On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:07:17 -0000 (UTC), Henry Jones
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 07:33:54 -0400, Micky wrote:

I don't view trespassing as harmless.

What is the harm here?

The harm is that they *could* get a prescriptive easement.

That's easy to avoid without closing the whole road off.

You can do what the owners of skyscrapers do with the plazas around
their buildings, plazas that are used by anyone walking by most of the
year, which are used as short cuts for people who don't want to walk
all the way to the corner to turn the corner.

You post "private road; travel at your own risk" You pick one day a
year (though that is more than is needed. Once every N years,
depending on the state is sufficient) to close off the road. You take
pictures of it, complete with something to show what date it is. That
will work better than the gate which will be shut as planned for six
months and then open all the time when no one is wiling to tend it.

If they did, certainly the government would make requirements to maintain
the safety for them.

I understand that the road is well paved. If they fall off their bike
and hurt themselves, it's unrelated to any negligence of yours. And
is anyone going to fall off his bike under those circumstances? I've
falled twice in 20 years and each time it was a big chuckhole filled
with water, not a well paved street.

Do you own the road or not? If you do, they are covered by your
homeowners insurance, just like the sidewalk from the driveway to
your front door is.

If not, then we can drop this whole talk.

That could cost tens of thousands of dollars depending on what the
improvements mandated by the government would be.

Oh, please. The road doesn't require any improvements and you know
it, and if it did need repaving, you and your neighbors would see to
it anyhow, for reasons unrelated to these bicyclists.

So, the biggest harm is that another easement would be in place, which
lowers the value of the land tremendously and which increases the costs.

Why do you think a potential cost of many tens of thousands isn't harm?

I think it's mythical.

BTW, there is also the potential harm from personal injury lawsuits, and if
you don't think legal fees are harmful to the property owner, then you've
never dealt with a lawyer. (They always win, even if you lose.)

In addition, do you want your kids playing outside acres within their own
property where trespassers can ride right by them as they're learning how
to skate a thousand feet inside their property line?

That's the way the vast majority of the US and every country lives.
Your property is over 1000 feet in one direction? You've let money go
to your head.

The bikers are a relatively clean lot when it comes to littering, but I
have found co2 cartridges scattered about, where I think people repaired
flats (what else would a brand new punctured co2 cartridge be used for?).

In addition, I had a guy yell to me that I could take my private road and
shove it up my you know what, right in front of my kids. Who wants to deal

That's bad, but by your own words that was after you told them they
couldn't use the road, after it being used that way, and he was angry.
And by the way, "up your ass " is on the very mild end of foul
language. When you first said foul, I thought you meant much worse.

with people like that when you don't have to?

So you'd exclude everyone because of that one guy?

The harm is everywhere you look.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:07:23 -0000 (UTC), Henry Jones
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 03:51:48 -0700, Taxed and Spent wrote:

I don't view trespassing as harmless.

Are you saying that once an unlawful activity starts, it should never end?

I agree with you that trespassing needs to be stopped even if it existed
prior.

You don't want trespassers if for no other reason that just liability (what
if someone falls and breaks their leg for example).

Also we all have kids. Why would we want unknown trespassers on our lands
at any point in time?

Because we're part of a society.

Are you the adherent of a religion? Maybe your clergyman can answer
why it would be good to let the bicyclists ride their bicycles.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:07:23 -0000 (UTC), Henry Jones
wrote:



Also we all have kids. Why would we want unknown trespassers on our lands
at any point in time?

And note that the previous owners and all the other current owners
allowed this. Maybe they know good reasons but they're afraid to
anger you by telling you.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:18:45 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:


What are you, my SAT tutor? (not that I studied for them)

How'd that 600 work out for you?

I got 1540 out of 1600.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:07:07 -0000 (UTC), Henry Jones
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 06:55:58 -0400, Micky wrote:

Are the bikers on motorbikes or bicycles?

Mountain bikers.

Very dusty mountain bikers.

No road bike would make it the five miles of thorny California scrub that
it takes to get to the next paved road.

An ATV could make it,

And you're lucky you don't have ATVs. Be happy with that.


as could a pickup truck; but not a street bike
(certainly a dirt bike would have no problem - but I've never seen a dirt
bike on that trail ever).

On 07/25/2016 10:01 PM, Micky wrote:
Do you own the road or not? If you do, they are covered by your
homeowners insurance, just like the sidewalk from the driveway to
your front door is.

That's the real question, isn't it. If there are other people living on
the road, my guess would be no.

On 07/25/2016 10:04 PM, Micky wrote:
And note that the previous owners and all the other current owners
allowed this. Maybe they know good reasons but they're afraid to
anger you by telling you.

You mean like an easement already in place on the road that Henry is
ignoring?

