Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6
Results 51 to 60 of 60
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,449

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    But you don't realize that 42nd street, on the street level was a bit risqué. But above the street there were many high end and famous companies that had offices on 42sd street. That really doesn't have much impact on our case. But!

    I knew a famous violin maker that was in the Wurlitzer Building ( Havivi ) and a famous (possible the most famous magic company ever) magic company (Luis Tannen's Magic Shop ) . Their address was 42nd street. This goes back to the 1950's. Go ahead and Google them.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    But you don't realize that 42nd street, on the street level was a bit risqué. But above the street there were many high end and famous companies that had offices on 42sd street. That really doesn't have much impact on our case. But!

    I knew a famous violin maker that was in the Wurlitzer Building ( Havivi ) and a famous (possible the most famous magic company ever) magic company (Luis Tannen's Magic Shop ) . Their address was 42nd street. This goes back to the 1950's. Go ahead and Google them.
    Oh I believe you. I was making a silly association. Most of my career in software has been in Times Square and there's a very heavy concentration of finance and media firms going up Broadway. My own lawyer is on 42nd.

    I'm posting a link to a few maps of Luxton Lake and Lakeridge Estates.

    https://photos.google.com/album/AF1Q...XCxaQ6zS4ZOxmm

    I'm going to answer a few of the replies and comments posted and also mention some info I've got from DEC and DRBC. I'm doing this late, sorry.


    budwad - The properties that are at the water's edge have littoral rights as a matter of law. But the courts have ruled that a property with an easement to access to the water's edge also have littoral rights.
    The beach and recreation area is where the easement I referred to is. It's where the old lake narrowed back into a river (or stream) and touched the dam. The dry lakebed there is a minimal strip of 10' or so. I think it would be hard to prove trespassing. But are you saying it would not be trespassing at all due to littoral rights?

    jk - You need to refer to the map to determine if the beach and recreation area included an area that would allow you access to the remaining river.
    I believe it would as there is only a thin strip of old lakebed there.

    jk - You have a right to boat on Luxton Lake. There is no lake so that right is meaningless.
    I would have agreed right off the bat that that clause now has no meaning. But I wonder if it simply dies or goes into retirement if and when the lake comes back as I think it will some day.

    jk - Given the current owner of the entire lakebed controls access on both sides of the waterway, the law is clear you have no right to cross their lands to access the waterway without some legal right not presented here and it not being considered navigable removes any right to use the waterway within their property boundaries even if you could access the water.
    The TMR is under the jurisdiction of the Delaware River Basin Commision. DRBC has informed me that the TMR's water and bed are property of the United States, and that we may boat, fish, swim and even walk it touching bottom. This has no dependency on navigability. Accessing it is a separate issue.

    That said, a kayaker and the DEC just lost an important 8yo case involving recreational use of a stream on private land. I've lost the link to the actual ruling document, it is extremely interesting in that it puts many physical and historical elements into play, anyway here's the gist:

    https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/s...appeal-process

    The DEC had sided and even paddled with the defendant but the judge ruled that recreational use alone cannot establish a waterway as navigable-in-fact. I wonder why DRBC gave me the answer it did and if it would hold. Is it a matter of jurisdiction and river classification?

    jk - in areas where the waterway is bound on both sides of the waterway by a common owner, they can control the use of the waterway where it lies upon their property.
    See above. DRBC says that is not true.

    jk - waterways crossing private lands which are not affected by tides are "navigable-in-fact" and subject to the public right of navigation only if the waterway has or had the capacity for trade or travel.
    The Adirondack case affirms this. I will be looking into the river's history as regards commercial activity.

    budwad - I have given you the case law of the state of NY with regard to if the properties along TMR still have rights by virtue of the easements that were granted to the water's edge and those properties that had frontage along the lake. You need to get the community together and create a legal fund, hire an attorney and file suit and let the court decide if all the properties along the river and those with easements to access the lake have littoral right now that the lake is no more.
    My neighbors are not rational beings. Proof of that is the civil rights lawsuit they launched as regard damage to the dam when they most likely would have won arguing simple property damage by the logging firm. And they are cheap.

    The beach and recreation easement is clearly stated in all deeds in the community.

    The 23 acre western shoreline "RESERVED FOR LOT OWNERS" would be harder to prove as an access point since the only "granting" of water access is that very map text plus a few references to aquatic activites on the early deeds (see images).

