Walking allowed?

1.
Imagine a person owns a nine square mile plot of swamp land.
Also imagine she has paved a private sidewalk diagonally through the land so that she does not have to walk around the prerimeter in order to reach one side from the opposite side.

Walking diagonally through the plot is four miles, which takes about an houre and twenty minutes. Walking around the perimeter is six miles, which takes about two hours.

Should otherwise well behaved passers by be able to walk on the private sidewalk without permission?
Why or why not?

2.
Imagine the Detroit Riverwalk is sold to an individual.
She is a private person and wants to enjoy the Riverwalk in solitude.
Should she be able to prevent locals from enjoying the scenery of the river through use of the private Riverwalk?

I'm not sure what point you're making, but here goes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majohnson

1. Imagine a person owns a nine square mile plot of swamp land. Also imagine she has paved a private sidewalk diagonally through the land so that she does not have to walk around the prerimeter in order to reach one side from the opposite side.

Walking diagonally through the plot is four miles, which takes about an houre and twenty minutes. Walking around the perimeter is six miles, which takes about two hours.

Should otherwise well behaved passers by be able to walk on the private sidewalk without permission?

---

No, because that is precisely trespassing. You can't ever enter my private property without permission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majohnson

2. Imagine the Detroit Riverwalk is sold to an individual. She is a private person and wants to enjoy the Riverwalk in solitude.
Should she be able to prevent locals from enjoying the scenery of the river through use of the private Riverwalk?

---

What do you mean by "use"? Anyone can look past the Riverwalk and see the scenery. Entering the property [[under your assumption) would again be trespassing. Now, there are a lot of reasons why the Riverwalk can't be sold to an individual, so this is extremely hypothetical, along the lines of any conversation that starts with "imagine I own a unicorn".

The difference is this if the river walk is privately owned and it is a sunny afternoon with many families
out enjoying a walk then all of the sudden a group of thugs shows up and starts hanging out scareing everybody or being intimidating being it is privative owned security can say move along or leave if it is public property they would have every right to hang out there.

As an example in St Petersburg Fl a private company built an entertainment complex in the city center with nice restaurants movie theater and some clubs and there was a main entrance abutting the sidewalk what was happening is it became a hangout for thugs standing about on the sidewalk so most patrons stopped going to visit the establishment ,who wants to take the family or wife or a date to a movie and have to walk through a gang of thugs to do it.

As it was on the sidewalk the private companies hands were tied as it was on public property the plaza soon started going into bankruptcy, what the city ended up having to do was privatize the sidewalk,problem solved everything is back to normal again.

Just a scenario not really going into the rights and wrongs but the times have changed.

I'm not sure how to deal with "should" in this context.

In general, in the US owning property includes the right to exclude other people from it, but that right may be subject to easements. For instance, some states have laws ensuring public access to beachfronts, but as far as I know Michigan isn't among them. My understanding is that sometimes people may have a right of access via an easement because of customary use, but that wouldn't apply to a newly constructed path, unless people were already walking that way previous to the construction of the path. I suppose it might apply to the Riverwalk, but if it did, it might only apply to people who had customarily used the Riverwalk in the past, not people in general. A lawyer could probably give you a more reliable answer.

Leaving the legal issue, It would seem rather obnoxious to exclude people from the Riverwalk or the Swampwalk, but I could understand someone doing it. I own something like the swampwalk [[it actually runs along the side of the swamp) which connects from a road to conservation land. We let people walk down it, but there aren't that many of them, so we don't have to worry about lots of noise or litter. If there were problems, I might take steps to discourage this.

Quote:

---

No, because that is precisely trespassing. You can't ever enter my private property without permission.

---

I am pretty sure this is wrong. It depends upon the state, but usually there has to be some kind of notice or barrier. If someone walks up to your front door and knocks, it isn't trespassing. If the homeowner tells you to leave and you don't, that is trespassing. If there is a fence around the house and you climb it to get to the door, that is also trespassing. I'm still not a lawyer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

... For instance, some states have laws ensuring public access to beachfronts, but as far as I know Michigan isn't among them....

---

I thought Michigan is one of those states. I recall some news story or court case about it a few years ago.

Is the Riverwalk public property or private property, as Campus Martius is? If the former, under what conditions can the police or security guards prevent the public from entering the premises? I have wanted to walk along it at night, but have been turned away because it closes at 10PM. I have also been turned away at 9PM when the sun is still out because, according to RenCen security, a fight had recently broken out and the DPD ordered the Riverwalk closed.

I suspect this is legal behavior whatever the circumstance, but to me it feels completely wrong to restrict access to the river during any hour or for spontaneous reasons. There's *too much* security in and around the Renaissance Center, and it stifles the free enjoyment of that area.

not sure what the point of this is? are you asking should you be able to pass through private property is order to access the riverwalk? if so, then answer is NO, go the extra distance to access the riverwalk at the appropriate public access points....

I can't believe no one has questioned the math.

