6 ms·

Yeah. There should be implied easements around private land that borders public land. You can do what you want as long as you do block passage between adjacent

Yeah. There should be implied easements around private land that borders public land. You can do what you want as long as you do block passage between adjacent, or event reasonable nearby, public land.

chefandy 3y ago
This is a point of contention in Rhode Island where (I think) the state constitution says that coastline, defined as a place that the tide regularly covers and uncovers, is public land. I believe the original intent was to preserve access for fishing. Lots of wealthy people who own waterfront property go to great lengths to prevent access to the shoreline between their property and the sea. Even in instances where the state has declared the public can walk over a specific privately-owned seawall or down paths to access the shore, landowners hire security guards, install elaborate alarm systems, puncture tires, and generally do whatever they can to harass anyone trying to legally exercise their rights. It's pretty pathetic.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The same thing happens in California; they can block access to the beach, but they cannot block you from walking up the beach, or landing a boat. They try anyway.
  - isolli 3y ago
    "A tech billionaire has fought for a decade to block access to a public beach. Now California is suing." https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/08/california-sues-vinod-khosla-beach/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/08/califor...
thomasahle 3y ago
Just give us the right/freedom to roam like in Scotland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, etc. The lands in question are completely uncultivated. The owner suffers no loss by letting people walk there.