    Mark47n - NYS has a very active WW kayaking and rafting community. This couldn't be possible if rivers were not considered navigable in fact. they aren't trudging along pulling their raft down a rill and claiming it navigable.
    The Adirondack case states rivers cannot -be deemed navigable-in-fact based on recreation or "invented" commercial activity via recreation. Unfortunately in that case the kayakers do seem to have been trudging across almost unfloatable water. Maybe they chose a bad waterway to make their case.

    jk - Op wants to be able to access the water in an area where they now have to cross private priority from an easement that was adjacent to Luxton Lake. I can find no support that extends access rights to a now non existent lake to the waterway that was the feed-water for that non existent lake
    I stopped thinking of this as a lake 20 years ago. I only care about disambiguating the river access issue here, and land access as it concerns communal vs private use of the western shoreline.

    PayrolGuy - ...a waterway, once navigable, remains navigable even if navigability subsequently diminishes or ceases. People v. System Properties, Inc. 120 N.Y.S. 2d 269, 278 (3d Dep't 1953).
    That's very interesting! And something I can look into.

    Mark47n - IF there is a history of recreation on the river, even seasonal, then it can be considered navigable by fact.
    That history exists, however DEC and DRBC have told me there is no agency that declares water bodies navigable. I have no idea where that determination is made.

    budwad - You guys can debate the navigability of TMR all you want but it doesn't have any impact on the littoral rights that the property owners on the water's edge of the lake had and those with easement to the water's edge on the lake had.
    I am hoping my littoral rights are supported by the maps and deeds somehow and are also retroactive to the old lake waterline.

    jk - to find an answer to the question at hand, the rights of the owner of Lucky Estates has to be determined.
    And, depending on what those rights may be and how issues involving avulsion are determined (apparently it is not settled law), the owner of Lucky Estates my be terribly depressed as they may realize their riparian rights, if in play, may not allow them to access the waterway.

    but then, they may keel over from elation since ones rights based upon title to a shoreline actually allow one to claim title to land once underwater but now dry. That little note of “to the shore” or anything similar that would mean their boundary is not necessarily stationary means land gained as the shoreline moves becomes theirs. It has been held that the owner of land beneath a waterway will lose title as it becomes exposed and within the description of the abutting land.
    I don't see any such easement language unfortunately. But it may lie elsewhere so that's good to know.

    budwad - Those deeds that you found that say the large plot of land was reserved for lot owners to access the lake is a binding covenant and grants easement right that run with the land IMO. They can't be obfuscated by omission in subsequent deeds unless there is express language by the grantee giving up those rights.
    Let me know what you think of that Tusten Park map.



    In general I see budwad stating case law supporting my littoral access and jk the opposite. A few others added interesting stuff about retroactive classifications. From the Adirondack case which is being appealed it's obvious this is still an ongoing debate.

    I think I said already that DRBC told me I could float or walk the river. DEC told me this:

    With regards to a special protected status, we were not able to find any protected status per se. That being said, the Tenmile River is classified as a B(T) which means it’s a class B stream that is classified as Trout waters. Maintaining Water Quality standards would be a concern for this classification of water. With regards to accessing the creek across someone else’s property, this is a civil issue and DEC does not have jurisdiction.

    I happen to know the state has historically stocked the TMR but I doubt that tips it in any commercial direction. The guy emphasized his team had reviewed aerial maps of the river and said it seemed to have a good flow.

    The Tusten Park map shows the 23 acre former shoreline. I've bought a chunk of it so I am now that much closer to the river. The lakebed owner still has a good 30 feet of land right behind my chunk. So if budwad is correct about my littoral access I will rejoice. Otherwise I may try to buy it. Jk mentioned that "to the shore" language so I included some snippets from old deeds on the images page, though I don't think they meet that standard.

    Sorry for the late responses and lump format but I was busy with work and also talking to NYS about this. And it's clear no matter how solid any data is, each of my neighbors already has their mind made up.

    I really appreciate all the input here, it's opened up some possibilities I hadn't thought of.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,449

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    First, your link to the map images is broken. All I get is an error 404. You should look into that.

    Some of the statements you made about navigable-in-fact for commercial or recreational uses are not accurate. Read the controlling NY case then come back and we can talk.