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 06:29:22 -0400, Micky wrote:

I'm thinking of putting down a big "stencil" on the road of something like:
"PRIVATE DRIVE | NO PULIC ACCESS"

And why do you think that will help? And people will drive on it and
rub it off eventually.

This is true; it's just yet another maintenance hassle and expense.
I agree.

There is nothing whatsoever good about people trespassing on your property.
If they want to trespass, they should offer to pay me money.
And nobody is offering.

I think you'd be better off getting an additional sign, in the same
style as the first one if you care about that part of esthetics, that
would say something like, "Private property. Nothing worth seeing.
Please respect our privacy" That's what would have an effect on me.

While I like the idea of the "unless you have big boobs" sign, and, putting
up such a politically incorrect sign would assert my ownership of the land,
I'm sticking with the California-mandated wording which, as far as I can
tell, is three acceptable uses:

MINIMUM:
- TRESPASSING/LOITERING FORBIDDEN BY LAW

PREFERRED:
- PRIVATE PROPERTY
- TRESPASSING/LOITERING FORBIDDEN BY LAW
- VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED
- CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 602

ACCEPTABLE:
- PRIVATE PROPERTY
- NO TRESPASSING

I drive up private drives, especially if they go to more than one
house and no one will know for sure if I'm invited or not. If it's
only one house, I usually stop before they can see me.

I generally top everyone as we've had people dumping on the road in the
past.

The last time
it was not marked as private and it was a whole n'hood of 20 houses,
but all the roads were dead ends, one route in and the same route out.
My goal is to drive down every street in the world. This road was
nowhere near 18 feet wide. It was too narrow to turn around without
driving on the grass, so I went to the end and up a driveway where
there was a lot of space in front of the garage. His house was farther
back than the neighbors so I could see their back yard. The woman
waved at me. I waved back.

My road narrows at points to less than 12 feet so you'd have the same
problem here.

But I didn't go over to talk to them. I drive a nice white
convertible and the top is usually down when I do this; I don't look
threatening, I look like a friend of one of their neighbor,s and
indeed, I don't do any damage.

Everything depends on the people before you!

A lot of the time if I see it's a one family drive, I turn around
before I'm visible from the house.

I understand the curiosity factor.
That's not our problem here though as the road doesn't go anywhere for
traffic, so, once down, and you'd be bored to tears coming by a second
time!

I doubt if anyone has ever noticed me any time I did this.

I notice everyone. I might not be able to get to them to stop them, but I
notice them.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 01:45:00 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03 wrote:

That seems to imply that they don't enforce the rules when you are *not* absent.

The PDF explains that there are two situations:
a) When you are absent (notice is needed every 30 days)
b) When you are present (notice is needed every six months)
(http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-co...-sect-602.html)

If that's the case, who does? If it's the landowners, please define "enforce" in
this situation.

The police told me that "I" shouldn't block people.
I should tell them to get off the property.
And if they don't get off, then I should call them.

The problem, from a practical standpoint, is that the police will never get
here in time unless the trespassers stick around.

Besides, even with all the signage, what do you expect to happen when the bikers
ignore them and use the road again? The police won't be there 24-7 and I doubt
that they will expend a lot of resources chasing down the culprits.

I'm not really worried about the people who will flaunt the law no matter
what, simply because I can trap them at will with a little bit of planning.

What I'm mostly working on is signage which will keep most people away.

We can trap the transgressors easily enough since I can show the police
plenty of places to hide and I can install trip cameras.

My only problem is lack of cash - so if you know of cheap trail cameras,
I'd be interested.

One last question, and please don't take this the wrong way, I'm really curious.

What is the actual problem with people using this connection between the trails and the
park? Is it just a "this is my road" issue or are you concerned with liabity or are users an
actual nuisance, etc.? Why is this such a big deal?

1. People have stolen my tools (I don't know *who* did though)
2. People make noise and tell me to shove my road up my derriere which
ruins my quality of life
3. People litter and can get hurt and can sue me
4. An implied easement lowers the value of the land and increases the cost
5. I'm already restricted in what I can do (see mailbox issues) with my own
land - the last thing I need are more restrictions on my own use of the
land (such as putting up a gate).
etc.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 19:47:09 -0600, rbowman wrote:

Where do you live? I'll fix that right up.

Heh heh ...

I did talk to the park rangers today, and they said they'll install signs
as they don't want to maintain the trail at their expense either.

And they said that they will put up a trail cam to see what the number of
people are.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:04:12 -0400, Micky wrote:

And note that the previous owners and all the other current owners
allowed this. Maybe they know good reasons but they're afraid to
anger you by telling you.

You're losing your credibility.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:03:01 -0400, Micky wrote:

Because we're part of a society.

Are you the adherent of a religion? Maybe your clergyman can answer
why it would be good to let the bicyclists ride their bicycles.

Up until now you were pretty much logical.
But now you're not.

If the public wants to use my land, they can *pay* me for the costs
incurred.

