Detecting sidewalk strips

[marcomo]

Being smart trumps being right. Every time.

Sidewalk strips are an excellent place to detect. Lots of $ per square foot. I don't do them as often any more since I've gotten permission from a lot of homeowners to detect in the yards of their old houses and I find more old coins in yards.

In most cities sidewalk strips are considered city property. Assuming the city doesn't have a law against metal detecting, we can legally detect there.

But being smart means realizing that regardless of legality, most homeowners consider that strip of ground their property. They maintain it, and it's in front of their property.

Of course I don't ask every property owner for permission to detect the sidewalk strip in front of their house. But if I see someone in their yard watching me or potentially watching me I go up to them and introduce myself and briefly explain what I'm doing on what is actually city property. I also say if they would prefer for me not to do so in front of their house I won't. Since my detecting time is usually the first 2 or 3 daylight hours on the weekends, I don't run into that many people. I'd estimate I've run into a couple dozen or so. Of those only two have told me no. One of those was nice about it and the other seemed kind of disturbed by what I was doing and she had an attitude. In both cases I smiled, said have a nice day and moved on. I've also gotten permission to detect yards from the people I go up and talk to. Most people, once they know you are not up to no good and friendly will be friendly in return.

I could have argued with these people and told them I had a legal right to be there. Or I could have ignored them and just kept on detecting. I would have been "right" but definitely not smart.

I try to always be smart when detecting and most importantly, I always have fun!

 

[jabbo]

Excellent advice, being smart and curtious. I'm a home owner and I would rather not have a detectorist digging in my strip.

 

[tabdog]

This is Arkie Land,

I own out to the center of the road.

Dig a hole out there and say hello to a shot gun.

Happy Hunting,

Tabdog

 

[tabdog]

I'm afraid that we screwed up John's post.

I was trying to enlighten people about R/W's. No one wants to look at the obvious.
They just want to argue their opinions. I don't argue with the law.

Here are some definitions. May be they can read these and understand.

If not they will just blow off as before.

None of the definitions agree with the notion that the city owns the land
in a R/W or most easements.

So, does that mean the experts are wrong?

According to some yahoos they are.

I doubt that anyone will read the definitions.

But maybe fat, dumb and happy (or not) is the way to go.

Law. A right, such as a right of way, afforded a person to make limited use of another's
real property.

Limited right to use another's land for a special purpose. Such use must not be inconsistent
with any other uses already being made of the land. An easement is a privilege connected
with the land and is therefore not a possessory interest or fee.

The right, privilege, or interest that one party has in the land of another.
Example: The right of public utility companies to lay their lines across others' property is a
utility easement.

In Anglo-American property law, an interest in land owned by another that entitles its holder
to a specific limited use or enjoyment, such as the right to cross the land or have a view over
it continue unobstructed. It may be created expressly by a written deed of grant conveying the
specific usage right, or it may be created by implication, as when an owner divides property
into two parcels in such a way that an already existing, obvious, and continuous use of one
parcel (e.g., for access) is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the other. Some U.S.
states permit the creation of an easement by prescription (acquisition of an interest), as when
one person makes continuous use of another's land for some specified period of time (e.g., 20 years).
Utility companies often own easements in gross; these are not dependent on ownership of the
surrounding estate. Numerous other kinds of easements have been important in Anglo-American law.
See also real and personal property.

A right of accommodation (for a specific purpose) in land owned by another, such as right-of-way
or free access to light and air.

We have yet to examine the legal definition. But it is a little hard for the lawman to understand.

If you don't believe this,

Googel it your self.

Boy, do myths die hard.

Happy Hunting,

Tabdog

 

[tabdog]

Columbia Encyclopedia: easement,
in law, the [size=medium]right to use the land of another for a specified purpose,[/size] as distinguished from the right to possess that land. If the easement benefits the holder personally and is not associated with any land he owns, it is an easement in gross (e.g., a public utility's right to run power lines through another's property). At common law an easement in gross could not be transferred, but today it may be transferable. If the easement is held incident to ownership of some land, it is an easement appurtenant (e.g., the right to run a ditch through a neighbor's yard to drain your land). The land subject to the easement appurtenant is the servient estate, the land benefited the dominant estate. If certain conditions are met, the easement passes with the land to the new owner after the sale of either estate. An easement may be created by express agreement of the parties, in which case it must usually be in writing (see Frauds, Statute of), or it may be implied by a court from the actions of the parties in certain circumstances.

Law Encyclopedia: Easement
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

[size=medium]A right of use over the property of another[/size]. Traditionally the permitted kinds of uses were limited, the most important being rights of way and rights concerning flowing waters. The easement was normally for the benefit of adjoining lands, no matter who the owner was (an easement appurtenant), rather than for the benefit of a specific individual (easement in gross).
Easements frequently arise among owners of adjoining parcels of land. Common examples of easements include the right of a property owner who has no street front to use a particular segment of a neighbor's land to gain access to the road, as well as the right of a municipal corporation to run a sewer line across a strip of an owner's land, which is frequently called a right of way.
Easements can be conveyed from one individual to another by will, deed, or contract, which must comply with the Statute of Frauds and can be inherited pursuant to the laws of descent and distribution.
An easement is a nonpossessory interest in another's land that entitles the holder only to the right to use such land in the specified manner. It is distinguishable from a profit a prendre that is the right to enter another's land and remove the soil itself or a product thereof, such as crops or timber.
An easement appurtenant attaches to the land permanently and benefits its owner. In order for it to exist, there must be two pieces of land owned by different individuals. One piece, the dominant estate or tenement, is the land that is benefited by the easement. The other piece, known as the servient estate or tenement, is the land that has the burden of the easement. An easement appurtenant is a covenant running with the land since it is incapable of a separate and independent existence from the land to which it is annexed. A common example would be where one landowner

