IF you don't live in the sticks this might seem easy to rule on but it is not. People are horrible. Hunters, hikers, a lot of them leave garbage all over the place. They camp and start campfires when these activities are banned. They leave these small campsites and fires unattended all the time. People out in the woods are just as irresponsible and disrespectful as anyone in the city. I am all for blocking people from these properties. Its my property and home that gets burned down in the end.
They aren't blocking public land. They are blocking their land. The fact that you can't get to the public property without crossing private property isn't the private property owners problem. Even if they are being petty. You have a right to be petty about land you own. The state should purchase easements from the property owners to remedy its lack of foresight
@@ObscureStuff420 as a property owner, I truly don't care if someone crosses my property for just a couple of minutes just to get public owned land as long as they don't harass me or cause any damage.
I live in Wyoming and this is a huge deal. There is a significant part of our public land that is in the hands of greedy land barons because they own the land around it. During the building of the transcontinental railroad they gave significant portions of land to the railroad which were then sold to others. The issue is that they did it in a chessboard pattern so half the land is public and the other half is private but most of the public land is surrounded by private land. Areas like elk mountain also exist where a beautiful public area is surrounded by private land and therefore not accessible to the public even though taxes pay for the upkeep, wildlife management and firefighting on that land.
@larrybrock4739 They both have billionaire donors, one just happens to have a few more billionaires than the other. If you want real change stop saying one party is better than the other, point out the people who refuse to accept millionaire/billionaire bribes (aka campaign contributions), make them the example all other politician need to meet or exceed or say you'll deny them your vote. I staunchly refuse to vote for someone who accepts those bribes, that included both trump & Harris, both need to be charged for treason against the American people.
The same Union Pacific checkerboard cuts across Utah and Nevada. You positively cannot get to many of the private chunks without owning the chunks around it without corner crossing. A search for "Land Owned or Administered by the US Federal Government" for Nevada looks pretty remarkable. It's like a big wide scar cutting east to west right through the northern part of the state.
Greece: Beaches are valueble for the generic public, so 1) no beach can be privately owned, and 2) it is mandatory for landowners such as hotels to provide free access through their property to the beach for the public.
@@nmosfet5797The actual beach itself can’t be privately owned here, but landowners play the kind of games the OP mentions and tries to make it so there’s no way onto the beach for miles and miles in any direction from their property, effectively allowing them to own the beach in front of their house. The OP is exactly correct, it’s rich people playing games to try to effectively own things they can’t actually own. We unfortunately don’t have laws requiring hotels and the like to provide public access, so there are places where rich people have managed to effectively keep the public off “their” beach unless they go for a very long walk or come in on a boat.
This happened around 20 years ago in Hingham, Massachusetts, with a very small public neighborhood beach where a property owner had allowed access for generations. A nee owner came in, and intended to block access. The courts decided that the public had an easement to cross, by foot, a narrow part of the private property to accessible the beach.
@@Nemonurwingyin situations like that, there's a clear arguement for using eminent domain to have the government force the landowner to provide an easement for the public good and fairly compensate them for that easement
@@LETMELOGON3HTC You are theoretically correct, but rich people have a pretty storied history of effectively controlling local governments, so there are plenty of places the public cannot easily access long stretches of beach.
It should be a rule that anyone can pass through anyone's land for any reason. Trespassing should be reserved for staying on someone's property without their permission, not passing through it.
The reason why people do it is wealthy land owners will buy plots 2, 4, 6, and 8 thus isolating plot 5 (most likely public land) and claiming it as their own by default.
The proposed "airspace" legislation is not enough. Access across corners as in this case should not require ladders, so fencing should not be allowed at corners where the possibility of land locking would otherwise arise. In effect, each "four corners" of mixed ownership land should have a gate wide enough for a fire truck to pass through in an emergency.
It was in northern Europe, by right to roam and right to access common law and specific laws. I am guessing most countries in the world have similar laws.
Unfortunately it was likely the government that did this over 100 years ago when they were just whacking up and selling the land all willy-nilly with no forethought as to what might happen in the future.
This situation is extremely common the West. Look at maps of areas on the edge of core areas of public land, and you'll see vast transitional areas that are a perfect checkerboard of alternating public and private land. It must have been a deliberate policy at some point in history, and now rich people are exploiting it to get a 2-for-1 deal on land.
The prolific checker board pattern is because of the land grants to the original land grant railroads. These parcels became private property of the railroads. Much was subsequently sold and is still private property. The other interstial land, which was not homesteaded nor sold by the government, became federal public land upon statehood.
Similarly, the checkerboarding of a certain percent of state lands in my state, Idaho, was to provide for funding the public schools. The state is obligated to use them to raise money for schools, which is most often done by grazing leases, logging permits, and mining. We've also had some private landowners try to take over these public lands for their own exclusive access by locking them in, placing gates on historically public roads, some of which even have a history of public maintenance. The Legislature shot down the last attempt to stop this, which indicates that donors have put pressure on representatives.
Thats what i said! They could easily use imminent domain. Not to snatch the land but just to allow access to the other land the land would still be owned by the private but anyone that wants to cross at the corner can! If you look up imminent domain that's exactly the type of thing it was intended for!
There was an issue in the 1960's in my city. Sears was buying up parcels downtown to build a new store with parking deck underneath. It was a full city block. One parcel was about 20 by 100 feet with street frontage just off the center of the block and the owner was asking a very high price. Sears said NO WAY. Sears built their surface parking around it making that parcel worthless. It was like that for decades until Sears closed the store and sold the land to the city. The city got that little parcel too. Nor sure who owned it by then.
@@hotpuppy1so the taxpayers agents blocked business which would result in tax revenue then took private property after they caused their demise? Are you seriously happy about that?
The UK has the plan for this. "...What about the “right to roam”? Some privately owned land in England is known as “access land” - this includes mountains, moors, heaths and downs. You’re allowed to use this for walking, running, wildlife spotting and climbing. However, there are restrictions and some areas of access land remain private. In Scotland, the right to roam is more extensive - everyone has the right to access land for recreation. However, the legislation is open to interpretation and disputes can arise as to what does and does not constitute trespass..."
as it was explained to me when I visited, you have the right to cross private land to reach a trail, but you must not damage the land. I.E. close gates, don't disturb the residents or animals, etc.
People can get downright crazy over these property issues. Territorial animal species have nothing on human territoriality. I am following a RUclips channel in which the owner of a landlocked 1-acre parcel with a small house on it is trying to rent it to new tenants (the RUclipsrs). There is an easement across a neighbor's land with a road to the landlocked property. The house has been vacant for about 4 years because the now-elderly owner was no longer able to maintain the home. The easement with the road is written into the deed of the landlocked property, in perpetuity. When the neighbor got word of the potential move-in of the new tenants he took a backhoe to the easement and completely destroyed the road that crossed his land, making it impossible to reach other than on foot. The police said it's a civil matter (huh?) but the environmental agencies are all over it because the guy diverted several watercourses so that what once was a road is now a river. That sort of thing is strictly against the law in that jurisdiction, and the owner of the landlocked property is in constant meetings with her lawyers. It's a case in progress, and it will be interesting to see how it gets resolved.... Also interestingly the owner offered to sell her property to the neighbor in 2023, but he declined. Probably waiting for the house to fall down or something so he could get it for a cheaper price. An unrelated property dispute near where I live involved a 4-foot wide strip of dirt that formed an easement to a shared driveway. One homeowner put a huge boulder on the strip, which made it impossible for the neighbors (a couple) to drive to and from their house. When they attempted to move the boulder so they could get their cars out, the neighbor shot and killed them both. Over 4 feet of dirt. Ironically, a judge had ruled that the 4 feet actually belonged to the couple, not the killer. When the shots were fired the wife was on the phone with 9-1-1, begging for help, so the entire encounter was recorded, including the man and wife saying "I love you" to each other as they lay dying in the road. The killer is in prison for life. A high price to pay, but by golly he showed them. Riiiight.