I'm not asking for that, but they're not offering to pay either.
So it makes no sense for me to have my tools stolen when they're sitting on
my yard, and to have my kids accosted by foul-mouthed strangers, and to
have my peace and quiet disturbed, and my costs for maintenance and my risk
for liability and my inability to close a road, etc., if they're not
willing to pay for their fair share.

Nobody is offering - and I'm not asking - but anyone who wants to use my
land should compensate me for the loss and that compensation is so high
that any one individual isn't willing to shoulder that cost.

Are you?

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:01:04 -0400, Micky wrote:

That's easy to avoid without closing the whole road off.

I agree with you that closing the road is too onerous.
Signage is what we need.

You post "private road; travel at your own risk"

Legally that's the wrong set of words, but the concept is correct.
The correct set of words is described in this PDF:
http://www.indiopd.org/pdf/Trespassing_Requirements.pdf
PRIVATE PROPERTY
TRESPASSING/LOITERING FORBIDDEN BY LAW
VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 602

You pick one day a
year (though that is more than is needed. Once every N years,
depending on the state is sufficient) to close off the road.

I don't know if that one-day-a-year road closure is actually needed, but it
does seem like a good insurance policy to do so, which *proves* that you
*can* do it.

The police were called this weekend, and they didn't stop me; which is the
point that we're establishing that "we" have control of the road access.


You take
pictures of it, complete with something to show what date it is. That
will work better than the gate which will be shut as planned for six
months and then open all the time when no one is wiling to tend it.

I did take a picture and posted it already:
http://i.cubeupload.com/9GFo0Q.jpg

I understand that the road is well paved. If they fall off their bike
and hurt themselves, it's unrelated to any negligence of yours.

Yeah. Tell that to the personal injury lawyers.


And
is anyone going to fall off his bike under those circumstances? I've
falled twice in 20 years and each time it was a big chuckhole filled
with water, not a well paved street.

It doesn't matter. If you let someone on your property, you're responsible.
If you don't stop someone from being on your property, you're responsible.
If you tried to stop them, and they still came on, you're still
responsible, but you have a better case (and they have a worse case).

Do you own the road or not? If you do, they are covered by your
homeowners insurance, just like the sidewalk from the driveway to
your front door is.

Thanks. Would you like to pay my premiums?

If not, then we can drop this whole talk.

I own the road, and my insurance costs me thousands of dollars every year.

Oh, please. The road doesn't require any improvements and you know
it, and if it did need repaving, you and your neighbors would see to
it anyhow, for reasons unrelated to these bicyclists.

OK. Up until now you were reasonable. You have absolutely no idea how much
money it would costs to improve a road that is about a half mile long.

It's more money than I own.

I think it's mythical.

From your armchair seat, that's understandable.
But not from mine.

That's the way the vast majority of the US and every country lives.
Your property is over 1000 feet in one direction? You've let money go
to your head.

The zoning out here is 40 acres to a property.
Anything less than 80 acres can't be subdivided.

That's bad, but by your own words that was after you told them they
couldn't use the road, after it being used that way, and he was angry.
And by the way, "up your ass " is on the very mild end of foul
language. When you first said foul, I thought you meant much worse.

Oh, it was much worse. The police were even offended enough to not even
write up a report when they called the police on me for blocking the road.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:33:24 -0600, rbowman wrote:

You mean like an easement already in place on the road that Henry is
ignoring?

I'll stop responding if you continue down this disrespectful tack.

You can write what you want on Usenet; but you should also be a tiny bit
logical when you write stuff.

Did you see the picture of the roadblock?
http://i.cubeupload.com/9GFo0Q.jpg

That was up for two entire days, from 7am to 5pm, and the police were
called by an irate biker and they showed up and explained that I need
better signs.

Do you think they would have let me block a public road?
Do you think whomever you are intimating has an easement would let me block
them from passing?

While I do understand that this is the wild west of Usenet, you have to be
somewhat logical in your accusations.

My title company knows of no easements other than the other property
owners. That's all I can tell you. There is nothing being ignored.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:32:28 -0600, rbowman wrote:

That's the real question, isn't it. If there are other people living on
the road, my guess would be no.

The road exists for the other people.
I own most of the road, although they own their portions too.
There is no way to travel from the public road to their house without
driving on my property and on their property.

So, the answer is that "I" own a substantial portion of the road in its
entirety, and they own a portion also.

We're all in agreement that the sole purpose of the road is to serve the
people who have the benefit (and who paid for long ago) of an easement.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 04:58:33 -0000 (UTC), Henry Jones
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:01:04 -0400, Micky wrote:

That's easy to avoid without closing the whole road off.

I agree with you that closing the road is too onerous.
Signage is what we need.

I was talking within the context of the thread. But in more detail,
That's easy to avoid without closing the whole road off to the
bicyclists.

