Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

t1_j22pn02 wrote

Preserved farmland is still private property with an easement contract granted to the county in which it resides, which stipulates land use restrictions and agricultural activity restrictions, beholden to a county board of agriculture that manages preserved farmland easements.

Basically the state pays you to keep operating your farm as a farm rather than what many farms do, which is sell out to housing developers who subdivide farms and throw up McMansions in the countryside.

The reason oil and gas extraction is allowed, is because the property is still owned privately and there are no current stipulations in the easements that disallow it, although I would guess that counties could impose those restrictions, BUT, operating a gas well on one's farmland also subsidizes the farm, and removing that option may dissuade farmers from entering the program, and to sell their properties.

​

Basically, you are asking to cut a trail through a farm operating on private property, which is not stipulated in the easement the property owner granted to the county in which they live, since it's not in the contract, it's not a possibility. Further even if you manage to push to change the stipulations of the easement, it will not apply retroactively. What is stipulated is that the land will be used to operate agriculture, and the ways in which that agricultural operation can operate.

12

OP t1_j23ov0d wrote

Through? No. Adjacent to? Along the edge of? Don't conflate my intention was a path down the middle of a farm with a trail along the existing right away along existing roads.

Yes, you can change laws and have them apply retroactively. Laws can be written to include just this. It's a land use that improves the life of the residents in the area. It allows alternative transportation options. Obviously every case would be different but to allow o&g ops, it's clearly not about preserving food production and moreso reducing housing development. It's clear that pedestrian trails need a better lobbyist.

Counties and municipalities seek easements on private property all the time. This is nothing new. So your "private property" point doesn't really make sense. I'm not asking for eminent domain.

−1

t1_j24d4rb wrote

An easement isn't a law, it's a contract, entered into by two parties, it cannot be changed after the fact. The only defacto easement is the one along the road for utilities.

6

t1_j25o1rh wrote

He doesn't care. HE wants to be able to trespass, so THOSE people need to do what he wants!

​

because why should THEY have something when HE wants it... dude is all over the place in this thread

6

t1_j28kx1u wrote

Imagine living your life thinking that the only way that you can experience nature is by walking on a manicured “pedestrian path” in the suburbs somewhere.

3