This is because big land owners want to own public property by proxy. Elk mountain is a great example of an owner who wants to own the assets on public property. Blocking public access is a crime and it’s crazy we have to write a law that specifically address corner crossing. Also you do not own the air space above your land. If so why don’t they sue the airlines ???
Steve has mentioned before. Yes, you do own the air above your land. However, per FAA regulation, aircraft do have permission to fly above your land as long as it is above the minimum height. People aren't allowed to build stuff above your land without permission, no matter how high up. But aircraft are allowed to fly over it. You own your land, the air above it, and the ground beneath it unless otherwise stated in your purchasing contract. End of story. Why is that so hard for some people to understand? I've had to explain this at least a few hundred times over the past 10 years.
why can't the same concept be interpreted in forward and in reverse? given private owner checkerboard the land to claim ownership/access, the public can now claim ownership/access to the private owner's land too. result in the sharing of both black and white checkers, by both public and private owner
That’s not how this works. It’s not my responsibility to provide access across my property for someone else to access a different piece of property. I shouldn’t be expected to loose the use of my own land simply because someone else wants to cross it to get somewhere else. That’s why I’m against the idea of creating easements where people can just walk across your land to get to the fence to get to another parcel.
@@infinitybeyond6357that’s the real Issue…..I paid for it and I pay taxes on it, but I don’t actually OWN it if anyone who wants can simply enter my property and use my roads whenever they want….simply because they claim to want to cross my land to go elsewhere.
@@valarianne2284 not Paul Lynde but close: Weird Al has a song/video about the "Notorious CNR!" (Charles Nelson Riley) I wholeheartedly recommend it. In fact, I think I'm going to watch it again myself after this comment.
The government entities with the affected public lands could resolve this by creating corner crossing right-of-ways (a path from corner to corner) using eminent domain if necessary.
Imagine how that works in practice. You own a 500 acre ranch and the government shows up and creates an easement across your property that allows anyone to Randomly show up day or night and travel inside your fence line on your property for the length of that property and you’re now required provide gates and facilitate access through your property.
@@Matt-yg8ub so would you prefer to swap plots so your property is continous Land that doesnt encapsulate public Land then? or do you think puplic Land surrounded by your property is yours too, just without the hassle of taxes?
You don’t need to go nuclear, simply installing easements would be all that’s necessary, you could even pay them fair market value, say that wasteland was 70k fair market per quarter section, and the easement was one ten thousandth the area. Just give the landowner $7 and call it a day.
@Matt-yg8ub that is what needs to be set up carefully. It shouldn't be worded so badly it gives permission to cross anywhere. Responsibility should be on the crosser to minimize contact with private land or air space.
This issue is already addressed by standard processes for granting of easements by necessity, therefore it would make more sense to simply grant such easements wherever required for access. That would normally require property owners to initiate the process, so the most reasonable solution is for the BLM or whatever relevant public land-owner entity to do so for all such encumbered properties. They could then simply install appropriate four-way gates for whatever access is required, to serve the needs of private-land-owners as well as public-land users and authorized agents.
Usually, it is not the landlocked property that is sold. in the tick-tc^toe example #5 is landlocked but not sold #2,4,6,8 are sold. More importantly, now that it is sold unselling it is not possible in most cases.
I’m quite certain that this won’t end the debate. In my opinion, public land without public access isn’t really public land. I don’t understand why we never created some sort of corner zones making it illegal to encroach within “x” number of feet property corners unless all land surrounding the corner is owned by one individual. Thereby any property corner must contain a right of way.
As a rural, residential property owner who has been dealing with a persistent trespasser for a few years now, I can tell you this is largely academic because most law enforcement agencies will not typically charge anyone with trespassing on private, residential property unless there has been an assault, a violation of a prior legal ejectment, breaking and entering, or probable cause of theft or robbery. Or a fishing or hunting violation. If you manage a restaurant, that's different but your 1, 2, 5 or 12 acre homestead? Forget it. The few times I have called, I got a talking to by the deputy (i.e. don't do anything or else you'll get in trouble, don't threaten them or scare them or whatever, just take them to civil court) and a nice serving of egg on my face and the predictable increase in trespassing immediately following the cops coming by to do nothing.
The difference is you're (probably) not a billionaire or multimillionaire, and you (probably) don't play golf with the sheriff and judges in your area.
When federal property is patened out to private owners there is a 33 ft reservation for roadways and utilities along the outer boundaries of the property. These patent reservations do not always show up on title reports unfortunately. It surprises me that there is no mention of this....see Small Tract Act of 1938
Close, it’s typically only present on one edge unless it’s a full quarter section (sometimes) or full square mile section (half mile by half mile, yes even in Canada).
@@hugegamer5988 I understand what you mean, but you might want to rearrange your sentence. It's the quarter sections that are nominally half mile by half mile, not the "full square mile section[s]". Full sections are nominally one mile by one mile.
In Washington state much of the waterfront land, including beaches, are private, but the waters are public. But its hard to get to the water because of the private land.
-The law has a difficult time defining common sense. This also applies to landlocked private land. There are many farmers out there who have to drive miles out of their way to get supplies because the property around them was developed.
Thanks for the update Steve. Another potential solution is, Any fence and/or barrier must leave an allowance of TWO feet as an Easement, for corner crossing. Could it be made an Ordinance ? Note the pun.
I had seen news articles on the original arrest and the trial, but I never understood the problem. Steve's description makes it clear what is going on.
Maybe then need to pass a law prohibiting blocking of public land. We had a similar situation in Oregon with public beaches. The legislature made it illegal (in most areas) to block public access to the beach. It might be proper to make landowners offset their corner slightly to open a corridor, or install a stile, to cross at corners where 2 pieces of public land meet at a corner.
Steve, thanks for another good one. I feel like I can relate to all your video's, as a good friend of mine recently moved to Laramie WY from San Diego CA. He hunts with a camera.
In a Wyoming river the water is public and where it goes over privately owed property you can not get out to wade or anchor a boat because the bottom is private. Is this a similar precedent to the air space in corner crossing?
@@hollisconant2566 Refusing someone the ability to hop over the corner of your property in an attempt to block access to land you do not own is extremely petty. Are you dense?
Seems easy to fix. We already have laws that cover easements, right of passage, and manifest destiny. If 1 and 5 are public, and 2 and 4 are private, an entryway (gate) or easement be made where they all connect, then 2 and 4 are compensated for the tiny bit of land they lose in the construction of the entryway or easement, and 1 and 5 are responsible for the entryway or easements upkeep and maintenance. Just like how ambiguity in a contract should always favor the party who didn't draft it, property right disputes should always favor the landlocked party. It's logical, simple, for the greater good, and makes sense.
There is a lot of land in Montana so locked and it allows the bordering land owner’s exclusive rights on OUR land and often us it for hunting requiring sometimes very high fees. The “checker board” was created in many places by the US Gov’t by giving land in a checkerboard pattern to the Railroads to get track laid. The National Forest NW of Big Timber, Montana is such. As a result the Forest Service its self has access problems in this area. And while the private owners may want to put in an access across the USFS land to get to theirs but don’t want the public to use the road to access the NF lands. Each square in most cases is one square mile in area.
You mentioned getting over fencing at a corner crossing by using a ladder. The ladder-like device for climbing over a fence or similar barrier is called a stile. I would suggest the state or federal government constrict and position stiles at corner crossing points for the convenience of hunters, hikers, campers, etc. who are accessing public lands. Further, make it an offense to interfere with, damage, or move such a stile.
Surprised there isn't an easement that allows traffic to/from public land. The legislation (as presented) seems silly, just pass legislation that provides for easements.
Ben Hundo's poking out from between the two stacks of law books, 2nd shelf, left -- straight below the driver's door hinge of the bronze Chrysler Turbine coupe
There needs to be a compromise in that situation where the public is granted access to the land and in exchange the state is financially responsible for fences gates and driveways at access corners.
Either make it an easement, or take a part of the corner by eminent domain (paying the property owner for a small triangle), leaving a small path for anyone to access public property.
It would be simpler if the States just used eminant domain to aquire a 6'x6' square at each intersection where 4 parcels come together. That way the corners are public property, and the issue goes away.