 

[tabdog]

n/t

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Marcomo, you say "Being smart trumps being right". Can't a person be "right" and be "smart" at the same time? Because when you say "smart", the readers here know the inference you are meaning to imply: That somehow detecting will necessarily p*ss off someone, therefore "be smart and ask". But I don't see it that way. I don't envision anyone getting upset, nor do I envision people continually peaking out their blinds, just waiting to get upset at someone metal detecting. Where are all these people who are just waiting to faint in horror at the sight of a detector? So the way I see it, I'm both smart (not precluding myself from detecting areas) and being right at the same time. They can both be true at the same time, if you stop thinking of detecting as somehow evil.

The "being smart" part would be to move on if someone gripes (ie.: don't argue), but no, I can not see knocking on door-to-door. Just pick a low traffic time, and use common sense. Now I'm speaking from the mindset of CA, of course (where I live). Here, the parking strips are very narrow (4 ft. wide?), so you can cover them with the swath of a swing. A person here would probably not get anyone to answer the door, and if you did, you'd probably get a "no", from people who think you're a salesman, or who just don't want to be bothered. But truth be told, they'd probably have never even noticed or cared.

I've heard that in some states, the parking strips are very wide. In fact, the parking strip can be bigger than the lawn of the house itself! For such large square footage, where conceivably a person would hunt for a long period of time (thus sticking out like a sore thumb, changing the psychology), I might have a different stance. So this could be a regional thing.

 

[marcomo]

Hey Tabdog, I don't think I'd worry about meeting Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson on your property. I know about that Speedy couple. I'm sure there wouldn't be so much as a piece of foil anywhere near you!

Seriously though, I wouldn't argue with you about ownership of a right of way or easement.

But in many towns the specific wording is that the city owns the property up to and including the sidewalk. That would make the sidewalk strip city property, not an easement or right of way.

But using common sense is important here.

If someone calls a cop because they see you digging in front of their house, how do you think the officer is going to react? You can bet he (or she) is going to see you as being the problem, regardless of legality. That cop doesn't want to be bothered with stuff like this and he's going to think that if he lets you keep doing this other people are going to be complaining too.

Let's take it a step further. Suppose the complaining property owner contacts a city councilman, or the mayor. Or maybe he is the mayor. Next thing you know you've got a movement going to ban these guys who are "digging holes out in front of our yards". Sound far fetched? Maybe. But that's how ordinances are created, from complaints made by citizens.

I'm not arguing against searching sidewalk strips, I'm just saying it's a good idea to use common sense rather than arguing about legality with someone who may not appreciate you being there.

Unfortunately all it take is a few bad eggs doing things like detecting in cemeteries, historic sites, or on private property without permission or leaving craters where they dig that can give the general public a bad perception of our hobby.

And a bad perception of the hobby leads to bad things happening to the hobby.

If worrying about people confronting you while detecting sidewalk strips bothers you, find another place to detect. There's lot of em.

After all it's a hobby, so have fun!

 

[tabdog]

I don't understand.

Has someone called metal detecting evil?

[size=medium]the readers here know the inference you are meaning
to imply: That somehow detecting will necessarily p*ss
off someone,[/size]

Now that is putting words in the mouths all the people on

the forum.

I don't believe that Marcomo was implying that MD'ers

are evil as you seem to be henting. Nor do the readers

think MD'ers are evil.

I for one don't subscribe to your notion about people in

our hobby being evil.

No one ever bothers me, or seems to think I am doing

anything wrong.

Have you been in the situation that people think you are

doing something wrong?

If so, then we have to give them credence sense they are

not here.

In other words, you may be right.....


I think old Marcomo was just supporting the thought:

"respect other's concerns".

Is some thing wrong with that?

Not in my book.

Happy Hunting,

Tabdog

 

[tabdog]

I agree with you.

If the truth be known so does everyone els.

We should all respect the concerns of others.

If we neglect that, there may be problems.

But the statement:

[size=medium]The city owns the land in a Street Right of

Way.[/size]

Is not accurate.

Happy Hunting,

Tabdog

 

[marcomo]

Hey Tom, I think you thought that something in my post was implied when it wasn't.

If you re-read my original post, I think you'll see where I said: "Of course I don't ask every property owner for permission to detect the sidewalk strip in front of their house".

I wasn't at all implying that detecting would be considered evil by some people and therefore you should always ask. Going to each door to ask to detect sidewalk strips would be ridiculous, assuming the sidewalk strips in the area are city property.

All I was saying is that the average Joe considers that property his even if legally it's not. My other point was if you see somebody watching you it's better not to just ignore them. They're obviously curious, let them know what you are doing and make sure they are OK with it in front of their house. As I said before, I've seen about two dozen people watching me or out in their yards or going to their cars when I was detecting sidewalk strips and only a couple of them had a problem with it. And I've had several other people give me permission to search their entire property by going up and talking to them.

In fact I think we pretty much see this the same way: move on if someone gripes, pick a low traffic time and use common sense.

 

[jmaryt]

absolutely correct!..city owns 'em no right of way established so dont worry just have at 'em and have fun!..someone gives ya some sh**t!..do the adjacent next one!
what's not to like?..have fun!..don't worry!...be happy!

(h.h!)
j.t.