Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
The gist of the lawsuit is SD/LB are trying to tell the state what it can/cannot do with state owned property.
|
I disagree, I think SD/LB is asking the state to look a current, proven, use of the land, it's impact on the community/etc., and compare that with a proposed change that will have some unknown impact (IMO, you cannot argue "zero impact", every change has some impact).
Personally (IANAL), I think the very long delay on getting the trail built works in South Down's favor, it is like the inverse of Adverse Possession concepts. Yes, there was a stated plan for a trail when the ROW was granted, but after a certain amount of time (30 years!) goes by with no trail, and certain aspects of the community, and its draw for owners, develops around the fact that there is no trail/fence/access hindrance, you can understand why people are opposed to it.
It would be different, IMO, if SD were attempting to block access to a proposed emergency services road construction, or a similar thing that would have clear, proven benefit to the community at large. You also cannot deny some of the crime and other issues around Laconia, again, making resistance to easy access into the community understandable.
The WOW trail is at least partly being presented as something that will give "the people" freer access to the lakes/shoreline, and that is a noble cause, however the state effectively allowed the current situation where much of the shoreline is privately owned (and, not getting into side-debates about technical access to shorline areas, just saying that much of the property abutting the shore is privately owned). Trying to now compensate for selling off access by implementing a walking trail with undetermined impact on some communities is really not a balanced approach.