    BTW, any argument about avulsion or accretion are of no significances in your case. These are both natural phenomenon that chances the landscape and to argue them as a matter of law in your case is a red herring.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,734

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    Ok fine. If one wants to argue the changes are unnatural and as such avulsion, reliction, or accretion don’t apply, then it’s time to pack your bags and go home


    If the issues used to address natural changes in a waterway don’t apply because of an unnatural alteration of a waterway, then the origin of the rights being addressed also do not apply because Luxton Lake was not a natural body of water. Any rights created due to the artificial creation of Luxton Lake went down the river (metaphorically speaking ) as the build up of water that resulted in Luxton Lake went down the river

    The rights existing prior to the presence of Luxton Lake are returned to the condition they were prior to the existence of the lake.



    And if anybody is thinking about reconstructing the dam: don’t. You cannot artificially alter a watercourse if it adversely affects other landowners.




    So, with budwads argument taken to heart, it’s time to give up. You have no rights to access the river. The unnaturally created rights do not amount to an enforceable right to a natural body of water.


    Since one’s rights are not affected by unnatural alterations of the waterline (per budwad) you could not have gained any rights under riparian or littoral law upon the artificial creation of Luxton Lake. Do we really want to stick with budwads argument that unnatural alterations to the waterline do not allow one to argue rights based on such an alteration?




    Any righs to access a waterway will be based on riparian or littoral rights (New York has pretty much melded the two when discussing inland bodies of water) where one’s rights are addressed based on accretions, avulsion, and reliction. Otherwise it removes the discussion of being able to claim access rights based on the change in location of the waters edge.



    Articranger: your discussion about the bed of the waterway doesn’t help. Given the land prior to flooding was privately held, even if One accepts the argument the bed became state land upon the flooding (it doesn’t though but that is another argument), once the land is exposed, title returns to the prior owner. That means the person that owned and controlled the land abutting the river as it existed prior to the creation of Luxton Lake regained control of those lands once Luxton Lake ceased to occupy those lands. I’m certain either their statement is not correct or your restatement here is not correct. Saying the bed is owned by the United States would put this issue into federal jurisdiction. Very few bodies of water within the overall boundary of the United States fall under federal ownership or federal jurisdiction. The waterway in question, if owned by any government entity, would surely be owned by the state of New York.

    if I’m incorrect, well, that puts an entirely different spin on everything being discussed and the discussion would have to start over at the beginning to account for federal involvement.


    Your statement regarding a right to use the waterway disregarding the navigability issue flies in the face of hundreds of years of legal precedent. I have an issue with the statement as written but since that is merely an adjunct issue, it would be of no service to muddle the true issue by discussing it.





    If one wants to argue littoral rights, well, the only New York case I could find (which I believe is not settled yet) is largely based on the change in the waterline due to avulsion or reliction. Since budwad argues avulsion or reliction don’t apply, well, I guess it’s a moot point.


    While budwad wants avulsion or reliction to not apply, if you want to make any sort of argument to claim rights of accessibility, you have to do it based on such issues. Otherwise it becomes one of what I wrote above regarding the loss of rights or one of a person artificially altering the location of the waterway. While riparian rights would allow for an argument in such a situation, it wouldn’t be to allow access to the water but one that would demand the natural course be returned. In the case at hand, since the owner of the land in question or their predecessors did not alter the waterway, there is no argument to either demand they return the watercourse to its natural condition or the change in location allows the owners of the riparian estates to enforce their riparian rights of access and use. Such an enforcement of those rights would require the state to perform what amounts to a taking under the laws. Such takings are controlled by one’s rights as enumerated with the US Constitution. It goes well beyond the exercising of an individuals rights of access to a waterway. You would be asking the state to take away the rights and control of their property when they had done nothing to cause the issue at hand. The state cannot simply remove one’s rights to exercise exclusive control over their lands if they were not the cause of the issue at hand without compensating them for their loss.



