Does a ROW convey to new owners? What are the limits of conditions specified within the ROW?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tax Counsel said:
There is no way I can tell you that because I don't know what the laws are that you are complaining about. Being poor is not a crime, but it does make a lot of things much more difficult. The government generally is not required to bend its rules simply based on the wealth (or lack of wealth) of the individual involved. I don't see any Constitutional violation just from what you provided here, but there might be other ways to attack the problem. Look for a legal aid clinic or an organization that advocates for housing solutions for the indigent. That hopefully will give you the information you need to see where you stand and what options may be available to help you.
Click to expand...

For example: A town imposes a fine of $20 a day for parking a "travel trailer" on your property. The reasoning behind such laws is the concern you are dumping excrement. Banning trailers is an overreach because it is a law that is assuming you are doing something improper simply because the possibility or likelihood exists. Such as Napster and other file sharing services are legal, because they have legitimate legal purposes. Its up to the government to prove you are using it illegally. Same should hold true for trailers. Living in one is perfectly safe, and so is sh!tting in one. DUMPING that sh!t is not. Banning living in one out of fear of dumping is an overreach. Pretty simple. Banning travel trailers because they are unsightly, or reduce property values, is not a sufficient reason to impose laws on people.

adjusterjack said:
Tormail, your credibility is slipping.

In your other thread you started with:



Does a ROW convey to new owners? What are the limits of conditions specified within the ROW? · TheLaw.com

Which implies that you have money with which to buy property.

So why are you whining about being a poor victim of ordinances?
Click to expand...
Again having money to buy propert

tormail said:
Property that is sold for the purpose of preservation is not the same as property for development where you can build a house or develop it. Thus, preservation property is much cheaper to buy .

But to answer your question here, states give the local governmental jurisdictions the power of Home Rule, meaning that they determine how their municipalities will be developed visa vis-à-vis, zoning and building regulations.
Click to expand...


Property that is sold for the purpose of preservation is not the same as property for development where you can build a house or develop it. Thus, preservation property is much cheaper to buy .

But to answer your question here, states give the local governmental jurisdictions the power of Home Rule, meaning that they determine how their municipalities will be developed visa vis-à-vis, zoning and building regulations.[/QUOTE]
Yes this is/was understood. As well a forest manager/harvest may build upon said property within the Forestry Laws of Massachusetts, Doing so would involve a fair amount of resources. I was considering placing a trailer and harvesting and milling some lumber, and building a cabin. It would be tremendous sweat equity. The problems is doing so is immensely complex, and wrought with pitfalls. It is extremely risky. Towns can reject and forbid such a thing, and honestly I don't think they are within their rights to do so, considering the land is forest land, has a deeded row for harvesting forest products, and MA state law allows for the building of a residence for the forest manager, AND his family. Should be straightforward, its not.[/QUOTE]

justblue said:
Please refrain from using vulgar language as it is un-necessary and violates the Terms of this site.
Click to expand...



Don't want to use language common to the masses now do I?

Why is there no expressed preemption in SORNA?

Would it become vulnerable if it did preempt state law?

Can you legal beagles explain why the federal government didn't do this?
 
tormail said:
For example: A town imposes a fine of $20 a day for parking a "travel trailer" on your property. The reasoning behind such laws is the concern you are dumping excrement. Banning trailers is an overreach because it is a law that is assuming you are doing something improper simply because the possibility or likelihood exists. Such as Napster and other file sharing services are legal, because they have legitimate legal purposes. Its up to the government to prove you are using it illegally. Same should hold true for trailers. Living in one is perfectly safe, and so is (edit out vulgarity) in one. DUMPING that (edit out vulgarity) is not. Banning living in one out of fear of dumping is an overreach. Pretty simple. Banning travel trailers because they are unsightly, or reduce property values, is not a sufficient reason to impose laws on people.
Click to expand...

Please refrain from using vulgar language as it is un-necessary and violates the Terms of this site.
 
tormail said:
Don't want to use language common to the masses now do I?
Click to expand...
Sigh...

You need to use language appropriate for this site and the Terms and Conditions you agreed to comply with upon joining.