How can the perimeter of an area totalling 9 square miles be 6 miles? It has to be at least 12 miles, if it's a 3X3 square. The perimeter size would only go up from there.

At least the diagonal length was close at 4 miles. It's actually closer to 4.25 miles, again using the 3X3 square, but would be completely different if the shape of the plot were different.

So aside from asking a strange question about property rights, why even mention the size of the plot, then fudge the numbers?

The right of beach access is limited to certain kinds of waterways in Michigan, not sure what the limitations are. I'm pretty sure the Detroit River is not among the public access waterways, because it is just about completely lined with private property to which passersby do not have a right of passage. It has always been my understanding that the Great Lakes beaches cannot be private, but I have seen fencing going right out into the water to prevent beach access at some points. Example, the former Resort property at Pointe Aux Barques on Lake Huron up in the Thumb. There has also been a homeowner in the past year or so who won the right to prevent access to his section of beach. And the fight continues on Lake Michigan:

.http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...r_lake_mi.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by middetres

I can't believe no one has questioned the math.

How can the perimeter of an area totalling 9 square miles be 6 miles? It has to be at least 12 miles, if it's a 3X3 square. The perimeter size would only go up from there.

At least the diagonal length was close at 4 miles. It's actually closer to 4.25 miles, again using the 3X3 square, but would be completely different if the shape of the plot were different.

So aside from asking a strange question about property rights, why even mention the size of the plot, then fudge the numbers?

---

I apologize if the plot figures were confusing.
I wanted to communicate that the person walks about halfway around the total perimeter [[3+3=6) in order to reach a desitnation obstructed by the property.
I agree about the 4.25 figure, I rounded off.

I presented the hypothetical to guage DYers feelings toward personal property rights.
Especially when violation of personal property arguably provides an amenity to those willing to break the law.

The first example seems more clearcut than the second. The example seems clearcut despite the fact quiet trespassers would do no damage to the Swampwalk by walking on it. But Dyers still felt the owner had a right to keeping the Swampwalk exclusive.

I thought the second example would be more problematic. Once again the issue is the right to keep private property exclusive, but I assumed most would feel Detroiters have some 'right' to the riverfront and the Riverfront.

Basically, I wanted to see if my views on private property rights are out of touch with a more common view of justice.

Where did these weird ladies come from?

1.
To get from one side to the other the quickest and shortest way is to walk along one 3 mile long side.

2.
Duh! Don't even think about an answer to such a silly question.

1.
The shortest and quickest way to get from one side to the other is to walk along one of the 3 mile sides so why bother to get permission to take the diagonal or walk two sides?

2.
A silly question deserves a sillier answer. I would walk the Windsor River Front and get a better view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

The right of beach access is limited to certain kinds of waterways in Michigan, not sure what the limitations are. I'm pretty sure the Detroit River is not among the public access waterways, because it is just about completely lined with private property to which passersby do not have a right of passage. It has always been my understanding that the Great Lakes beaches cannot be private, but I have seen fencing going right out into the water to prevent beach access at some points. Example, the former Resort property at Pointe Aux Barques on Lake Huron up in the Thumb. There has also been a homeowner in the past year or so who won the right to prevent access to his section of beach. And the fight continues on Lake Michigan:

.http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...r_lake_mi.html

---

Any waterway of any size in Michigan that has a history of logging activity on it is by definition a public waterway. The Detroit River is definitely a public waterway.

Public access means there must be public access somewhere along the waterway but does NOT mean that the entire shoreline of the waterway is open to public access. That's why on inland lakes and rivers you'll often see one small boat ramp marked as public access while the rest of the lake is surrounded by high dollar homes.

The Riverwalk is technically private as is Campus Martius. The land beneath it however is publicly owned and leased.

The Riverfront conservancy has had many issues with private landowners not wanting the give up the goodies. Access in many areas had to be negotiated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I'm not sure how to deal with "should" in this context.

In general, in the US owning property includes the right to exclude other people from it, but that right may be subject to easements. For instance, some states have laws ensuring public access to beachfronts, but as far as I know Michigan isn't among them.

---

For great lakes frontage, it is. If I'm not mistaken, private property rights extend to the historic high water mark on the beach [[There are actually signs indicating this along the beaches, if you know how to spot them), so technically you can set down your beach chairs below that line and there ain't a damn thing the owners can do about it. In most cases, it isn't a very big strip of beach between the waters edge and the high water mark. Our association has beem in existence forover 100 years, and may have rights up to the water grandfathered in, but we can't block access to walkers. The association was, at one point, going to seek clarification on the issue, but decided it wasn't worth the legal fees. Then again, the law may have changed again since i last glanced at it years ago.

If a road or a pathway has been established and been used for decades, then you're not allowed to close it off, even if you're the owner of the plot now over here in the Netherlands. Usually this will take effect after 30 years of constant use of the path.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majohnson

Basically, I wanted to see if my views on private property rights are out of touch with a more common view of justice.

---

Basically, you want to get a bunch of strangers on the internet to agree with you that it's alright to break the law if you don't like it?