This individual committed an obvious criminal conspiracy and is using our judicial system as an accomplice. He should immediately be dealt with in the permanent sense.
The only time this comes up is when people don't cross over, they hunt or trespass on someone else property. Steve, we're from Michigan, we know what is truly happening and why land owners get pissed! Thanks for the video!
Its the states responsibility to negotiate accees or adjust plot shape to provide access. Land owner should mark the corner. If marker found to be missing. Then investigate cause or damage/theft.
In Scotland, they have the "right to roam" which allows members of the public to access most land and inland water in Scotland for recreational or other purposes, like camping and picnicking, provided that the right to roam is exercised reasonably and responsibly. However, it does not apply to land on which there are buildings, or shelters including tents and caravans (campers) nor gardens. In addition, land where crops are growing is off limits, as are schools and school grounds and land that has been developed into sports grounds.
I just watched a video explaining what "corner crossing" is and the video states that it is a national issue, ie: it occurs in all states. I'm 66 years old and have never heard of it. I know that people can be petty at times, but getting butt hurt because someone stepped over, not on, a tiny piece of property to get from one property to another, is just plain stupid. I live in a neighborhood where children cross my property all the time, as they move around the neighborhood. They're walking and not hurting anything. It's not like they're riding dirt bikes across my property and tearing it up. I would have an issue with the kids if that happened.
The house I grew up in was back in a little pocket. There was a hedge in the backyard meant to separate the 2 homes/properties, but over the years we became very close to our neighbors and a permanent hole was worn through the hedge so we could go back and forth. Everyone knew it was there - when I was young everyone knew everyone in the neighborhood and it was no big deal if other kids used that as a shortcut to head uptown. Nobody damaged anything, and nobody was rude or misused it. In my 30s I took over the family home for a few years, but the neighborhood had changed. Now we had people wandering through the yard who weren't so nice or respectful. This culminated in a child walking his dog on a leash into the backyard so the dog could do what dogs do. Right in front of my boyfriend who was out back sharpening his landscaping tools. He told the boy to clean up after the dog, asked him why he was in the yard, etc. The kid, standing there with his dog on leash said the dog "ran away from me" and refused to clean up after the dog. And then went home and told his mother the crazy guy down the street threatened him with a hatchett. What came next is really funny but too much to put in here. The cops finally showed up to ask me what was going on. VERY small town - I knew the officer well. He used to date my best friend. I explained what happened, the officer nodded his head and told me "Yeah, the mother didn't make sense to me. I told her I knew you guys and it didn't sound like anything you would do. Damned city people. I'll be right back." Ultimately he told the woman to keep her kid out of other people's yards. That if she wanted to try pressing charges it wouldn't work out well for her and he would advise me to file trespassing charges on her kid. Then he told her since the woods were right in her back yard there was no reason to walk the dog on the streets. There were plenty of well worn trails behind her own house. When the officer came back he told me the problem was solved but advised me to stop letting anyone I didn't know well use the shortcut as I could find myself being sued or worse. It was all very stupid - but this is how things changed. We went from a small, semi rural town where everyone knew everyone and nobody would dream of suing you to a place getting over run by strangers looking for a "house in the country but still close to NYC" who had no problem suing over a scraped knee. These people had no interest in getting to know the "hicks" in town, but if they could cook up a lawsuit they figured you'd settle before you'd risk your home. In a really small town you can't just go sue over petty nonsense. You'd end up starting a war. It wouldn't end well for anyone. People managed to work things out for decades without suing. Helped that most everyone was related in some way. Most married the boy/girl next door and stayed in town. I'm pushing 70 now and still live in the area. To this day there's a divide between the families who've been here for 50-100 years and the "newcomers". It's pretty sad.
The real point is, the private property owner wants to keep the public out of the public land so the private property owner is the only one that can access the public land. It isn't just about the corner.
I'm thinking, that if the government doesn't think that Civil Assett Forfeiture is "Taking" then this won't be considered "Taking". Will, someone try to sue for that, yep, probably.
Would it be an issue to create a 10 foot easement at each corner to allow access from one public square to another? Or as an access point from one private plot to another if the adjoining plots are owned by someone else? As long as the access is done through the easement, no trespass is committed. It would prohibit the building of obstacles or fences at the access point. Any fence would have to allow the 10 foot space(5 feet from the center point). If one person owns all four plots, or plots with no corner crossing access, plots 1 and 4, for instance, no easement is required.
The US needs a right of way ammendment where peopel can access their or public land, even if they have to step over private property. People are too unreasonable now a days where this is now necessary
Not always. There was a case that someone sold his property into two, and his house was now landlocked. He didn't leave in any easement or anything in the property that he prior crossed to get home. The new owners didn't want him crossing their property. Thus, he tried to get the neighbor to provide his driveway for access. The neighbor also didn't let him, and said it should have an easement through the property that used to be his.
That ranch in carbon county has been having guided hunts on elk mountain ( which is public lands ) for many decades. I hunted that area in the 1980s and everyone was complaining about them blocking access down low. Very good the hear that this ranch lost their cases so far.
honestly, maybe there should be a required right-of-way to prevent landlocked properties. I'm not 100% sure, but I think New York State might require that on property sales where properties are divided, to prevent somebody from buying property that they can't legally get access to
Simple solution, eminent domain acquire a 4 ft by 4 ft section in the corner of each property that is landlocked on the private property side so you'll have a clear path to walk across the property
I think such a bill falls short of actually solving the underlying problem: It only addresses a very specific fringe case of how to deal with "enclave" property, public or otherwise. In my opinion, a better approach would be to require landowners to tolerate trespassing IF (1) committed for the purpose of moving between two other pieces of land the trespasser is legally allowed to be on, (2) there is no reasonable route between the two pieces of land that would avoid trespassing, and (3) the trespasser makes a good faith attempt to minimize their impact on landowners' rights. This would clearly solve the corner-crossing case, but would also address other potential constellations, such as a single individual deliberately buying land to deny access to some property they do not own, and even multiple individuals conspiring to deny access to property none of them owns. Such a law could also be extended to require landowners to tolerate more intrusive access if such intrusion is required for a reasonable legitimate purpose; e.g. if someone wanted to start a legal building project on their enclaved property, and that project would reasonably require a backhoe, owners of surrounding land would have to allow the transport of a backhoe through their property.
In the case of 3 or more properties meeting at a common corner, there should be a 30 foot corridor for people to pass from any property to another and ban permanent fences within the 30 corridors. Gates or moveable fences would be allowed but but can only be opened during transit to prevent domestic animals from leaving.
One question: say an individual crosses a corner to get to another parcel but steps in a gopher hole, falls and breaks his leg. Can that person sue the owner of the property that he crossed? Unless the corners are PRECISELY mapped and marked, how do you know if you are crossing PRECISELY at the corner? Most fences are put in by guess and by golly without proper survey. There have been access issues about little rural cemeteries that sit on farms too. You have to travel through someone's property to get to the cemetery. Owners have tried to stop people from doing that but people have the right to access those cemeteries even if they are technically owned by the surrounding property unless split out of the original property as shown on the assessor's records. Also issues with landowners removing headstones and plowing over cemeteries that sit on their property. There are laws to prevent that (supposedly).
It's kind of mind-blowing that even though the concept of private property is hundreds of years old, we still have open questions regarding hos the law should operate.
Hundreds of years ago we didn't have helicopters, nor did we have cameras that could be used on those helicopters to invade someone's privacy. I get why someone would want to keep anyone specifically(or anyone not among their shortlist of friends/family) off of their property. There are a number of very reasonable and unreasonable reasons to want that, and a number of reasonable and unreasonable reasons to want on said property. However, as he said, it's very de minimis. Just leave a gap, and have gates on either fence close to the corner. They won't have access to the actual property, and you don't get raped in court for keeping someone off property that they DO have permission to be on. That, or offer to sell a small portion at those corners with the provision that you'll have access to pass between your two properties, then it's not yours to deal with.