You post "private road; travel at your own risk"

Legally that's the wrong set of words, but the concept is correct.

It's the wrong set of words for what you had wanted to accomplist.

The correct set of words is described in this PDF:
http://www.indiopd.org/pdf/Trespassing_Requirements.pdf
PRIVATE PROPERTY
TRESPASSING/LOITERING FORBIDDEN BY LAW

These are the wrong set of words for what I want. Check with your
minister and see which he says are better.

VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 602

You pick one day a
year (though that is more than is needed. Once every N years,
depending on the state is sufficient) to close off the road.

I don't know if that one-day-a-year road closure is actually needed, but it
does seem like a good insurance policy to do so, which *proves* that you
*can* do it.

You're still thinking about your original goal. I'm telling you the
alternative, that can satisfy your understandable desire not to create
an easement but which will also allow the bicyclists to use the road.

The police were called this weekend, and they didn't stop me; which is the
point that we're establishing that "we" have control of the road access.


You take
pictures of it, complete with something to show what date it is. That
will work better than the gate which will be shut as planned for six
months and then open all the time when no one is wiling to tend it.

I did take a picture and posted it already:
http://i.cubeupload.com/9GFo0Q.jpg

I'm not going to go into what's wrong with your picture, because I'm
not interested in furthering your goal, only my alternate suggestion.


I understand that the road is well paved. If they fall off their bike
and hurt themselves, it's unrelated to any negligence of yours.

Yeah. Tell that to the personal injury lawyers.


Your home insurance will handle nuisance suits, if there are any.

And
is anyone going to fall off his bike under those circumstances? I've
falled twice in 20 years and each time it was a big chuckhole filled
with water, not a well paved street.

It doesn't matter. If you let someone on your property, you're responsible.

Who told you that? Your lawyer? You need another one.

If you don't stop someone from being on your property, you're responsible.
If you tried to stop them, and they still came on, you're still
responsible, but you have a better case (and they have a worse case).

Do you own the road or not? If you do, they are covered by your
homeowners insurance, just like the sidewalk from the driveway to
your front door is.

Thanks. Would you like to pay my premiums?

You're already paying them. You may not know your lot's boundaries
but the insurance company does.

If not, then we can drop this whole talk.

I own the road, and my insurance costs me thousands of dollars every year.

That's what I just said, you're already paying them.

Oh, please. The road doesn't require any improvements and you know
it, and if it did need repaving, you and your neighbors would see to
it anyhow, for reasons unrelated to these bicyclists.

OK. Up until now you were reasonable. You have absolutely no idea how much
money it would costs to improve a road that is about a half mile long.

It's more money than I own.

They're not going to ask for any improvements. Nothing will have
changed.

I think it's mythical.

From your armchair seat, that's understandable.
But not from mine.

That's the way the vast majority of the US and every country lives.
Your property is over 1000 feet in one direction? You've let money go
to your head.

The zoning out here is 40 acres to a property.
Anything less than 80 acres can't be subdivided.

So I'm right.

That's bad, but by your own words that was after you told them they
couldn't use the road, after it being used that way, and he was angry.
And by the way, "up your ass " is on the very mild end of foul
language. When you first said foul, I thought you meant much worse.

Oh, it was much worse. The police were even offended enough to not even
write up a report when they called the police on me for blocking the road.

So what did they say?

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 04:58:31 -0000 (UTC), Henry Jones
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:03:01 -0400, Micky wrote:

Because we're part of a society.

Are you the adherent of a religion? Maybe your clergyman can answer
why it would be good to let the bicyclists ride their bicycles.

Up until now you were pretty much logical.
But now you're not.

You don't consider the goal of behaving with love for your neighbor**
to be logical? Wow.

**Neigbhor in the Bible doesn't refer to the people who own the lot
next door. It refers to people in general. If you don't claim to
have a religion and you don't find the Bible holy, than I woudln't be
on this topic, but I first asked if you adhered to a religion and you
didn't answer, so I'm talking as you affiliate with one that holds the
Bible holy.

If the public wants to use my land, they can *pay* me for the costs
incurred.

There have been no costs incurred.

I'm not asking for that, but they're not offering to pay either.
So it makes no sense for me to have my tools stolen when they're sitting on
my yard, and to have my kids accosted by foul-mouthed strangers, and to

Have any of your tools been stolen? Were your kids exposed to bad
language at any other tmie than the while you were arguing with the
bicyclists? I think you shoudl do what the police said to do.

have my peace and quiet disturbed, and my costs for maintenance and my risk
for liability and my inability to close a road, etc., if they're not
willing to pay for their fair share.

Nobody is offering - and I'm not asking - but anyone who wants to use my
land should compensate me for the loss and that compensation is so high
that any one individual isn't willing to shoulder that cost.

You haven't lost anything yet, and you won't.

Are you?

