City Park Public Access

[troutbum479]

going back to the start of this thread. Where does the private land start below the city park? My opinion the city park ends by the ball fields where the grass turns to weeds and brush. So the line where private land starts is very unclear. Maybe if there was a sign indicating the boundary people would be less likely to trespass.

[parachiteadams39]

http://aglaw.missouri.edu/Missouri%20Criminal%20Trespass%20Laws.pdf

This is an interesting precis of Missouri trespassing law from the Ag Law Department at the University of Missouri.

[dennis boatman]

I think I will just stay inside my house. It's safer...

[parachiteadams39]

I have seen pictures of Crane, (never fished it) and can tell you I have canoed streams of that size. The idea that it is a floatable stream is not fanciful-similar sized streams have been ruled navigable in other states. I'm thinking specifically of a small wilderness stream in New York that I paddled this previous summer-the landowners tried for years to keep folks off the stream, but it has been recently considered navigable and opened up to floating.

And now everyone gets to enjoy it. Not just one person.

And "everyone" in New York State can celebrate that their government's changed the rules "in midstream" on landowners and, essentially, taking some of their property rights away from them.

Yahoo! Score one for the Tyranny of the Majority! Tough luck for that "one person" who was making mortgage payments on his land all these years, tending it, caring for it. I belongs to US now!

More seriously, if we're going to look to New York as an example of how we should run things in Missouri, God help us.

I would also say that having seen pictures of Crane Creek really isn't sufficient. I know of one place that, at the moment, is a sharp right angle turn about 3 feet wide. There's no way you could float that without portaging onto, you guessed it, undeniably private land. Unless, perhaps, you have a 3 foot canoe...

[ozark trout fisher]

And "everyone" in New York State can celebrate that their government's changed the rules "in midstream" on landowners and, essentially, taking some of their property rights away from them.

Yahoo! Score one for the Tyranny of the Majority! Tough luck for that "one person" who was making mortgage payments on his land all these years, tending it, caring for it. I belongs to US now!

More seriously, if we're going to look to New York as an example of how we should run things in Missouri, God help us.

I would also say that having seen pictures of Crane Creek really isn't sufficient. I know of one place that, at the moment, is a sharp right angle turn about 3 feet wide. There's no way you could float that without portaging onto, you guessed it, undeniably private land. Unless, perhaps, you have a 3 foot canoe...

I don't doubt that Crane has some narrow areas that would have to be portaged on private land-the stream I paddled did. But in that case the law in New York (like it or not) allows paddlers to portage around obstacles so long as they stay as close to the stream as reasonably possible.

I'm not saying we should run our state like New York does. They just happened to make one good decision.

By all accounts, the stream has been treated very well and kept in great shape since it was opened to public use. I know I saw no litter or any other signs of degradation.

[eric1978]

Yahoo! Score one for the Tyranny of the Majority!

Tyranny? I thought majority rule was called democracy?

[Terry Beeson]

...if we're going to look to New York as an example of how we should run things in Missouri, God help us...

Now that there's funny I don't care WHO you are...

While democracy is generally viewed as the majority rule, it's not just that simple and there can actually be "tyranny of the majority." While the majority of American oppose certain things, the rights of a few should outweigh the wishes of the many.

One example might be the rulings about Nativity scenes on "public property." Now, I'm not for these rulings and I do believe that Nativity scenes should be allowed on public property such as a courthouse lawn, city park, etc. However, the reasoning against it is that while it is OK with the majority, there is a minority whose civil rights are violated by such displays.

Now, do I agree with this ruling? NO... I don't see this as violating anyone's civil rights. I merely used it to explain the reasoning. I'm sure there are better examples, but can't think of one right now. However, do you see the reasoning behind the "rights of a few vs. the wishes of the many?"

Political Science 101

[eric1978]

...the rights of a few should outweigh the wishes of the many.

I'm sure there are better examples, but can't think of one right now. However, do you see the reasoning behind the "rights of a few vs. the wishes of the many?"

Okay, let me try a few...

Abortion, gay marriage, medical marijuana...am I on the right track?

[jjtroutbum]

Tyranny? I thought majority rule was called democracy?

You are correct. Thank our founding fathers for setting up our Republic, elected officials supposedly bound by their oath of office, watched over by a seemingly lacking as of late judiciary are all supposed too protect the minorty from the rule of the mob(a democracy), thus ensuring the Constitution from being trampled by the Government or the majority.

[troutfiend1985]

You are correct. Thank our founding fathers for setting up our Republic, elected officials supposedly bound by their oath of office, watched over by a seemingly lacking as of late judiciary are all supposed too protect the minorty from the rule of the mob(a democracy), thus ensuring the Constitution from being trampled by the Government or the majority.

G Wilickers batman. How about that whole 1st Amendment right?? Maybe, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell anyone? I'm pretty sure that was the supreme court protecting a minority. However in protecting this minority, it also protects the majorities rights, in that freedom of speech is not limited because a view is controversial. I'm pretty sure that our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are upheld by the Supreme Court. Name me one right in the BILL OF RIGHTS that hasn't. Can you name one constitutional right that has not been affirmed within the last 10-20 years? While you may have frustration with the federal government, the Supreme Court is not the lone watchdog of Congress. Nor does the supreme court base its rulings on whether a statute is politically wise, rather the court defers to whetehr the statute is CONSTITUTIONAL i.e. does congress have the power to regulate in a certain area and whether a State is acting within its powers of the 10th Amendment. I'm pretty sure that land access is NOT and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Nor is MARRIAGE, it may be a fundamental right, but we are getting into advance Constitutional Law which envolves a complex answer to a simple question, one which I will not get into here.