I love the content of your videos, but I wait patiently for the witty quip by your narrator at the end. 😉 "Give a man a fish, you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will sit in a canoe and drink beer all day." 🤣🤣
A lot of people don't understand the Western States ownership tends to work a bit differently than in the rest of the country. You own severable "rights" to land. So, one person could own the right to the surface, another person could own water rights, a third could own mineral rights, and a fourth could own the airspace. Also, when purchasing property, you'll want to check and see if any rights have been severed in your area because "your property" may not actually be shared property.
In Scotland, we have a right to roam law, which basically means anyone can walk on any private land so long as you do not damage it. There are laws about proximity to buildings due to privacy issues, and you shouldn't loiter for longer than necessary, clean up after yourself (if you had a camp, etc), and if you're asked to move on by the owner then you should when reaspnable. That's how it should be.
I live in NE Illinois, about 50 miles NW of Chitown. We have property easements that are set to 6" in from your lot line for fences and, If I remember correctly, 2.5 feet for structures. As well, a fence post centered on the corner of your lot lines would also be on up to three other peoples property. The easements also prohibit the physical blocking of corner to corner access.
I went and read the bill, and while I'm not a lawyer I think I can see some issues here. As you said, "incidentally" isn't determined and it states "[...] or touches the land or premises of another person while the person is traveling from one (1) parcel of land [...]". So they are allowed to both cross the airspace, and touch someone else's land and there is no definition of distance or how wide the "incidental" part is. For example, if I'm 2' off from the exact corner and take two steps vs. 1, is that still incidental? Also, out of curiosity, if someone gets injured on private property during this incidental travel - is the landowner responsible? In the end, if I lived in Wyoming I would like to see more definition into what the right of way is for crossing at the point.
I cannot imagine owning multiple miles of land and being worried about someone crossing my corner i can't even imagine worriing about someone trespassing that isn't stealing things or trashing the place
It does sound very petty - and most of the time I'm sure it is. However I'm also sure that some of these wealthy landowners are concerned with being sued if someone gets hurt on their land. They are the perfect targets for this sue happy country. I am curious how many of these private landowners settled lawsuits because it was easier than arguing them.
@valarianne2284 i also can't imagine sueing someone for something that was in all reality my own fault but as a whole I can definitely understand the not wanting to get sued because someone else was an idiot
It's crossing at the "+" center of plus sign. When government land joins the other two points. Example, Private land owners "like" to restrict passage from federal land to federal land due to "infinitesimal " center point of the X. This in fact, gives them free use of all lands that intersect. Free to do what 'they' want. By restricting any use of tax payer federally owned lands. Airplane, helicopter, only allowable entry. Oh wait... maybe claim airspace too.?? A two foot easement would be one foot per intersection. Make a walking path..not asking for a highway easement.
My problem with the "air trespass" idea is Did the landowners rigorously pursue charges against the airline each time an airplane passed through their airspace? If the answer is no then the landowner has shown their deliberate indifference to the concept of "air trespass", thus giving up any chance at claiming such.
I heard it started with donation of land to two, but the owner wanted to keep new owners not able thus he could Isolate half (approximately) of the land.
Wisconsin citizen access to public lakes and streams, regardless of riparian and terrestrial rights of adjacent or blocking property is guaranteed in law.
There should be public easements in the corner of privaye properties in checker board areas, the us shpuld also use emminent domain to swap and buy less or unused propeery to open up mpre public lands
I don't see an issue with mandating the corner crossing is legal but only if one thing happens and that is for the same law to give immunity to the property owner should said crosser get hurt in anyway. Person walking through trips on a rock and breaks their ankle, then the property owner should be legally immune to being sued.
My question is is it still going to be allowed to put up fences on the corner of your property? You might have the fences up for other reasons other than just preventing corner crossings
Pretty much every municipality in the country already has various laws granting an assumed easement for specific public use on all private property within the city. If that framework works for city law I see no reason why it wouldn't work for county or state law as well.
They should take it a step further. They should force the land owner to clearly mark the area that can legally be crossed. If they don't want to do it, that's fine. The state can do it and charge the land owner.
Easy way to deal with it is to make it illegal for bordering landholders of landlocked property to access said property by any means unless the same means is available to the public. Essentially making corner crossing between their lands over public lands illegal as well in those situations as well as not allowing them to benefit from cutting access to pubic lands. Many ranchers would have their own land become inaccessible unless they allowed corner crossing. At the Federal level all it would take is to require any federal land that is leased for grazing to require public access be given by the leasee or it cannot be leased and that movement of livestock across Federal land that is not open for grazing is illegal.
I think the law needs to define and limit exactly what corner crossing is otherwise the owner of the private land has no protraction against people crossing all his land on diagonals. All of this could be averted if all the parties exercised a modicum of common sense which sadly is not at all common.
It should be called the bishop rule.
there you go. 😊
😂😂😂😂
En passàn
@@xXKilUmaXx Honestly, I think you came up with a better name.
Check mate😂😂
Some wealthy people who spent a lot of time and money blocking off public land for their private use are not going to like this.
IF you don't live in the sticks this might seem easy to rule on but it is not. People are horrible. Hunters, hikers, a lot of them leave garbage all over the place. They camp and start campfires when these activities are banned. They leave these small campsites and fires unattended all the time.
People out in the woods are just as irresponsible and disrespectful as anyone in the city. I am all for blocking people from these properties. Its my property and home that gets burned down in the end.
They aren't blocking public land. They are blocking their land. The fact that you can't get to the public property without crossing private property isn't the private property owners problem. Even if they are being petty. You have a right to be petty about land you own. The state should purchase easements from the property owners to remedy its lack of foresight
@@ObscureStuff420 Why are people allowed to own land at all?
@@hamplans Sounds like you are complaining about a different problem than the one being described by Steve.
@@ObscureStuff420 as a property owner, I truly don't care if someone crosses my property for just a couple of minutes just to get public owned land as long as they don't harass me or cause any damage.
I live in Wyoming and this is a huge deal. There is a significant part of our public land that is in the hands of greedy land barons because they own the land around it. During the building of the transcontinental railroad they gave significant portions of land to the railroad which were then sold to others. The issue is that they did it in a chessboard pattern so half the land is public and the other half is private but most of the public land is surrounded by private land. Areas like elk mountain also exist where a beautiful public area is surrounded by private land and therefore not accessible to the public even though taxes pay for the upkeep, wildlife management and firefighting on that land.
But who do Wyomingites vote for? Oh the party of the rich.
@@larrybrock4739Republicans?
@larrybrock4739
They both have billionaire donors, one just happens to have a few more billionaires than the other.
If you want real change stop saying one party is better than the other, point out the people who refuse to accept millionaire/billionaire bribes (aka campaign contributions), make them the example all other politician need to meet or exceed or say you'll deny them your vote.
I staunchly refuse to vote for someone who accepts those bribes, that included both trump & Harris, both need to be charged for treason against the American people.
The same Union Pacific checkerboard cuts across Utah and Nevada. You positively cannot get to many of the private chunks without owning the chunks around it without corner crossing. A search for "Land Owned or Administered by the US Federal Government" for Nevada looks pretty remarkable. It's like a big wide scar cutting east to west right through the northern part of the state.
@@larrybrock4739 For some reason it is traditional in the US to only ever vote for one of the two parties of the rich and ignore all other parties.
This reminds me of all the rich folks who want to keep the riffraff off public beaches by making sure there is never a public path to the beach.
Greece: Beaches are valueble for the generic public, so 1) no beach can be privately owned, and 2) it is mandatory for landowners such as hotels to provide free access through their property to the beach for the public.
@@nmosfet5797The actual beach itself can’t be privately owned here, but landowners play the kind of games the OP mentions and tries to make it so there’s no way onto the beach for miles and miles in any direction from their property, effectively allowing them to own the beach in front of their house. The OP is exactly correct, it’s rich people playing games to try to effectively own things they can’t actually own. We unfortunately don’t have laws requiring hotels and the like to provide public access, so there are places where rich people have managed to effectively keep the public off “their” beach unless they go for a very long walk or come in on a boat.
