This morning's Standard-Examiner Letters to the Editor section is a virtual cornicopia of material for gentle readers who are gleefully following the ongoing Peterson/Godfrey Mt. Ogden Park Land-grab saga. Notwithstanding the facts that (1) Chris Peterson is yet to put a firm offer on the table, and that (2) Mr. Peterson's so-called proposal has not yet expanded beyond "glittering generalities," the Godfrey/Peterson "welfare for the rich" scheme has nevertheless successfully set the townsfolks' tongues and keyboards all a'twitter, in a manner not observed within living memory.
Deprived readers in outlying provinces who do not have access a hard-copy version of this morning's Standard-Examiner can find all the latest rantings here, here, here here, here and here.
Actually, some of this material is very good. For those who sometimes accuse the local townsfolk of being apathetic or dull-witted, today's expanded Std-Ex letters section should easily put that accusation to rest.
For the purpose of getting today's discussion going however, we are singling out this Jeanette Ballantyne letter, which discusses a thorny issue we've been pondering lately:
We have no right to 'confiscate' Trails
As someone who has more than a passing acquaintance with the American Law of Real Property, your always-humble blogmeister will venture the opinion that advocates of the view that the general public has an enforcible public easement burdening the privately-owned property east of Mt. Ogden Park have a very solid case.
The pertinent question though, involves the ethics and morality of asserting such a percipient right. Ms. Ballantyne gets a WCF "tip of the hat" for illuminating this thorny issue.
And what say our gentle readers? Should members of the Ogden body politic actively assert their possible prescriptive rights ? Is it OK to do so, because it may be "technically lawful?"
The floor is now open, gentle readers. Let us hear your always wise opinions on this.
You need not feel hemmed in by this issue, by the way. Please feel free to comment on any of the above-cited letters.
Who will be the first to comment?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
11 comments:
HOW VERY INTERESTING -
Today's "Signs of support appear in Ogden"" Letter to the Editor was written by a marketing person for PINNACLE MARKETING.
Is this how the Lift Gondola proponents play the game?
Witlow:
Are you saying the letter was developed by Pinnacle Marketing as part of a contract? That some person or group hired them to market the gondola scheme and this letter is a part of the campaign? If so, can you document that?
If not, seems to me someone who works for Pinnacle Marketing is as free to have an opinion on the matter and to write to the SE about it as anyone else.
Rudi:
Well, I don't think the issue is quite as thorny as you suggest. Presuming for the sake of argument that such prescriptive easements [I think that's the term] exist for the trails, it does not mean the property owner does not still own the land or that he or she can not develop the land. It does mean he would have to provide for continued transit across the land on [or close] to the historical trails. A limitation of the owner's control over his property, yes, but not as draconian a one as the letter writer implies. Confiscation is not an accurate term to discribe the claim.
To keep this in context, our Glorious Leader, Mayor Matthew Godfrey, some time ago wanted to pay Mr. Peterson a sum [I think it was $10 K a year, but I'm not sure about that] to "buy" open access to the trails. It was immediately pointed out, however, that if he did that, and thereby successfully extinguished the [for the sake of argument] existing public right of access to the historic trails, then Mr. Peterson [who under the contract the mayor proposed could end the agreement with one year's notice to the city as I recall] could use threatening to close the trails to pressure the city to provide services to his mountain resort that the city might not wish to supply at taxpayer cost.
By way of example [hypothetical] of how it might work: After operating his resort for a year, Mr. Peterson decides that this gondola/helicopter access thing isn't working, and he wants a road built up to the Basin. A very expensive proposition given the terrain. The city says no. Mr. Peterson gives immediate notice that he is terminating the trails access agreement one year hence unless the city complies with his reqest to build him a road.
Happily, the Mayor has backed off his "rent the trails" proposal.
There are lots of areas in law which limit the right of a property owner to do what he pleases with his property. Zoning ordinances, pollution control ordinances. And, in the desert west, water law, which is very complex and [depending on the state] often asserts the public good in preference to the private right where access to and use of free flowing water and the land under it is concerned.
It's a complex matter. What we don't need [IMHO] is folks who try to reduce it [as I think the letter writter tries] to over-simplified bumper sticker slogans that can be easily chanted at rallies.
The letter was written by an employee of Pinnacle Marketing.
A copy of a news release she prepared for Pinnacle re the gondola can be viewed here.
She is entitled to write a private letter to a newspaper but she is not entitled to misstate her own news release in that letter which is what she has done.
An excerpt, not wholly unrelated to this thread [or to the Godfrey Gondola/gondola and land speculation scheme]. It's from today's editorial on the need to reduce the tax burden in Utah:
Local governments also take a large share of taxes, often for things that accomplish little. Cities along the Wasatch Front are in a frenzied battle with each other over retail, boondoggles such as a professional soccer stadium and things like recreation centers that compete with private business. In the end, they use tax incentives as a lure, costing their residents dearly and offering little return.
Publically funded boondoggles. Surely there's nothing like that that our civic leaders would support....
Extreme paranoia and calculated deceit seems to be the common thread in the rants of the clingers to the Holding Family.
What a shame!
Chris Peterson has been obviously ousted from the Holding Family.
Your Not-so-humle bloggeer's psychic sense sez that Chris P is using this obviously bad investment to show his Wyoming- based father in law (who regards him as a "little shit" who'll hold up a heavy chain 'til hell freezes over,) that he can also become a gszilliomaire.
Whew!
Earl Holding was widely known as a very astute business man. A man who could size up others and get a very fast understanding of their capabilities. He would then put them to the best use of the company whatever and wherever that was.
So here he has a big strong and rather tall son in law who is on the payroll. What to do with him? Well, after 15 years or so of watching his performance, and taking into account his physical characteristics, hell, it only make sense to have him hold up chandeliers!
That Earl is one smart cookie!
Bonnie Lee....we're on the same line of thinking! My thots exactly.
Peterson has the same skills as John Kerry...marry money.
Ballantyne and her husband are gaga over Godfrey (now THERE'S a campaign slogan!) his daddy-in-law, Peterson and anyone else of that bunch who shakes their hand and makes them feel important.
They speak out of turn at the private and not very private circus shows. Very often butting in on someone else's remarks if they don't like what's being said or asked.
The SE prints their cheerleading routines for the LO gang quite often.
Rudi thinks she said something of merit. Well, it's a surprise to Ms B...because she only wanted to show up the SmartGrowth thinkers....and it backfired.
Easement by Prescription: When a claimant has made use of another's land for a certain period of time as defined by State Law, maybe 10 to 21 years (Utah it's 7, I believe). The use must be notorius, that is to mean continuous, exclusive, without the owners consent, visible, and open and the owner must be aware of it. That can establish a CLAIM for a prescriptive easement. "Tacking," the continuous use by others, can be added together to acquire the amount of years. Then and only htne can a CLAIM be filed to see if a prescriptive easement would be granted by the courts. If so, an easement would be established, but not ownership (there is a law that grants that, if the claimant has also paid the property taxes).
CP has allowed usage and access, thus eliminating the prescriptive easement and this "common law" nonsense that some are suggesting will stop his project.
ROD
A "prescriptive easment" requires 20 years of "non-permissive" use for said easment to become permanent. That twenty years ran out probably in the 60's if the Malan's gave the land to the city in the 40's.
Actually that public easment could go way back further than that, depending on if the Malan's let people use the trails from the time they first owned it.
I know that I hiked and rode horses all over every one of those trails in the 50's. There were never any signs or anything else proclaiming it as private property. People of Ogden have been hiking up Waterfall canyon for over a hundred years. It is inconcievable that any court would now revoke the public's right to use those trails.
Incidently that 20 year non-permissive use thing does not get zero'd out just because a new owner comes into the picture. In other words, Peterson bought the land and he inherited the public easments that exist on that land. So the deal with Peterson being some magnanamous benafactor for letting us use HIS trails is just another LO lie. It is HIS land, they are OUR trails.
New comments are not allowed.