental, like starting a wildfire or an errant gun shot from hunting hitting something you care about). Another way to look at is like this: The price of a bay area home (say $2m) can buy you 2000 acres in Montana. At those sorts of prices it's completely reasonable to purchase a bunch of surplus property for no other purpose than preserving your isolation, access to nature, and piece of mind. Why be a NIMBY when you can just own all the property where third-party activity might adversely impact you? If you've gone to that trouble, then it's understandable that you might be be irritated by people invading that privacy-- particularly when they have to technically trespass to do so.
- daguava 4y agoRemember that Vinod Khosla, a billionaire, tried to BLOCK PUBLIC ACCESS to a span of beach by throwing down a gate and buying parcels of land. These motherfuckers are trying to just take land by buying the surrounding squares Civ 6 style. They can all rot in court. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/08/california-sues-vinod-khosla-beach/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/08/califor... Fuck this guy.
- nine_k 4y agoWow, now that's a case of paint^W checkering oneself into a corner. OK, I can understand inaccessible public land; it's unpleasant but not directly infringing anyone's property rights. But how the owners of the private parcels within the checkerboard pattern even access their land? Passage through public land may be impossible because other private land stays in the way. I suppose some agreements between land owners exist for passage. Similar agreements can likely apply to general public. How did the original land planners miss the idea of having 15-20 ft of public land between private parcels, to allow building a road later on, escapes me. It's a great example of how little intellectual effort, even of the common-sense type, is often expended on questions of a colossal consequence.
- daguava 4y ago[flagged]
- runarberg 4y agoI haven’t read the article, and maybe there is an answer there, but my immediate theory are easements. That is, the land is theirs but the owner of an adjacent property has the right to access their property through a defined corridor. Here in Washington state I know of some properties that even have public easements on them. Meaning that if their property blocks access to a public land, the public has the right to access that public land through a defined corridor.
- kube-system 4y agoAnd sometimes the answer is that the land is just landlocked. These properties are often… not very desirable.
- nine_k 4y agoThe article explains how the explicit lack of such easements and corridors is causing problems. Corridors and easements exist somewhere, and are discussed as a way out of the trap.
- 4y ago
- IncRnd 4y agoFrom this article, "This rancher, who wants to remain anonymous, sees trucks driving around in his pastures, sometimes well after dusk. Every rifle season, a fleet of trucks is parked on his private driveway. He’s witnessed people shooting deer on his property from the adjacent public land, and he’s caught people shooting deer well within his property. He’s heard shots ring out from the same direction as where his kids are out fixing fences, causing panic. There have been times he’s tried to approach trespassers and they’ve fled the scene, leaving dead or wounded deer behind. Law enforcement in his area is stretched too thin to respond to all the calls."
- ghaff 4y agoIn my experience, around where I live, people don't generally have an issue with people walking on unimproved paths in the woods. It's people ripping up those paths with all-terrain vehicles and dirt bikes or hunting near farm animals and people on private property.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoIt seems silly to contest this with airspace rights. You can fly a GA plane or paraglider over private land. But a ladder isn't allowed?
- andscoop 4y agoI suppose it makes sense as to how we ended up here, but how was physically traveling to these plots of land originally handled? With this system and the laws around trespassing, how could any of these parcels of land been legally accessed? They would have had to cross a number of plots to arrive on a plot designated to the property owners.
- kube-system 4y agoUsually they’d get there through an easement, some other public access, or they don’t get there at all.
- andscoop 4y agoAre you saying that there were, ant the time of creation, easements to the tens of thousands of square plots of land across the western USA? If so, what happened to them? If this vast area of land was laid out as a grid of land and there are millions of acres of public plots inaccessible, wouldn’t it follow that there is a similar issue with private plots? I’m sure a lot of this has been solved overtime with easements for roads, but when it was originally laid out I’d think that the vast majority of plots were not legally accessible as you’d have to cross over someone else’s plot to get there.
- kube-system 4y agoNo, I’m suggesting exactly what you’re concluding. Many of them probably have the same issue.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoif the land was tiled woth hexagons, corner crossing would not be an issue. https://youtu.be/thOifuHs6eY https://youtu.be/thOifuHs6eY