This happened around 20 years ago in Hingham, Massachusetts, with a very small public neighborhood beach where a property owner had allowed access for generations. A nee owner came in, and intended to block access. The courts decided that the public had an easement to cross, by foot, a narrow part of the private property to accessible the beach.
@@Nemonurwingyin situations like that, there's a clear arguement for using eminent domain to have the government force the landowner to provide an easement for the public good and fairly compensate them for that easement
@@LETMELOGON3HTC You are theoretically correct, but rich people have a pretty storied history of effectively controlling local governments, so there are plenty of places the public cannot easily access long stretches of beach.
All public land should have easements by law
It should be a rule that anyone can pass through anyone's land for any reason. Trespassing should be reserved for staying on someone's property without their permission, not passing through it.
Simple solution! One court case could pay the owner for the land and leave it for cars to use.
@@hyzmarca2737 No, and hell no.
The pettiness of some people is astounding!!!!
The reason why people do it is wealthy land owners will buy plots 2, 4, 6, and 8 thus isolating plot 5 (most likely public land) and claiming it as their own by default.
A lot of rich people get rich by finding a loophole and exploiting it. The them, this is just another loophole to exploit.
The proposed "airspace" legislation is not enough. Access across corners as in this case should not require ladders, so fencing should not be allowed at corners where the possibility of land locking would otherwise arise. In effect, each "four corners" of mixed ownership land should have a gate wide enough for a fire truck to pass through in an emergency.
@@charlesyoung7436 Fencing should have to have a "set-back" off the property lines. I can't build all the way up to the very edge of my property.
@@Hawkeye2001 agree.
This should have been sorted out decades, if not centuries ago
If it isn't a problem, it isn't going to get fixed. Trying to fix laws ahead of time will often result in unforeseen consequences.
It wasn't a widespread problem until people got greedy and selfish.
@@byronperry6014 This right here. What's happening now is rich a-holes are trying to restrict access to public lands for their own benefit.
It was in northern Europe, by right to roam and right to access common law and specific laws. I am guessing most countries in the world have similar laws.
The USA is nearly one-quarter of a millennium old, and they're still in beta release (i.e. buggy).
It should be illegal land-lock public land.
requre corners to be rounded out thus creating a pathway.....
Unfortunately it was likely the government that did this over 100 years ago when they were just whacking up and selling the land all willy-nilly with no forethought as to what might happen in the future.
@@kpdvw Don't even have to do that. Just require an easement.
At the microscopic level,there will always be a gap between properties 😉
Or private land. Buying land the cuts off access to any public or private property should grant an automatic access easement.
This situation is extremely common the West. Look at maps of areas on the edge of core areas of public land, and you'll see vast transitional areas that are a perfect checkerboard of alternating public and private land. It must have been a deliberate policy at some point in history, and now rich people are exploiting it to get a 2-for-1 deal on land.
The prolific checker board pattern is because of the land grants to the original land grant railroads. These parcels became private property of the railroads. Much was subsequently sold and is still private property. The other interstial land, which was not homesteaded nor sold by the government, became federal public land upon statehood.
Similarly, the checkerboarding of a certain percent of state lands in my state, Idaho, was to provide for funding the public schools. The state is obligated to use them to raise money for schools, which is most often done by grazing leases, logging permits, and mining. We've also had some private landowners try to take over these public lands for their own exclusive access by locking them in, placing gates on historically public roads, some of which even have a history of public maintenance. The Legislature shot down the last attempt to stop this, which indicates that donors have put pressure on representatives.
This whole thing is utterly insane for me as a Finn. We got a thing called everymans rights.
There should be an easement 5' on either side of the boundary point allowing free and unfettered access.
Oh there you go making SENSE again....
Yeah seems like an implicit easement which probably isn't a thing.
Thats what i said! They could easily use imminent domain. Not to snatch the land but just to allow access to the other land the land would still be owned by the private but anyone that wants to cross at the corner can! If you look up imminent domain that's exactly the type of thing it was intended for!
Im not disagreeing. I think it makes sense. What happens if someone gets hurt on your property while on the easement?
@@FulltimeFredsadventures
Maybe a law should be passed to prevent people from taking public property by proxy by boxing it in.
There was an issue in the 1960's in my city. Sears was buying up parcels downtown to build a new store with parking deck underneath. It was a full city block. One parcel was about 20 by 100 feet with street frontage just off the center of the block and the owner was asking a very high price. Sears said NO WAY. Sears built their surface parking around it making that parcel worthless. It was like that for decades until Sears closed the store and sold the land to the city. The city got that little parcel too. Nor sure who owned it by then.
Yeah, more laws, that will fix it...
@@hotpuppy1so the taxpayers agents blocked business which would result in tax revenue then took private property after they caused their demise? Are you seriously happy about that?
@@mattgayda2840 so a private entity doesn’t want to sell to sears and it somehow becomes the fault of taxpayers agents?
@@mattgayda2840 what is your solution to public lands being cut off from public access by private individuals?
The UK has the plan for this. "...What about the “right to roam”?
Some privately owned land in England is known as “access land” - this includes mountains, moors, heaths and downs. You’re allowed to use this for walking, running, wildlife spotting and climbing. However, there are restrictions and some areas of access land remain private.
In Scotland, the right to roam is more extensive - everyone has the right to access land for recreation. However, the legislation is open to interpretation and disputes can arise as to what does and does not constitute trespass..."
as it was explained to me when I visited, you have the right to cross private land to reach a trail, but you must not damage the land. I.E. close gates, don't disturb the residents or animals, etc.
People can get downright crazy over these property issues. Territorial animal species have nothing on human territoriality. I am following a RUclips channel in which the owner of a landlocked 1-acre parcel with a small house on it is trying to rent it to new tenants (the RUclipsrs). There is an easement across a neighbor's land with a road to the landlocked property. The house has been vacant for about 4 years because the now-elderly owner was no longer able to maintain the home. The easement with the road is written into the deed of the landlocked property, in perpetuity. When the neighbor got word of the potential move-in of the new tenants he took a backhoe to the easement and completely destroyed the road that crossed his land, making it impossible to reach other than on foot. The police said it's a civil matter (huh?) but the environmental agencies are all over it because the guy diverted several watercourses so that what once was a road is now a river. That sort of thing is strictly against the law in that jurisdiction, and the owner of the landlocked property is in constant meetings with her lawyers. It's a case in progress, and it will be interesting to see how it gets resolved.... Also interestingly the owner offered to sell her property to the neighbor in 2023, but he declined. Probably waiting for the house to fall down or something so he could get it for a cheaper price.
An unrelated property dispute near where I live involved a 4-foot wide strip of dirt that formed an easement to a shared driveway. One homeowner put a huge boulder on the strip, which made it impossible for the neighbors (a couple) to drive to and from their house. When they attempted to move the boulder so they could get their cars out, the neighbor shot and killed them both. Over 4 feet of dirt. Ironically, a judge had ruled that the 4 feet actually belonged to the couple, not the killer. When the shots were fired the wife was on the phone with 9-1-1, begging for help, so the entire encounter was recorded, including the man and wife saying "I love you" to each other as they lay dying in the road. The killer is in prison for life. A high price to pay, but by golly he showed them. Riiiight.
That is incredibly sad. How do you take 2 lives over such petty BS and live with yourself?
This is because big land owners want to own public property by proxy. Elk mountain is a great example of an owner who wants to own the assets on public property. Blocking public access is a crime and it’s crazy we have to write a law that specifically address corner crossing. Also you do not own the air space above your land. If so why don’t they sue the airlines ???
Steve has mentioned before. Yes, you do own the air above your land. However, per FAA regulation, aircraft do have permission to fly above your land as long as it is above the minimum height.
People aren't allowed to build stuff above your land without permission, no matter how high up. But aircraft are allowed to fly over it.