You don't have anything I want and I don't even like you.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 05:07:12 -0000 (UTC), Henry Jones
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:33:24 -0600, rbowman wrote:

You mean like an easement already in place on the road that Henry is
ignoring?

I'll stop responding if you continue down this disrespectful tack.

What was disrespectful. You snipped what he was replying to, so
it's harder to tell what he meant, but I went back and looked and he's
referring to what the other homeowners on your road might not be
telling you.

He ends his sentence in a question mark, so he's plainly suggesting a
hypothesis. What is disrpectful about that? That he suggests you
would ignore it? Well maybe they haven't told you about it, or for
all he knows, they told you once and you dont' believe them, but I
dont' see how either is disrspectful. Things like that happen.

You can write what you want on Usenet; but you should also be a tiny bit
logical when you write stuff.

And it was logical too.

Did you see the picture of the roadblock?
http://i.cubeupload.com/9GFo0Q.jpg

That was up for two entire days, from 7am to 5pm, and the police were
called by an irate biker and they showed up and explained that I need
better signs.

Do you think they would have let me block a public road?

Sure. If no one was complaining, or in this case, no one but people
who had already passed through.

"The police are not there to cause disorder; they are there to
preserve disorder." ;-)

Do you think whomever you are intimating has an easement would let me block
them from passing?

You mean "whoever". He was clearly suggesting the bicyclists had
an easement, and they did not "let you block them". They rode through
despite your objection and then called the police.

While I do understand that this is the wild west of Usenet, you have to be
somewhat logical in your accusations.

That applies equally to you.

My title company knows of no easements other than the other property
owners.

They are referring to easements that have been registered with the
county clerk's office, not those that havent' been adjudicated yet.

That's all I can tell you. There is nothing being ignored.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 04:58:30 -0000 (UTC), Henry Jones
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:04:12 -0400, Micky wrote:

And note that the previous owners and all the other current owners
allowed this. Maybe they know good reasons but they're afraid to
anger you by telling you.

You're losing your credibility.

Really? Didn't the previous owners and the other current owners allow
it? Why?

On 07/25/2016 07:02 AM, Micky wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 05:04:56 -0400, Ollie wrote:

On 07/24/2016 09:08 PM, anonymous wrote:
On 7/24/2016 9:03 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
The post office does not deliver mail on Sundays, so no problem with a gate on Sundays.

One word: Amazon

Yah, Team Bezos has a lot of amazing accomplishments but to get the USPS to deliver on Sunday is incredible.

I think it was my mailman who told me the Sunday drivers use their own
car, wear no uniform, and are part-timers, just hired for this.


Not sure about the uniform or employment status but here Sunday deliveries are done with official USPS Grumman LLVs.

On 7/25/16 6:33 AM, Micky wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 03:51:48 -0700, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

On 7/25/2016 3:47 AM, Micky wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 17:18:34 +0000 (UTC), Henry Jones
wrote:



I don't understand your question about having an "address sign"
for the place. The drive serves a handful of homes only but
there are trails at the end that a lot of bikers and hikers use
that skirt out back behind people's property (all in private
land). Eventually it connects to a public park, so

You knew all this stuff existed when you bought *your* house,
right? Is it right to interfere with them now, when they've been
using this for such a harmless purpose?

I don't view trespassing as harmless.

What is the harm here?

Are you saying that once an unlawful activity starts, it should
never end?

Where would you get that idea? I only referred to harmless
activities.

You might want to do a bit of reading. Can trespassers sue?
Implied consent? Attractive nuisance?
I wouldn't want to get sued even if only just because of the
inconvenience. There are better ways to spend time than talking
to attorneys or sitting in court.

On 7/25/16 11:58 PM, Henry Jones wrote:

Some cut here and there.

What I'm mostly working on is signage which will keep most people away.

We can trap the transgressors easily enough since I can show the police
plenty of places to hide and I can install trip cameras.

My only problem is lack of cash - so if you know of cheap trail cameras,
I'd be interested.

One last question, and please don't take this the wrong way, I'm really curious.

What is the actual problem with people using this connection between the trails and the
park? Is it just a "this is my road" issue or are you concerned with liabity or are users an
actual nuisance, etc.? Why is this such a big deal?

1. People have stolen my tools (I don't know *who* did though)
2. People make noise and tell me to shove my road up my derriere which
ruins my quality of life
3. People litter and can get hurt and can sue me
4. An implied easement lowers the value of the land and increases the cost
5. I'm already restricted in what I can do (see mailbox issues) with my own
land - the last thing I need are more restrictions on my own use of the
land (such as putting up a gate).
etc.

Camera reviews he
http://www.trailcampro.com/collectio...-trail-cameras
I'm not sure how old the reviews are. I bought a Moultrie off Ebay.
It came with a security box.

