Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier
Maybe suggest they re-enter the LSR with a change that only obvious access points would be posted with the sign requirements and the remainder of the property use the purple paint.
If there was a change... should be easy enough to pull down the signs and paint over the purple paint... much the same as I just pulled down the illegal signs.
|
It’s two simple points, and reasonable people can differ.
First, I’m not debating the ramifications of or rationale for CU, which is relevant (questionably) here in only one very limited respect. The argument was made that some believe they should be able to access property in CU because their tax dollars subsidize CU. This argument fails on multiple grounds which I won’t repeat unless someone wants to hear them.
Second, the State imposes the onus on private property owners to mark their property private if the wish to dissuade trespassing. I understand the logic (in most instances); property lines are indistinguishable in the forest.
I don’t believe there is good rationale for the name and address requirement. If someone goes to the considerable effort of marking their property I don’t think they should have to enable others to request exemptions. Also, I don’t believe it is warranted because unauthorized posting is a significant issue (presumably not an issue so significant that it mandates a presumptive assumption). In either event, as was borne out by your experience, only a little extra effort is required to identify the owner to request an exemption or inquire about unauthorized posting.