It really isn't difficult to use grown up words rather than childish gutter language.

Even a Lynn native like me can manage. ;)
 
tormail said:
Towns can reject and forbid such a thing, and honestly I don't think they are within their rights to do so, considering the land is forest land, has a deeded row for harvesting forest products, and MA state law allows for the building of a residence for the forest manager, AND his family. Should be straightforward, its not
Click to expand...

As you have described your situation, it is not the town (a town) that will prevent you from building a cabin on the land, it is the deed to the land itself. There is an easement granted to access the land for only one specific purpose that doesn't include the building of a cabin. In affect, there is also an implied covenant that you will adhere to the terms of the ROW to preserve the timber land.

Who would be the grantor of the land if you purchased it?
 
tormail said:
Do I have the legal obligation to remain perpetually oppressed by burdensome laws? I dont think I do.
Click to expand...

There is no obligation to remain perpetually oppressed by any law. But you do have an obligation to follow long established law.

You can go consult with a local land use attorney and ask if you can build on the property.
 
welkin said:
As you have described your situation, it is not the town (a town) that will prevent you from building a cabin on the land, it is the deed to the land itself. There is an easement granted to access the land for only one specific purpose that doesn't include the building of a cabin. In affect, there is also an implied covenant that you will adhere to the terms of the ROW to preserve the timber land.

Who would be the grantor of the land if you purchased it?
Click to expand...
MA law permits the building of a residence for the Forest manager, wouldn't that fall under part of the process of harvesting timber? Provided the property remained in the forest program, with the intention of harvesting.
 
welkin said:
There is no obligation to remain perpetually oppressed by any law. But you do have an obligation to follow long established law.

You can go consult with a local land use attorney and ask if you can build on the property.
Click to expand...
Long established laws are often those laws that are most susceptible to challenges, because as the times change, so does our understanding of the effects and reach of those laws. As they say laws were meant to be broken.
 
tormail said:
Do I have the legal obligation to remain perpetually oppressed by burdensome laws? I dont think I do.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not! Move and/or sell the property. Problem solved.
 
tormail said:
The same problem will hold true for almost all properties, so then what?
Click to expand...

Are people who can not afford to rise to the levels and standards required by law supposed to just be at the mercy of those who could afford to? Is it just of fair that people with generational wealth can use their position of privilege to hold other less fortunate people down? Yes life isn't fair, but is that unfairness supposed to be kept in check by the laws? Laws are not meant to reinforce and promote unfairness, are they?
 
justblue said:
Not really. "Excrement" would be appropriate.
Click to expand...

One could even use "feces", "fecal matter", "poop", "scat", "ordure", "midden", "spoor", "excreta", "coprolite", "night soil", "manure", or "guano"; to add a few more polite ways to mention the solid matter discharged from a living organism's alimentary canal.

poop-emoji-frown-3613860641.png Poop-Emoji-Wall-Graphic-Decal-1063686927.jpg
 
tormail said:
The same problem will hold true for almost all properties, so then what?
Click to expand...

Virtually all property in the country is subject to some sort of control on it's use. That could be the Federal government, a state government, a county government or a local government. That is the reality.

Now, you can bitch and moan about it or get with the program.
 
tormail said:
Are people who can not afford to rise to the levels and standards required by law supposed to just be at the mercy of those who could afford to? Is it just of fair that people with generational wealth can use their position of privilege to hold other less fortunate people down? Yes life isn't fair, but is that unfairness supposed to be kept in check by the laws? Laws are not meant to reinforce and promote unfairness, are they?
Click to expand...
By the same logic, how is it fair that people with the means would be forced to obey the law while those of lesser means would not?
 
Zigner said:
Absolutely not! Move and/or sell the property. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
The OP doesn't own the property so there's nothing to sell. The OP can avoid these issues by purchasing a parcel that doesn't have obstacles to building a residence and getting power/water/sewer/internet installed.

Just guessing but I'd bet the parcel the OP is looking at has a lower price than similarly-sized parcels in the same area because of the restriction on building a residence and running utilities to it.
 
This thread started with the topic of the feasibility of buying forest land and had deteriorated to ranting about how laws effect poor people.

Thread locked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top