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 2:10:07 AM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 04:58:33 -0000 (UTC), Henry Jones
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:01:04 -0400, Micky wrote:

That's easy to avoid without closing the whole road off.

I agree with you that closing the road is too onerous.
Signage is what we need.

I was talking within the context of the thread. But in more detail,
That's easy to avoid without closing the whole road off to the
bicyclists.

A thread that you apparently either haven't been reading in order or in
it's entirety.

"How do you know what order I read the posts in, if I red (sic) that
post at all?"

Just sayin'

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:14:47 AM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:18:45 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:


What are you, my SAT tutor? (not that I studied for them)

How'd that 600 work out for you?

I got 1540 out of 1600.

Assuming that's true, it's just further prove that standardized tests
don't evaluate common sense.

On 07/25/2016 11:07 PM, Henry Jones wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:33:24 -0600, rbowman wrote:

You mean like an easement already in place on the road that Henry is
ignoring?
I'll stop responding if you continue down this disrespectful tack.

That would break my heart. I would have loved to have heard the complete
conversation with the bicyclists. What did you say to them before they
told you to shove your cones up your ass sideways?


You can write what you want on Usenet; but you should also be a tiny bit
logical when you write stuff.

Did you see the picture of the roadblock?
http://i.cubeupload.com/9GFo0Q.jpg

Yeah. That impresses me as much as the people who put chairs out on a
public street to mark 'their' parking space.

That was up for two entire days, from 7am to 5pm, and the police were
called by an irate biker and they showed up and explained that I need
better signs.

Do you think they would have let me block a public road?

That was the same cops that said it wasn't marked as a private road on
their map?

Do you think whomever you are intimating has an easement would let me block
them from passing?

The bicyclists? Yeah, you stopped them right in their tracks.


While I do understand that this is the wild west of Usenet, you have to be
somewhat logical in your accusations.

Accusations?

My title company knows of no easements other than the other property
owners. That's all I can tell you. There is nothing being ignored.

Have you contacted the county?

On 07/25/2016 10:58 PM, Henry Jones wrote:
I own the road, and my insurance costs me thousands of dollars every year.

You actually own the road? Your neighbors have an easement so they can
use your road or else their property is landlocked? You built and
maintain the road?

Oh, it was much worse. The police were even offended enough to not even
write up a report when they called the police on me for blocking the road.

Police offend very easily. They're particularly offend by having to do
extra paperwork for some homeowner's dispute with the public.

If it's really your road with no easements and not owned by a HOA, can you put up a gate?

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 05:41:29 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:

Camera reviews he
http://www.trailcampro.com/collectio...-trail-cameras
I'm not sure how old the reviews are. I bought a Moultrie off Ebay.
It came with a security box.

Nice idea!

I like them.

They're about 200 bucks.

I can string a power cord to the road, so I'll look for less expensive
cameras that can connect to the mains too.

Thanks.
Inexpensive trailcams might be a nice topic in and of itself.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 02:26:38 -0400, Micky wrote:

Really? Didn't the previous owners and the other current owners allow
it? Why?

It was never allowed.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:37:35 -0600, rbowman wrote:

Yeah. That impresses me as much as the people who put chairs out on a
public street to mark 'their' parking space.

I agree that the roadblock was symbolic.
It wouldn't stop a determined terrorist for instance.

But what else would you suggest to get the word out?

That was the same cops that said it wasn't marked as a private road on
their map?

Yes. So that's a bit disconcerting. Why would their map be wrong?
I don't know the answer to that question.

If they want it to be a public road, then the county is gonna have to put a
few hundred thousand dollars into it. So that might be a good thing. But
it's not gonna happen.

My title company knows of no easements other than the other property
owners. That's all I can tell you. There is nothing being ignored.

Have you contacted the county?

It's hard to talk to "the county" since all you get is a person in a
department, but the Road Dept. said they don't maintain the road.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 02:25:49 -0400, Micky wrote:

What was disrespectful. You snipped what he was replying to, so
it's harder to tell what he meant, but I went back and looked and he's
referring to what the other homeowners on your road might not be
telling you.

If you're talking about unknown unwritten unrecorded easements, that *can*
happen, but none could apply to *my* property unless the previous property
owner of my property gave that unwritten unrecorded easement.

All I can tell you is that I don't know of any unknown unrecorded unwritten
easements on "my" property that the title company can find.

Nobody else can sell an easement on my property; so it doesn't matter what
easements the neighbors have.


You mean "whoever".
You are correct!
Thank you for clarifying that it was "who he is" not "whom he is".

He was clearly suggesting the bicyclists had
an easement, and they did not "let you block them". They rode through
despite your objection and then called the police.

The title company is privy to recorded easements.
There are no recorded easements for the general public.
The recorded easements are for the few homeowners served by the road.

I am unaware of any unwritten or unrecorded easement for the general public
to use the road for any purpose.