    Btw: your “thin strip” statement is odd. Thin strip or not, if you cross the vertical plane that delineates a boundary that you have no right to enter, you are trespassing. That would mean technically you couldn’t even leap over another’s property without touching it legally.. just because it is a thin strip of land, it does not remove the owners rights to prohibit others from entering their land. Your suggestion that ignoring the landowners rights somehow makes your actions legal is simply wrong. Additionally, The issue regarding littoral rights is still incorrect in my opinion but even if there is some substance, it would be used as a defense when sued or prosecuted for trespassing. It doesn’t allow you to claim littoral rights allow you to access the waterway so the police cannot arrest you. You would have to prove your defense during trial.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    First, your link to the map images is broken. All I get is an error 404. You should look into that.

    Some of the statements you made about navigable-in-fact for commercial or recreational uses are not accurate. Read the controlling NY case then come back and we can talk.

    BTW, any argument about avulsion or accretion are of no significances in your case. These are both natural phenomenon that chances the landscape and to argue them as a matter of law in your case is a red herring.
    Let me know if this works

    https://photos.app.goo.gl/XMgh8HzJU2buBooF6

    I'll reread that case

    Quote Quoting arcticranger
    View Post
    Let me know if this works

    https://photos.app.goo.gl/XMgh8HzJU2buBooF6

    I'll reread that case
    OK, that 1998 decision affirms that the South Branch of the Moose river is navigable-in-fact based on an accumulation of commercial and recreational uses. Is that correct?

    The 2018 case I linked to concluded that "recreational use alone is insufficient to deem a waterway navigable-in-fact".

    Let me know what I misstated, and if you were able to see my images.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,449

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Ok fine. If one wants to argue the changes are unnatural and as such avulsion, reliction, or accretion don’t apply, then it’s time to pack your bags and go home
    Don't miss your train.

    All three doctrines of water law ( avulsion, reliction, and accretion) deal with land (not water) and where the boundary lies between properties after a natural and sudden (Accretion) or gradual natural event ( alluvion ). Reliction is the natural gradual and permanent recession of water that results in dry land and who owns that land as a result. No one in this case is trying to claim land or reclaim land due to any of the three doctrines. Your red herring is a bust. And unless you can find a NY case that says removal of a man made dam equates to reliction I think your point is moot. And remember, we are speaking of access to the river not ownership of land or where a property boundary is.

    Quote Quoting arcticranger
    View Post
    Let me know if this works

    https://photos.app.goo.gl/XMgh8HzJU2buBooF6

    The 2018 case I linked to concluded that "recreational use alone is insufficient to deem a waterway navigable-in-fact".

    Let me know what I misstated, and if you were able to see my images.
    Your link works and I was able to see the images. The language of the easements and covenants is the interesting part to me. That first, the deeds included the easement to use the lake as it was then or as it would be in the future. That is an inducement to purchase and would likely be upheld by a court.

    The 2018 case isn't settled yet and I suspect that it will be overturned on appeal. If the state says TMR is navigable-in-fact and open to the public, then all the other issues become moot.

    If you were a real activist, you might get yourself arrested for accessing the TMR over the river bed. Have you a copy of the tax deed for the lake bed?

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,734

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    And the attacks continue. Seriously dude, chill the shit if you want a real discussion.

    And no, we are speaking, in regards to the op, of access to the now non existent lake, not the river. The fact they are merely dominant tenants of an easement to the land of a servient tenant does not provide the op any rights under riparian law or littoral law. Your citation where you claimed it does speaks of the easement a riparian owner holds. You completely misinterpreted that. A dominant tenant of an easement upon a riparian owners property does not extend beyond the easement as defined. They have no standing to argue riparian rights as those rights are exclusive to a riparian owner. The owner of the riparian estate enjoys an easement across land held by another to utilize their water rights.

    There is much case law available stating the riparian estate cannot be increased to include uplands. It can be diminished such as when severing the lands immediately adjacent to the water from other land such as in the creation of a subdivision such as the case in hand but the riparian rights cannot be extended to uplands.



    I also never said anything close to claiming removal of a dam results in reliction. Not a single hint of such a claim.


    So, using your argument, if the removal of an artificial means of increasing the water level does not fall under the law regarding the natural movement of a watercourse, then just the same, the artificial creation of a body of water cannot result in riparian rights. I know that to be not true so since the artificial creation of a body of water does result in riparian estates, the lowering of the body of water, by whatever means,, will call in the water laws based on the actions and conditions present. You can’t have the laws apply one way for the artificial creation and differently for the artificial reduction of the lake. If water rights are created by artificial means, they they can be lost by artificial means if the situation would result in a condition where the rights would be lost due to natural actions.



