Illegal Tree-Cutting at Ellacoya State Park

jeffk · 12-11-2008, 02:09 PM

It seems to me that since this law overrides my rights as a property owner to do what I wish with my own property the fact that he has deeded rights to clear other property means nothing. Every other owner of lake front land is precluded from arbitrary clearing of their land, why would this person with deeded access be exempt?

I understand that if his view of the lake is significantly obscured it would impact the value of his property and certainly the enjoyment of his property. This is the problem with environmental laws. While it might be desirable, even necessary, to place environmental restrictions in place for the public good, the public should compensate private owners for the loss of freedom to use their own land.

For example, if a road was to be put in and my house needed to be taken I would be paid for my house. But when an environmental law either precludes building or creates usage restraints no compensation is offered. IMO, if it is in the public interest to create restrictive environmental laws the public should pay compensation to private owners.

In this specific case, it seems that the DES was trying to provide a reasonable compromise, retaining the view and protecting the shoreline. Although I don't like the law (because it doesn't provide compensation for rights taken), it seems that DES is trying to treat people fairly. IMO that's a good thing.

12-11-2008, 02:09 PM	#18
jeffk Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,175 Thanks: 207 Thanked 437 Times in 253 Posts	Law overrides deed It seems to me that since this law overrides my rights as a property owner to do what I wish with my own property the fact that he has deeded rights to clear other property means nothing. Every other owner of lake front land is precluded from arbitrary clearing of their land, why would this person with deeded access be exempt? I understand that if his view of the lake is significantly obscured it would impact the value of his property and certainly the enjoyment of his property. This is the problem with environmental laws. While it might be desirable, even necessary, to place environmental restrictions in place for the public good, the public should compensate private owners for the loss of freedom to use their own land. For example, if a road was to be put in and my house needed to be taken I would be paid for my house. But when an environmental law either precludes building or creates usage restraints no compensation is offered. IMO, if it is in the public interest to create restrictive environmental laws the public should pay compensation to private owners. In this specific case, it seems that the DES was trying to provide a reasonable compromise, retaining the view and protecting the shoreline. Although I don't like the law (because it doesn't provide compensation for rights taken), it seems that DES is trying to treat people fairly. IMO that's a good thing.