They are referring to easements that have been registered with the
county clerk's office, not those that havent' been adjudicated yet.

You are correct.
If there is any easement, recorded or unrecorded, written or verbal, for
the general public, neither my title company nor I are privy to them.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 02:16:45 -0400, Micky wrote:

You don't consider the goal of behaving with love for your neighbor**
to be logical? Wow.

What on earth are you talking about?

**Neigbhor in the Bible doesn't refer to the people who own the lot
next door. It refers to people in general.

I'm too logical not to be an atheist.

Religion started as a science, and it fails at being a science.
However, very clever people learned how to subvert that science to the
point that it because a lucrative set of political controls.

I know too much about both science and recorded history to be controlled by
religious zealots.

If you don't claim to
have a religion and you don't find the Bible holy, than I woudln't be
on this topic, but I first asked if you adhered to a religion and you
didn't answer, so I'm talking as you affiliate with one that holds the
Bible holy.

Man invented god simply because, at first, man needed to explain why
lightning killed people. Then man invented a variety of spirit gods to
explain why trees fall down on people. Finally, a cunningly enterprising
man invented a political god who acted just like a king (fancy that) with
all the evils and mean spirited thoughts that people have.

And that is the man-invented political god we have today, in some form or
the other, who is used as a tool to control people just as a homeowner
association is another government upon a homeowner.

If the public wants to use my land, they can *pay* me for the costs
incurred.

There have been no costs incurred.

Are you willing to pay for the signs?
They'll cost something like $100 to $150 each, installed.
There will be about 10 of them overall on my property.

You can send me the check any time.

Have any of your tools been stolen?

Of course. I don't know *who* stole my tools, but they were stolen when
they were left near the road. I doubt my neighbors stole them, but I don't
know who stole them.

Were your kids exposed to bad
language at any other tmie than the while you were arguing with the
bicyclists?

My kids have run up to me telling me there are strange people on our
property, and I go down and tell them to leave immediately.

I think you shoudl do what the police said to do.

I am.

You haven't lost anything yet, and you won't.

Again, you can send me the check for the signs I'm putting up, each one
will cost around $100 to $150 installed.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 05:27:28 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:

I wouldn't want to get sued even if only just because of the
inconvenience. There are better ways to spend time than talking
to attorneys or sitting in court.

Exactly!

Better to pay for signs now, than to be sued later.

They can still sue for anything, but if I've been having them arrested,
they have less of a case (but it all depends on how a judge thinks).

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:46:49 -0600, rbowman wrote:

You actually own the road? Your neighbors have an easement so they can
use your road or else their property is landlocked? You built and
maintain the road?

The road was built long ago.
I own the land the road is on.

Some of the neighbors' properties butt up against mine.
The road branches to each of their properties as their property lines split
the road longitudinally (whereas mine split the road perpendicularly).

They have an easement to use my portion of the road for 3 purposes only:
a. They have the right (and obligation) to maintain the road
b. They have the right of transit for themselves & their guests
c. They have the right of transit for their utilities & deliveries

That's it.
There is no other use for the road.

Police offend very easily. They're particularly offend by having to do
extra paperwork for some homeowner's dispute with the public.

Actually, it was the other way around.
The public had a dispute with the homeowner.
And, they declined to write up the report (they told me).
Dunno what that means in a legal sense.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 02:09:59 -0400, Micky wrote:

It's the wrong set of words for what you had wanted to accomplist.

Yes. What I want is the legally correct words to describe the legal
situation.

I don't see my situation as being different than anyone elses' in the same
state who has a private road that was not built nor maintained for public
access.

These are the wrong set of words for what I want. Check with your
minister and see which he says are better.

?

You're still thinking about your original goal. I'm telling you the
alternative, that can satisfy your understandable desire not to create
an easement but which will also allow the bicyclists to use the road.

I did briefly consider charging a fee to use the road.
Legally, if you charge a fee, they can't sue successfully for access
because they already have access by permission (if they pay for that
access).

Do you think $5 per person per visit is about the correct amount?

I'm not going to go into what's wrong with your picture, because I'm
not interested in furthering your goal, only my alternate suggestion.

Now you got me curious.
What's wrong with my photo?
Is the lighting bad?
Or is it the angle?

Your home insurance will handle nuisance suits, if there are any.

Thanks for the advice.
I'd prefer to have zero claims against my home insurance, thank you.

That's what I just said, you're already paying them.

The insurance company knows that the road is private with no public access.
The premiums would go up if the road had public access.

They're not going to ask for any improvements. Nothing will have
changed.

You have obviously never dealt with the government.

Oh, it was much worse. The police were even offended enough to not even
write up a report when they called the police on me for blocking the road.

So what did they say?

The one foul-mouthed guy told the police using similar foul language that
he used with me that I was blocking the road and that they wanted me
arrested for blocking the road.