    I suppose if the dam simply gave way without assistance of explosives, then you could accept avulsion theory.


    I strongly caution the op against your suggestion the op risk arrest for trespass to access the water. The Sierra case did not determine a right to access a waterway. It dealt only with whether a waterway was deemed navigable due to being able to float it with less than the old standards in place and the rights to walk upon the bed and portaging.. and before you go there, portaging does not include wandering about another’s lands or accessing the water through those lands. It has been ruled many times it can allow one to leave the waterway the boater is already in only to portage around an unnavigable portion of the waterway. The right is limited to going no further from the waterway than necessary to achieve the goal of bypassing the blockage.

    it did not allow one to trespass to access the waterway. Suggesting the op risk arrest based on that case is foolish

    because of that, your statement that all other issues here become moot if the watercourse is deemed navigable is wrong. The watercourse being navigable is an entirely different issue with different rights involved. No matter if the river is a trickle or a raging torrent of water, unless there are valid rights of access, nothing is mooted regarding the ops query here.


    budwad, your argument of inducement in the sale is also incorrect. While it may play against the seller, it cannot be used against the rights of an uninvolved third party. Suggesting such a relationship would be no different than claiming I gave you permission to trespass across my neighbor’s lawn and the courts would uphold such a promise and force the neighbor to allow it. At best it might allow for a rescission of the sale. It cannot allow for an illegal taking of the neighbors rights.

    But, unless the seller actually claimed the right of access rather than the buyer presumed such, it would not allow a claim of false inducement. A buyer that depends on his own assumptions does not have a claim against a seller for false inducement.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,449

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    And the attacks continue. Seriously dude, chill the shit if you want a real discussion.

    And no, we are speaking, in regards to the op, of access to the now non existent lake, not the river. The fact they are merely dominant tenants of an easement to the land of a servient tenant does not provide the op any rights under riparian law or littoral law. Your citation where you claimed it does speaks of the easement a riparian owner holds. You completely misinterpreted that. A dominant tenant of an easement upon a riparian owners property does not extend beyond the easement as defined. They have no standing to argue riparian rights as those rights are exclusive to a riparian owner. The owner of the riparian estate enjoys an easement across land held by another to utilize their water rights.

    There is much case law available stating the riparian estate cannot be increased to include uplands. It can be diminished such as when severing the lands immediately adjacent to the water from other land such as in the creation of a subdivision such as the case in hand but the riparian rights cannot be extended to uplands.



    I also never said anything close to claiming removal of a dam results in reliction. Not a single hint of such a claim.


    So, using your argument, if the removal of an artificial means of increasing the water level does not fall under the law regarding the natural movement of a watercourse, then just the same, the artificial creation of a body of water cannot result in riparian rights. I know that to be not true so since the artificial creation of a body of water does result in riparian estates, the lowering of the body of water, by whatever means,, will call in the water laws based on the actions and conditions present. You can’t have the laws apply one way for the artificial creation and differently for the artificial reduction of the lake. If water rights are created by artificial means, they they can be lost by artificial means if the situation would result in a condition where the rights would be lost due to natural actions.



    I suppose if the dam simply gave way without assistance of explosives, then you could accept avulsion theory.


    I strongly caution the op against your suggestion the op risk arrest for trespass to access the water. The Sierra case did not determine a right to access a waterway. It dealt only with whether a waterway was deemed navigable due to being able to float it with less than the old standards in place and the rights to walk upon the bed and portaging.. and before you go there, portaging does not include wandering about another’s lands or accessing the water through those lands. It has been ruled many times it can allow one to leave the waterway the boater is already in only to portage around an unnavigable portion of the waterway. The right is limited to going no further from the waterway than necessary to achieve the goal of bypassing the blockage.

    it did not allow one to trespass to access the waterway. Suggesting the op risk arrest based on that case is foolish

    because of that, your statement that all other issues here become moot if the watercourse is deemed navigable is wrong. The watercourse being navigable is an entirely different issue with different rights involved. No matter if the river is a trickle or a raging torrent of water, unless there are valid rights of access, nothing is mooted regarding the ops query here.


    budwad, your argument of inducement in the sale is also incorrect. While it may play against the seller, it cannot be used against the rights of an uninvolved third party. Suggesting such a relationship would be no different than claiming I gave you permission to trespass across my neighbor’s lawn and the courts would uphold such a promise and force the neighbor to allow it. At best it might allow for a rescission of the sale. It cannot allow for an illegal taking of the neighbors rights.