You own your land, the air above it, and the ground beneath it unless otherwise stated in your purchasing contract. End of story. Why is that so hard for some people to understand? I've had to explain this at least a few hundred times over the past 10 years.
why can't the same concept be interpreted in forward and in reverse?
given private owner checkerboard the land to claim ownership/access,
the public can now claim ownership/access to the private owner's land too.
result in the sharing of both black and white checkers, by both public and private owner
That’s not how this works. It’s not my responsibility to provide access across my property for someone else to access a different piece of property. I shouldn’t be expected to loose the use of my own land simply because someone else wants to cross it to get somewhere else. That’s why I’m against the idea of creating easements where people can just walk across your land to get to the fence to get to another parcel.
@@infinitybeyond6357that’s the real Issue…..I paid for it and I pay taxes on it, but I don’t actually OWN it if anyone who wants can simply enter my property and use my roads whenever they want….simply because they claim to want to cross my land to go elsewhere.
@@Matt-yg8ubyour young mind is going to be absolutely blown when you learn about this thing that exists called “easements” 😂
Sitting in a canoe drinking beer sounds so peaceful. I remember those days well.
The center square...Paul Lyne.
Capt. America: "I understood that reference!" LOL
Haha undoubtedly the funniest square in Hollywood! (Although it was Paul Lynde)
😅😂😅 Paul Lynde! Used to watch just to see what crazy thing he would get away with saying!
That man was sooo funny!
@@valarianne2284 not Paul Lynde but close: Weird Al has a song/video about the "Notorious CNR!" (Charles Nelson Riley) I wholeheartedly recommend it. In fact, I think I'm going to watch it again myself after this comment.
You're dating yourself
I made a few public comments about the billionaire involved in this and he tried to come after me. I had to get the ACLU involved to protect me.
@RisenThe,
That is why all SLAPP lawsuits must be banned.
@@AMERICANPATRIOT1945 They would have been SLAPPed with sanctions if they didn't dismiss their frivolous case.
You should have sued him for malicious prosecution.
Sure ya did
@@ObsoletePencil I don't like having my details out there but you can look up "eshelman aclu" and it'll pop right up.
Off topic - I love the little bits of wisdom that you put at the end of each video. I'll stick around to the end just to hear it.
That's funny; I find it annoying and skip it. It won't annoy me to skip it anymore, now that I know somebody likes it!
The government entities with the affected public lands could resolve this by creating corner crossing right-of-ways (a path from corner to corner) using eminent domain if necessary.
Hey I'm Chuck Davis too kinda funny to see another one here!!!
Imagine how that works in practice. You own a 500 acre ranch and the government shows up and creates an easement across your property that allows anyone to Randomly show up day or night and travel inside your fence line on your property for the length of that property and you’re now required provide gates and facilitate access through your property.
@@Matt-yg8ub so would you prefer to swap plots so your property is continous Land that doesnt encapsulate public Land then? or do you think puplic Land surrounded by your property is yours too, just without the hassle of taxes?
You don’t need to go nuclear, simply installing easements would be all that’s necessary, you could even pay them fair market value, say that wasteland was 70k fair market per quarter section, and the easement was one ten thousandth the area. Just give the landowner $7 and call it a day.
@Matt-yg8ub that is what needs to be set up carefully. It shouldn't be worded so badly it gives permission to cross anywhere. Responsibility should be on the crosser to minimize contact with private land or air space.
This issue is already addressed by standard processes for granting of easements by necessity, therefore it would make more sense to simply grant such easements wherever required for access. That would normally require property owners to initiate the process, so the most reasonable solution is for the BLM or whatever relevant public land-owner entity to do so for all such encumbered properties. They could then simply install appropriate four-way gates for whatever access is required, to serve the needs of private-land-owners as well as public-land users and authorized agents.
The real problem is selling property that’s land locked.
Usually, it is not the landlocked property that is sold. in the tick-tc^toe example #5 is landlocked but not sold #2,4,6,8 are sold. More importantly, now that it is sold unselling it is not possible in most cases.
@ maybe poorly stated. Selling property that ends up being or creating some property to be landlocked.
Never buy property unseen and ensure you have legal access?
Such sales are prohibited in NM.
I’m quite certain that this won’t end the debate. In my opinion, public land without public access isn’t really public land. I don’t understand why we never created some sort of corner zones making it illegal to encroach within “x” number of feet property corners unless all land surrounding the corner is owned by one individual. Thereby any property corner must contain a right of way.
As a rural, residential property owner who has been dealing with a persistent trespasser for a few years now, I can tell you this is largely academic because most law enforcement agencies will not typically charge anyone with trespassing on private, residential property unless there has been an assault, a violation of a prior legal ejectment, breaking and entering, or probable cause of theft or robbery. Or a fishing or hunting violation. If you manage a restaurant, that's different but your 1, 2, 5 or 12 acre homestead? Forget it. The few times I have called, I got a talking to by the deputy (i.e. don't do anything or else you'll get in trouble, don't threaten them or scare them or whatever, just take them to civil court) and a nice serving of egg on my face and the predictable increase in trespassing immediately following the cops coming by to do nothing.
The difference is you're (probably) not a billionaire or multimillionaire, and you (probably) don't play golf with the sheriff and judges in your area.
When federal property is patened out to private owners there is a 33 ft reservation for roadways and utilities along the outer boundaries of the property. These patent reservations do not always show up on title reports unfortunately. It surprises me that there is no mention of this....see Small Tract Act of 1938
Close, it’s typically only present on one edge unless it’s a full quarter section (sometimes) or full square mile section (half mile by half mile, yes even in Canada).
@@hugegamer5988 I understand what you mean, but you might want to rearrange your sentence. It's the quarter sections that are nominally half mile by half mile, not the "full square mile section[s]". Full sections are nominally one mile by one mile.
Yes, but these checkerboard land grants were made to the railroads in the 1850s to 1870s, to pay them for establishing the cross country rail lines.
Wow! A common sense law!
In Washington state much of the waterfront land, including beaches, are private, but the waters are public. But its hard to get to the water because of the private land.
Generally land between the high water mark and the water is public.
@LV2XPLR is that for Washington state too? Ive always understood it as up to the waters edge can be privately owned.
-The law has a difficult time defining common sense. This also applies to landlocked private land. There are many farmers out there who have to drive miles out of their way to get supplies because the property around them was developed.
"If you build a man a fire, he will be warm for a night; if you set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life..."
The real lesson is that wealthy people are most rarely decent people. Greed never is satisfied.
Government property typically already has easements and rights of way. What kind of backwoods legal descriptions of parcels does Wyoming use?
Glad you are following this. We appreciate your work.
Thanks for the update Steve. Another potential solution is,
Any fence and/or barrier must leave an allowance of TWO feet as an Easement,
for corner crossing. Could it be made an Ordinance ? Note the pun.
I had seen news articles on the original arrest and the trial, but I never understood the problem. Steve's description makes it clear what is going on.
Maybe then need to pass a law prohibiting blocking of public land. We had a similar situation in Oregon with public beaches. The legislature made it illegal (in most areas) to block public access to the beach. It might be proper to make landowners offset their corner slightly to open a corridor, or install a stile, to cross at corners where 2 pieces of public land meet at a corner.
Steve, thanks for another good one. I feel like I can relate to all your video's, as a good friend of mine recently moved to Laramie WY from San Diego CA. He hunts with a camera.
Thanks , hope the bill goes through
In a Wyoming river the water is public and where it goes over privately owed property you can not get out to wade or anchor a boat because the bottom is private. Is this a similar precedent to the air space in corner crossing?
LOVE THE SHIRT STEVE !
COKER COLLEGE COBRAS, from my home town Hartsville SC
Nice to see things like that now and then.
It's sad how petty and greedy people have become.
how are they petty please explain
People have always been greedy; it is a widespread part of human nature. This is why we need effective laws to limit people's greedy actions.
@@hollisconant2566 Refusing someone the ability to hop over the corner of your property in an attempt to block access to land you do not own is extremely petty. Are you dense?