The cops came and asked what the situation was.
Then before they left, they suggested we put up better signs.

On 7/26/2016 5:32 PM, Henry Jones wrote:

Oh, it was much worse. The police were even offended enough to not even
write up a report when they called the police on me for blocking the road.

So what did they say?

The one foul-mouthed guy told the police using similar foul language that
he used with me that I was blocking the road and that they wanted me
arrested for blocking the road.

The cops came and asked what the situation was.
Then before they left, they suggested we put up better signs.


Seems like you are all set now that you know what signs you need. Once
in place, I'd still camp out a few days with the barrier to make the
point. In addition to the required legal signs, I'd put a couple of "no
trespassing residents only" signs in the middle of the road, perhaps
leaving just enough room to drive by so you don't have to move them
every time you go to the store.

Oh, I'd also notify the police once properly signed so they may be able
to support you better if they see violations.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 15:35:29 +0100, Henry Jones wrote:

I blocked the road with cones and turned back all members of the public
yesterday, but it was extremely boring, so I can't wait for the signs to
come in. That's for the advice.

Most people said they didn't know it was a private drive, even though there
was one sign saying so at the entrance.

The drive is 18 feet wide so I can make large letters.

I'm thinking of putting down a big "stencil" on the road of something like:
"PRIVATE DRIVE | NO PULIC ACCESS"

Where do you think those stencils would be found?

You need to buy a B, or people will make fun.

Or get those things they put at car park exits to stop people entering the wrong way, the flaps that kill the tyres if you drive the wrong way. Or to be more subtle, a few nicely placed nails which were "accidentally dropped there". Just remember to remove them before you drive past, or go round where you know they are.

A land mine would be more fun, but you might get fined for noise pollution.

--
Pat Glenn, weightlifting commentator - "And this is Gregoriava from Bulgaria. I saw her snatch this morning and it was amazing!"

On 07/26/2016 03:32 PM, Henry Jones wrote:
It's hard to talk to "the county" since all you get is a person in a
department, but the Road Dept. said they don't maintain the road.

That's par for the course in this county. Some are Forest Service, some
are old logging roads that are indifferently maintained. The land
ownership goes back to when the Federal government was giving land to
the railroads in a checkerboard pattern. Most of the railroad lands
passed to the lumber companies who built roads. The companies like Plum
Creek have went into the real estate business and are subdividing some
of the sections. This leaves the road ownership a touchy subject since
there were a lot of easements to provide public access to the state or
federal sections on the checkerboard.

Even the FS gets into the game. Some landowners have refused the Forest
Service access to FS lands. Maybe legal, maybe not but the FS takes the
unofficial position of "when the forest behind your house burns, call
somebody who cares.'

As I mentioned. the Republican gubernatorial candidate tried to block
fishing access and lost. Being a billionaire doesn't impress people in
this state. Now he has the chutzpah to run political ads inviting people
to go fishing at the site. It ain't his to invite.

Here is a summary...

PROBLEM:
- People trespass

PROPOSED SOLUTION:
A. Fix the maps
B. Improve the signage (include input from local utility & county parks)
C. Police the property

FIX THE MAPS:
- Private-road related maps apparently *start* at the deed!
- The County Assessor's office turns the deed into a County Map!
- The assessor correctly shows the road with a dotted line
- On an Assessor's map a dotted line is a private road, no public access
- However, Google, DeLorme, Egri, Here, etc. use the GIS maps
- The County Geographic Information Services use the Assessor's maps
- Unfortunately GIS shows the road with a solid line (aka ambiguous)
- So the GIS guys will fix that by adding a PVT attribute to our road
- Over time, that will propagate to Google, DeLorme, etc.
- In addition, I filed a Google map error complaint on the web
- Google won't do anything over the phone (trust me, I tried)
- The police get their maps from GIS so that will also propagate

IMPROVE THE SIGNAGE:
- Work with local police, utility, & local county parks
- Understand California Penal Code 602L signage requirements
- Sign 3-to-a-mile and at entrances & exits
- One-foot square, 2-inch letters saying either:
a. Mandated:
"TRESPASSING/LOITERING FORBIDDEN BY LAW"
b. Acceptable:
"PRIVATE PROPERTY (or Private Road or Private Drive, etc.)
NO TRESPASSING"
c. Preferred:
"PRIVATE PROPERTY (or Private Road or Private Drive, etc.)
TRESPASSING/LOITERING FORBIDDEN BY LAW
VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 602"

I'm not sure about the use of the road stencils, but if it doesn't look too
ugly, it should work to better inform the public.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:07:05 +0100, James Wilkinson wrote:

You need to buy a B, or people will make fun.

Sorry about that. I have my capslock key disabled because it drives me
nuts, so, I had to hold down the shift key while typing that.

Overall, I think we have the solution, although I wish I had thought of
everything you guys brought up *before* I wasted two days blocking the
road.