There is an old home where the old sidewalks have been buckled for years. The city has no problem with me hunting the sidewalk area, I just don't want any problems with the home owner. Stopped by today and talked with the home owner, very nice gentleman. Introduced myself and told him what I did for a hobby and what I wanted to do, he said, no problem and that he was glad I had asked him. He also said the sidewalks have never been checked as far as he knows and that they have been there since 1929. I'll be going back within a couple of weeks, I'll post if I find anything. His property covers almost 1/2 block, that's alot of sidewalk area. HH
Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
Old Sidewalks
- Thread starter John(Tx)
- Start date
If I understand Micro correctly, I concur with him. I assume you're talking about the publicly owned sidewalk strip (grass between the sidewalk and the street). If so, what would you have done if the homeowner had said "no"? It's not his to say "no" to, yet by asking such a person, it seems to imply that they have the say-so. And certainly you're not going to get a "no" and then argue with the person telling him it's city-owned, right? (lest why ask to begin with?). If I really had my eye on a strip that looked good, I'd be afraid to ask the nearest owner, lest I get a "no", when in fact, no one would probably really have cared or noticed. So I usually just consider them fair game.
I was a Professional Land Surveyor for 30 years.
If the strip is in a Right of Way, then it does not belong to the city.
By deffinition, R/W means the use of the land owner's property.
I don't understand why even judges and laryers seem confused
about this.
The city has the R/W and is dominate over that part of the land
owner's property.
[size=large]Notice I said land owner's property.[/size]
That's because that's the only way you can say it, because it
belongs to the land owner.
The land owner pays taxes on it in most states also.
But it is not polite to piss off the land owners and turn them
against our hobby.
Some people think they can act any the want.
But sometimes that may give us all a black eye.
Happy Hunting,
Tabdog
If the strip is in a Right of Way, then it does not belong to the city.
By deffinition, R/W means the use of the land owner's property.
I don't understand why even judges and laryers seem confused
about this.
The city has the R/W and is dominate over that part of the land
owner's property.
[size=large]Notice I said land owner's property.[/size]
That's because that's the only way you can say it, because it
belongs to the land owner.
The land owner pays taxes on it in most states also.
But it is not polite to piss off the land owners and turn them
against our hobby.
Some people think they can act any the want.
But sometimes that may give us all a black eye.
Happy Hunting,
Tabdog
Hay Mirco,
You said:
My only problem is that I did not understand what you
wanted to say.
I just said that if the property is in a Right of Way,
then the dominant party, (the city in this case) does
not own the property.
People start off with the wrong premise if they contend
that a land owner does not own the land that has a
R/W on it.
No biggie. But wrong is wrong legally speaking.
Now, do we want to be legal? I would hope so.
So what's wrong with recognising what's legal?
And you added:
Side walk belongs to home owner? Or it does not
belong to home owner.?
The sidewalk does not belong to the land owner
unless it is on his portion of the land that does not
have a Right of Way on it.
In most states it is not legal for the land owner to
build on a Right of Way that is on his property.
Anything in the R/W is for the use of the public.
It belongs to all of us. But not the land.
As far as not making people mad.
That pertains to anything we may do without
concern for others.
Happy Hunting,
Tabdog
You said:
My only problem is that I did not understand what you
wanted to say.
I just said that if the property is in a Right of Way,
then the dominant party, (the city in this case) does
not own the property.
People start off with the wrong premise if they contend
that a land owner does not own the land that has a
R/W on it.
No biggie. But wrong is wrong legally speaking.
Now, do we want to be legal? I would hope so.
So what's wrong with recognising what's legal?
And you added:
Side walk belongs to home owner? Or it does not
belong to home owner.?
The sidewalk does not belong to the land owner
unless it is on his portion of the land that does not
have a Right of Way on it.
In most states it is not legal for the land owner to
build on a Right of Way that is on his property.
Anything in the R/W is for the use of the public.
It belongs to all of us. But not the land.
As far as not making people mad.
That pertains to anything we may do without
concern for others.
Happy Hunting,
Tabdog
tabdog, when you say metal detecting might: " .... @#$%& off the land owners ...." only implies that metal detecting does, by necessity " ..... @#$%& off the land owners ...." Since when is that an automatic assumption? Seems to me that this mindset (that we're somehow inherently evil) only becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. I've hunted parking strips in the past, and don't see these throngs of people peaking through their blinds. And even if an occasional person got irked, since when does a person who doesn't like you, dictate your life? Let me give you an example: A friend of mine set his metal detector down at the beach as he prepared to talk to me. A man walking his pitbull dog was walking by at that exact moment, and the dog walked over to my friend's detector to sniff it. My friend was afraid the dog was going to pee on his detector, so he shooed it away by stomping his foot at the approaching dog. The dog-owner took offence at that, and told my friend he was stupid for stomping and shouting at a pitbull (as if to provoke a confrontation). The dog-walker went on to rail how we should be out there digging holes and leaving expensive equipment lying around or whatever. Now if I was to employ the "never take the risk someone may get mad" approach, is that to say that I should hang up metal detecting beaches forever more? Afterall, someone may get mad?
to the city, why would I want to search a sidewalk if the property owner would get mad, I'd rather ask so not to get into a confrontation. Someone says the wrong thing to me and the fight will start, is it worth it? No, I don't think so. Anyway, the gentelman was just that, a real gentleman, I'm satisfied. If this type of post is going to cause problems I'll just keep what I find to myself and just stop posting. BTW, I've lived in this town for 32+ years, know alot of people, just didn't happen to know this one gentleman personally, he is very well known here as well as the county. HH John
I never said:
tabdog, when you say metal detecting might: " .... @#$%& off the land owners ...."