Catapult solution
Seems easy to fix. We already have laws that cover easements, right of passage, and manifest destiny. If 1 and 5 are public, and 2 and 4 are private, an entryway (gate) or easement be made where they all connect, then 2 and 4 are compensated for the tiny bit of land they lose in the construction of the entryway or easement, and 1 and 5 are responsible for the entryway or easements upkeep and maintenance. Just like how ambiguity in a contract should always favor the party who didn't draft it, property right disputes should always favor the landlocked party. It's logical, simple, for the greater good, and makes sense.
There is a lot of land in Montana so locked and it allows the bordering land owner’s exclusive rights on OUR land and often us it for hunting requiring sometimes very high fees. The “checker board” was created in many places by the US Gov’t by giving land in a checkerboard pattern to the Railroads to get track laid. The National Forest NW of Big Timber, Montana is such. As a result the Forest Service its self has access problems in this area. And while the private owners may want to put in an access across the USFS land to get to theirs but don’t want the public to use the road to access the NF lands. Each square in most cases is one square mile in area.
You mentioned getting over fencing at a corner crossing by using a ladder. The ladder-like device for climbing over a fence or similar barrier is called a stile. I would suggest the state or federal government constrict and position stiles at corner crossing points for the convenience of hunters, hikers, campers, etc. who are accessing public lands. Further, make it an offense to interfere with, damage, or move such a stile.
Ben is sticking out from between the law books Steve's RHS
Surprised there isn't an easement that allows traffic to/from public land. The legislation (as presented) seems silly, just pass legislation that provides for easements.
I’m going to need you to white board that property thing for me.
Thought you were talking about jaywalking at first!
Ben Hundo's poking out from between the two stacks of law books, 2nd shelf, left -- straight below the driver's door hinge of the bronze Chrysler Turbine coupe
There needs to be a compromise in that situation where the public is granted access to the land and in exchange the state is financially responsible for fences gates and driveways at access corners.
Either make it an easement, or take a part of the corner by eminent domain (paying the property owner for a small triangle), leaving a small path for anyone to access public property.
It would be simpler if the States just used eminant domain to aquire a 6'x6' square at each intersection where 4 parcels come together. That way the corners are public property, and the issue goes away.
This individual committed an obvious criminal conspiracy and is using our judicial system as an accomplice. He should immediately be dealt with in the permanent sense.
The only time this comes up is when people don't cross over, they hunt or trespass on someone else property. Steve, we're from Michigan, we know what is truly happening and why land owners get pissed! Thanks for the video!
It’s not because someone is hunting on someone else’s land. It’s the landowner attempting to keep public land exclusively for themselves.
Its the states responsibility to negotiate accees or adjust plot shape to provide access. Land owner should mark the corner. If marker found to be missing. Then investigate cause or damage/theft.
Should be an easement to public lands
In Scotland, they have the "right to roam" which allows members of the public to access most land and inland water in Scotland for recreational or other purposes, like camping and picnicking, provided that the right to roam is exercised reasonably and responsibly. However, it does not apply to land on which there are buildings, or shelters including tents and caravans (campers) nor gardens. In addition, land where crops are growing is off limits, as are schools and school grounds and land that has been developed into sports grounds.
I just watched a video explaining what "corner crossing" is and the video states that it is a national issue, ie: it occurs in all states. I'm 66 years old and have never heard of it. I know that people can be petty at times, but getting butt hurt because someone stepped over, not on, a tiny piece of property to get from one property to another, is just plain stupid. I live in a neighborhood where children cross my property all the time, as they move around the neighborhood. They're walking and not hurting anything. It's not like they're riding dirt bikes across my property and tearing it up. I would have an issue with the kids if that happened.
The house I grew up in was back in a little pocket. There was a hedge in the backyard meant to separate the 2 homes/properties, but over the years we became very close to our neighbors and a permanent hole was worn through the hedge so we could go back and forth.
Everyone knew it was there - when I was young everyone knew everyone in the neighborhood and it was no big deal if other kids used that as a shortcut to head uptown. Nobody damaged anything, and nobody was rude or misused it.
In my 30s I took over the family home for a few years, but the neighborhood had changed. Now we had people wandering through the yard who weren't so nice or respectful.
This culminated in a child walking his dog on a leash into the backyard so the dog could do what dogs do. Right in front of my boyfriend who was out back sharpening his landscaping tools. He told the boy to clean up after the dog, asked him why he was in the yard, etc. The kid, standing there with his dog on leash said the dog "ran away from me" and refused to clean up after the dog. And then went home and told his mother the crazy guy down the street threatened him with a hatchett.
What came next is really funny but too much to put in here.
The cops finally showed up to ask me what was going on. VERY small town - I knew the officer well. He used to date my best friend. I explained what happened, the officer nodded his head and told me "Yeah, the mother didn't make sense to me. I told her I knew you guys and it didn't sound like anything you would do. Damned city people. I'll be right back."
Ultimately he told the woman to keep her kid out of other people's yards. That if she wanted to try pressing charges it wouldn't work out well for her and he would advise me to file trespassing charges on her kid. Then he told her since the woods were right in her back yard there was no reason to walk the dog on the streets. There were plenty of well worn trails behind her own house.
When the officer came back he told me the problem was solved but advised me to stop letting anyone I didn't know well use the shortcut as I could find myself being sued or worse.
It was all very stupid - but this is how things changed.
We went from a small, semi rural town where everyone knew everyone and nobody would dream of suing you to a place getting over run by strangers looking for a "house in the country but still close to NYC" who had no problem suing over a scraped knee. These people had no interest in getting to know the "hicks" in town, but if they could cook up a lawsuit they figured you'd settle before you'd risk your home.
In a really small town you can't just go sue over petty nonsense. You'd end up starting a war. It wouldn't end well for anyone. People managed to work things out for decades without suing. Helped that most everyone was related in some way. Most married the boy/girl next door and stayed in town.
I'm pushing 70 now and still live in the area. To this day there's a divide between the families who've been here for 50-100 years and the "newcomers".
It's pretty sad.
The real point is, the private property owner wants to keep the public out of the public land so the private property owner is the only one that can access the public land. It isn't just about the corner.
There should be rules that say "theres an automatic easement allowing a direct route to the nearest point on accessible land"
Watch land owners try and claim this law is a government taking.
I'm thinking, that if the government doesn't think that Civil Assett Forfeiture is "Taking" then this won't be considered "Taking".
Will, someone try to sue for that, yep, probably.
Nice to see some politicians doing their job.
Would it be an issue to create a 10 foot easement at each corner to allow access from one public square to another? Or as an access point from one private plot to another if the adjoining plots are owned by someone else? As long as the access is done through the easement, no trespass is committed. It would prohibit the building of obstacles or fences at the access point. Any fence would have to allow the 10 foot space(5 feet from the center point). If one person owns all four plots, or plots with no corner crossing access, plots 1 and 4, for instance, no easement is required.
Thanks Steve
The US needs a right of way ammendment where peopel can access their or public land, even if they have to step over private property. People are too unreasonable now a days where this is now necessary
Not always. There was a case that someone sold his property into two, and his house was now landlocked. He didn't leave in any easement or anything in the property that he prior crossed to get home. The new owners didn't want him crossing their property. Thus, he tried to get the neighbor to provide his driveway for access. The neighbor also didn't let him, and said it should have an easement through the property that used to be his.
That ranch in carbon county has been having guided hunts on elk mountain ( which is public lands ) for many decades. I hunted that area in the 1980s and everyone was complaining about them blocking access down low. Very good the hear that this ranch lost their cases so far.
honestly, maybe there should be a required right-of-way to prevent landlocked properties. I'm not 100% sure, but I think New York State might require that on property sales where properties are divided, to prevent somebody from buying property that they can't legally get access to
I can't possibly imagine this being a thing
Thank goodness, its the publics land.
The law should say that any private property blocking public land has to have a right of way.
Steve, your finger graphics are AMAZING 🤣
Yeah, we've got a lot of checkerboard here in New Mexico too.
"Your Honor, we find the defendants not guilty by reason of the Plaintiff being an asshole."
Simple solution, eminent domain acquire a 4 ft by 4 ft section in the corner of each property that is landlocked on the private property side so you'll have a clear path to walk across the property
I think such a bill falls short of actually solving the underlying problem: It only addresses a very specific fringe case of how to deal with "enclave" property, public or otherwise.