    But, unless the seller actually claimed the right of access rather than the buyer presumed such, it would not allow a claim of false inducement. A buyer that depends on his own assumptions does not have a claim against a seller for false inducement.
    I disagree on all your points. Anything more would be a waste of time.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,734

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    I disagree on all your points. Anything more would be a waste of time.
    So you’re standing behind your suggestion the op commit a crime with no basis in the law to defend his actions?

    i surely hope the op understands he is the one facing jail with no defense while you sit there with no remorse for telling him to do it should he follow your foolish suggestion.


    Wow, what a guy.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: Does the Owner of a Lakebed Own the River That Feeds It

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    The language of the easements and covenants is the interesting part to me. That first, the deeds included the easement to use the lake as it was then or as it would be in the future. That is an inducement to purchase and would likely be upheld by a court.

    If you were a real activist, you might get yourself arrested for accessing the TMR over the river bed. Have you a copy of the tax deed for the lake bed?
    Yes that language is interesting. What is an inducement to purchase in the context of that deed?

    My activist interest is on VA hospitals that use injured veterans as lab rats for unsupervised young surgical interns.

    I'll pvt that deed.

    The rights existing prior to the presence of Luxton Lake are returned to the condition they were prior to the existence of the lake.
    How can that be since you are stating the current owner now has complete control of river usage? Those are not the pre-lake rights. I'm missing your point I think.

    And if anybody is thinking about reconstructing the dam: don’t. You cannot artificially alter a watercourse if it adversely affects other landowners.
    That would be a government project with appropriate impact studies.

    I’m certain either their statement is not correct or your restatement here is not correct. Saying the bed is owned by the United States would put this issue into federal jurisdiction.
    It's possible it was an incorrect statement by the DRBC, I can try to confirm it. It did suggest federal ownership.

    Your statement regarding a right to use the waterway disregarding the navigability
    I'm not a property rights lawyer and don't know whether "navigable" or "navigable-in-fact" are the sole criteria for water access. I appears they are, and yet the DEC has told me there IS no body that anoints a river in either category.

    While budwad wants avulsion or reliction to not apply, if you want to make any sort of argument to claim rights of accessibility, you have to do it based on such issues.
    got it.


    Btw: your “thin strip” statement is odd.
    Yes that was weak. I relent there. lol!

    jk, I keep replying to the wrong person sorry, I'll try to avoid doing it again. This BB needs a delete feature on replies.

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Ok fine. If one wants to argue the changes are unnatural and as such avulsion, reliction, or accretion don’t apply, then it’s time to pack your bags and go home
    testing a reply to jk

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    So you’re standing behind your suggestion the op commit a crime with no basis in the law to defend his actions?

    i surely hope the op understands he is the one facing jail with no defense while you sit there with no remorse for telling him to do it should he follow your foolish suggestion.

    Wow, what a guy.
    don't worry I'm not taking either argument here as permission to do anything.

    fyi I met the former town supervisor who arranged funding and DEC approval to rebuild the dam in exchange for making it a public lake. According to my black friends here the mostly African American community association just didn't want white people using the lake. I think it was one of only two predominantly African American communities in the Catskills and there was a strong sense that it should be racially exclusive. If they'd gone with the dam offer their homes would be worth 4x their current value.

    Now their abandoned lake homes are being sold or auctioned off cheap and fixed up by NYC hipsters. Talk about cutting off your nose.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6

Similar Threads

  1. Mystic River
    By dlnewhouse in forum Banter
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-08-2018, 08:54 PM
  2. Speeding Tickets: VC 22350 at Green River Rd, Corona
    By Fandry96 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-22-2012, 03:34 PM
  3. Deer Hunting on Dry River Bed
    By Jackn1984 in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-29-2008, 06:30 PM
  4. Minor in Possession: MIC On The River
    By sports8400 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-14-2008, 10:13 PM
  5. Rent and Utilities: Landlord Didn't Tell Us Our Hot Water Feeds The "Community" Clothes Washer
    By bad.mongo in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-02-2007, 11:35 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources