RRC Archives

I'm sure it could be worded in an acceptable way: "Erosion fee"

caribe wrote:

Barnacle Ben wrote:For all intents and purposes, parking at Muir (or PMRP) is tantamount to using the land at Muir. You would be hard pressed to argue 'hey, we're not charging you to use the land, just charging you to park on the land.' It's a distinction without a difference, as they like to say, and I don't think a court or an insurer would buy it.

Could someone who has experience with KY Rec. Land Use Law comment with some explanation? I am curious about what KY law says about this. Ben you may be right. In that case the proposal is dead.

What if they were owned by separate legal entities?

caribe wrote:

Barnacle Ben wrote:For all intents and purposes, parking at Muir (or PMRP) is tantamount to using the land at Muir. You would be hard pressed to argue 'hey, we're not charging you to use the land, just charging you to park on the land.' It's a distinction without a difference, as they like to say, and I don't think a court or an insurer would buy it.

Could someone who has experience with KY Rec. Land Use Law comment with some explanation? I am curious about what KY law says about this. Ben you may be right. In that case the proposal is dead.

Hey, what makes you think that I'm not that person?

To be honest, it's been a while since I've looked at that type of issue, and I no longer have access to Lexis or Westlaw, but I can tell you that there was little to no Kentucky case law on that issue. I'm just explaining how an argument like that (we're not charging you to use it, just to park on it) would probably play out in the real world.

Caribe

Other than pay the bills . . . You are talking about the UK. Taxes support the natural areas you are talking about. Money is not an issue. They are trying to limit access and it is not working for a bunch of nature-hungry Britons looking to breath on holiday away from Manchester.

Wrong. Stanage, the most popular single cliff in the country, and perhaps the world (would have to check numbers as it is much bigger than say roadside) may go up for sale soon. There was just this week awhere a crag was closed b/c of unauthorized guiding and cottage owner's complaints about noise, impact etc. Land is a completely different issue in the UK where there is NO gov't ownership in the way we know as virtually every piece of land was parcelled out to magnates starting c. 900 AD. There is 'right to roam' where land owners are not allowed to deny access to the highlands and the BMC negotiates lots of access issues. At least no one has blown up a crag to stop access. Happened in the 60's in the Peak District. The UK doesn't own, say Lake District National Park, they mandate how the private owners must run their land.

The structure of climbing in that gorge nowhere like that of the study you are quoting

Correct. Land ownership and access are infinitly more complex in the UK due to literally thousands of years of negotiation over rights of way, rights to graze, owership, etc.

For those with the great idea of charging for parking, are you volunteering your efforts to monitor the parking every day? Or is this another great idea for someone else to enact? High-level ideas are great, but don't forget the logistics.

When did money become the issue here - did I miss something in Mr. Stephen's post?

Back to Roadside ... is a sign posted about its closure?

pkananen wrote:

caribe wrote:

Barnacle Ben wrote:For all intents and purposes, parking at Muir (or PMRP) is tantamount to using the land at Muir. You would be hard pressed to argue 'hey, we're not charging you to use the land, just charging you to park on the land.' It's a distinction without a difference, as they like to say, and I don't think a court or an insurer would buy it.

Could someone who has experience with KY Rec. Land Use Law comment with some explanation? I am curious about what KY law says about this. Ben you may be right. In that case the proposal is dead.

What if they were owned by separate legal entities?

Off the top of my head, I'd say agency law (vicarious liability, respondeat superior, etc.) and the whole 'piercing the corporate veil' thing too. A plaintiff's lawyer would probably name the individual owners/shareholders anyway.

I don't think it's about revenue, it's about thinning the numbers. parking fees would provide both.

Again, passive solutions are infinitely better than active ones,though.

Do you think that if people pay a fee that they will feel even more entitled? Fuck bro, I paid my two bits. Rover is coming with and I'm gonna shit where I please. Dude.

climb2core wrote:

Barnacle Ben wrote:

Kentucky Recreational Use Statute wrote:(d) "Charge" means the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land but does not include fees for general use permits issued by a government agency for access to public lands if the permits are valid for a period of not less than thirty (30) days.

emphasis added.

For all intents and purposes, parking at Muir (or PMRP) is tantamount to using the land at Muir. You would be hard pressed to argue 'hey, we're not charging you to use the land, just charging you to park on the land.' It's a distinction without a difference, as they like to say, and I don't think a court or an insurer would buy it.

Not that I am buying into parking fees as the solution... but what if RRGCC bought the parking lot and charged for it? Then walk across the road on to the Preserve property.

Now you might be on to something, at least from a technical perspective. But I still think you might have an agency issue. RRGCC would be acting as agent for GFNP. Honestly though, I don't know the answer to your hypothetical off the top of my head. My initial hunch is that deeding the lot to a separate and distinct legal entity (as opposed to your own shell corporation) is a substantive step in the right direction.

Meadows wrote:When did money become the issue here - did I miss something in Mr. Stephen's post?

I was thinking the same thing. Somehow the solution here has become to throw money at the problem. If someone pays $50 a day to park at roadside but goes in and starts hanging chains the problem hasn't been solved. This has somehow went from a discussion of disrespect for the owners land to planning a fundraiser. Just keep it closed till you're ready to reopen it (I hope).