In my opinion, a better approach would be to require landowners to tolerate trespassing IF (1) committed for the purpose of moving between two other pieces of land the trespasser is legally allowed to be on, (2) there is no reasonable route between the two pieces of land that would avoid trespassing, and (3) the trespasser makes a good faith attempt to minimize their impact on landowners' rights.
This would clearly solve the corner-crossing case, but would also address other potential constellations, such as a single individual deliberately buying land to deny access to some property they do not own, and even multiple individuals conspiring to deny access to property none of them owns.
Such a law could also be extended to require landowners to tolerate more intrusive access if such intrusion is required for a reasonable legitimate purpose; e.g. if someone wanted to start a legal building project on their enclaved property, and that project would reasonably require a backhoe, owners of surrounding land would have to allow the transport of a backhoe through their property.
In Texas it’s illegal to deny access to a piece of property, like the landlocked square you speak of.
In the case of 3 or more properties meeting at a common corner, there should be a 30 foot corridor for people to pass from any property to another and ban permanent fences within the 30 corridors. Gates or moveable fences would be allowed but but can only be opened during transit to prevent domestic animals from leaving.
One question: say an individual crosses a corner to get to another parcel but steps in a gopher hole, falls and breaks his leg. Can that person sue the owner of the property that he crossed? Unless the corners are PRECISELY mapped and marked, how do you know if you are crossing PRECISELY at the corner? Most fences are put in by guess and by golly without proper survey. There have been access issues about little rural cemeteries that sit on farms too. You have to travel through someone's property to get to the cemetery. Owners have tried to stop people from doing that but people have the right to access those cemeteries even if they are technically owned by the surrounding property unless split out of the original property as shown on the assessor's records. Also issues with landowners removing headstones and plowing over cemeteries that sit on their property. There are laws to prevent that (supposedly).
what about access by infotainment domain
It's kind of mind-blowing that even though the concept of private property is hundreds of years old, we still have open questions regarding hos the law should operate.
Hundreds of years ago we didn't have helicopters, nor did we have cameras that could be used on those helicopters to invade someone's privacy.
I get why someone would want to keep anyone specifically(or anyone not among their shortlist of friends/family) off of their property. There are a number of very reasonable and unreasonable reasons to want that, and a number of reasonable and unreasonable reasons to want on said property.
However, as he said, it's very de minimis. Just leave a gap, and have gates on either fence close to the corner. They won't have access to the actual property, and you don't get raped in court for keeping someone off property that they DO have permission to be on. That, or offer to sell a small portion at those corners with the provision that you'll have access to pass between your two properties, then it's not yours to deal with.
I love the content of your videos, but I wait patiently for the witty quip by your narrator at the end. 😉
"Give a man a fish, you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will sit in a canoe and drink beer all day." 🤣🤣
I have the same problem with a lot i inherited in polk city fl. I own the property but cant get to it
A lot of people don't understand the Western States ownership tends to work a bit differently than in the rest of the country. You own severable "rights" to land. So, one person could own the right to the surface, another person could own water rights, a third could own mineral rights, and a fourth could own the airspace. Also, when purchasing property, you'll want to check and see if any rights have been severed in your area because "your property" may not actually be shared property.
In Scotland, we have a right to roam law, which basically means anyone can walk on any private land so long as you do not damage it. There are laws about proximity to buildings due to privacy issues, and you shouldn't loiter for longer than necessary, clean up after yourself (if you had a camp, etc), and if you're asked to move on by the owner then you should when reaspnable.
That's how it should be.
I live in NE Illinois, about 50 miles NW of Chitown. We have property easements that are set to 6" in from your lot line for fences and, If I remember correctly, 2.5 feet for structures. As well, a fence post centered on the corner of your lot lines would also be on up to three other peoples property. The easements also prohibit the physical blocking of corner to corner access.
I went and read the bill, and while I'm not a lawyer I think I can see some issues here. As you said, "incidentally" isn't determined and it states "[...] or touches the land or premises of another person while the person is traveling from one (1) parcel of land [...]". So they are allowed to both cross the airspace, and touch someone else's land and there is no definition of distance or how wide the "incidental" part is. For example, if I'm 2' off from the exact corner and take two steps vs. 1, is that still incidental? Also, out of curiosity, if someone gets injured on private property during this incidental travel - is the landowner responsible?
In the end, if I lived in Wyoming I would like to see more definition into what the right of way is for crossing at the point.
I cannot imagine owning multiple miles of land and being worried about someone crossing my corner i can't even imagine worriing about someone trespassing that isn't stealing things or trashing the place
It does sound very petty - and most of the time I'm sure it is. However I'm also sure that some of these wealthy landowners are concerned with being sued if someone gets hurt on their land.
They are the perfect targets for this sue happy country.
I am curious how many of these private landowners settled lawsuits because it was easier than arguing them.
@@valarianne2284 If you had universal healthcare: people injuring themselves would have no standing to sue.
Other than in cases of gross negligence.
@valarianne2284 i also can't imagine sueing someone for something that was in all reality my own fault but as a whole I can definitely understand the not wanting to get sued because someone else was an idiot
It's crossing at the "+" center of plus sign. When government land joins the other two points. Example, Private land owners "like" to restrict passage from federal land to federal land due to "infinitesimal " center point of the X.
This in fact, gives them free use of all lands that intersect. Free to do what 'they' want. By restricting any use of tax payer federally owned lands.
Airplane, helicopter, only allowable entry. Oh wait... maybe claim airspace too.??
A two foot easement would be one foot per intersection. Make a walking path..not asking for a highway easement.
Since corner-crossing is one of if the worst problems affecting American society today, I hope they fix it quick.
My problem with the "air trespass" idea is Did the landowners rigorously pursue charges against the airline each time an airplane passed through their airspace? If the answer is no then the landowner has shown their deliberate indifference to the concept of "air trespass", thus giving up any chance at claiming such.
I heard it started with donation of land to two, but the owner wanted to keep new owners not able thus he could Isolate half (approximately) of the land.
Wisconsin citizen access to public lakes and streams, regardless of riparian and terrestrial rights of adjacent or blocking property is guaranteed in law.
There should be public easements in the corner of privaye properties in checker board areas, the us shpuld also use emminent domain to swap and buy less or unused propeery to open up mpre public lands
I don't see an issue with mandating the corner crossing is legal but only if one thing happens and that is for the same law to give immunity to the property owner should said crosser get hurt in anyway. Person walking through trips on a rock and breaks their ankle, then the property owner should be legally immune to being sued.
That is so foolish has to go court to solve it.
It's ridiculous. Just declare a public easement around any point that defines three or more properties.
That man should be charged with a crime for blocking the public's right of way.
My question is is it still going to be allowed to put up fences on the corner of your property? You might have the fences up for other reasons other than just preventing corner crossings
Pretty much every municipality in the country already has various laws granting an assumed easement for specific public use on all private property within the city. If that framework works for city law I see no reason why it wouldn't work for county or state law as well.
They should take it a step further. They should force the land owner to clearly mark the area that can legally be crossed. If they don't want to do it, that's fine. The state can do it and charge the land owner.
Give this story some time.
If my certainty of man’s pettiness to man is not misplaced, this is not the last we will hear about the landowner.
Easy way to deal with it is to make it illegal for bordering landholders of landlocked property to access said property by any means unless the same means is available to the public. Essentially making corner crossing between their lands over public lands illegal as well in those situations as well as not allowing them to benefit from cutting access to pubic lands. Many ranchers would have their own land become inaccessible unless they allowed corner crossing. At the Federal level all it would take is to require any federal land that is leased for grazing to require public access be given by the leasee or it cannot be leased and that movement of livestock across Federal land that is not open for grazing is illegal.
I think the law needs to define and limit exactly what corner crossing is otherwise the owner of the private land has no protraction against people crossing all his land on diagonals. All of this could be averted if all the parties exercised a modicum of common sense which sadly is not at all common.