That's what you said.
I said:
But it is not polite to @#$%& off the land owners and turn them
against our hobby.
It's not metal detecting that makes people mad.
It's a disreguard for other people.
A guy spends his hard earned money and time
to make his yard look nice. That includes the part
of his property that is in the R/W.
Then he sees some jerk digging holes in his work.
I guess some people think we should hate him and
destroy the strip because we don't give a hoot what
he thinks.
That will not represent our hobby well.
If that's what you want, then I can see why people
don't like metaldetectorist and you.
I, on the other hand have never been at ods with
anyone, ever while detecting.
It's all in how you conduct your self.
Shouldn't matter whether you are metal detecting
or not.
Some people just have trouble with people.
I think it is because they are afrade.
Fear breads anger and dis-trust.
If you want to impress me, tell me how a fella
gets along with people, not someone at odds
with someone.
Because we are only hearing one side of the
story, I tend tro give some credence to the
other guy.
And it's all because people think:
"I don't give a darn what that jerk thinks.
I'll show him".
That is damageing to our hobby.
Happy Hunting,
Tabdog
tabdog, when you say metal detecting might: " .... @#$%& off the land owners ...."
That's what you said.
I said:
But it is not polite to @#$%& off the land owners and turn them
against our hobby.
It's not metal detecting that makes people mad.
It's a disreguard for other people.
A guy spends his hard earned money and time
to make his yard look nice. That includes the part
of his property that is in the R/W.
Then he sees some jerk digging holes in his work.
I guess some people think we should hate him and
destroy the strip because we don't give a hoot what
he thinks.
That will not represent our hobby well.
If that's what you want, then I can see why people
don't like metaldetectorist and you.
I, on the other hand have never been at ods with
anyone, ever while detecting.
It's all in how you conduct your self.
Shouldn't matter whether you are metal detecting
or not.
Some people just have trouble with people.
I think it is because they are afrade.
Fear breads anger and dis-trust.
If you want to impress me, tell me how a fella
gets along with people, not someone at odds
with someone.
Because we are only hearing one side of the
story, I tend tro give some credence to the
other guy.
And it's all because people think:
"I don't give a darn what that jerk thinks.
I'll show him".
That is damageing to our hobby.
Happy Hunting,
Tabdog
Hay John,
I think you did the right thing and I comend you.
Thank's for representing our hobby in a courtious
way.
I would rather you keep posting.
Some people would have us be abrasive to people.
They will always be there.
I would rather they not post.
Don't change. That's what they want.
They want you on the same level as
them.
Thanks for your input.
Tabdog
I think you did the right thing and I comend you.
Thank's for representing our hobby in a courtious
way.
I would rather you keep posting.
Some people would have us be abrasive to people.
They will always be there.
I would rather they not post.
Don't change. That's what they want.
They want you on the same level as
them.
Thanks for your input.
Tabdog
I appreciate the support. I know I didn't need the homeowner's permission, but our hobby is a great one and I would hate to ruin it if some homeowner calls the cops and things get out of hand. I'll let you guys know if I find anything good, hopefully some silver coins. The old school across from his home yielded some silver coins when the old sidewalk there was removed including a 1919 merc that had been made into a ring, I still have all the coins I found there, This was back in '77. HH John
that's the point!..as you have stated!..thay ARE owned by the city,and to reiterate, asking permission is NOT required,unless there is an ordinance staing that the side walk cannot be hunted with a metal detector!..never heard of one,and dont believe one exists!..the homeowner does NOT own the side walk strip,or "easement,and cannot deny you permission to hunt it legally!..go for it,and don't be concerned!
(h.h!)
j.t.
(h.h!)
j.t.
here in the northeast the side walk "easements" are owned by the city,and yes if a property "abutter" is keeping it nice then a hobbyist should do the 'right" thing and move on to the adjacent part of that strip to continue metal detecting,but to imply that the strip in FRONT of the house is a r/w to the property owner is blatently INCORRECT! at least here in the northeast part of the country!..it is difficult to believe that it would be any different in the southern part of the country!..the homeowner does NOT own the easement!..the town,or city DOES!
in addendum!..to clarify!..the "easement or "strip in front of the property owners' house is not considered a "right of way" either!... here in the northeast!..the actual 'right of way!.is considered the "walkway".leading from the street to the front door of the property owner's house!..the easement,or strip in front of the property owner's house is exclusively town,or city owned,and NOT deeded as a legal "right of way",OR a piece of property owned by the abutter!
(h.h!)
j.t.
(h.h!)
j.t.
Hay Jaymart,
Easements are a little different under the law than Right of Ways.
And yes the North East is different in land law than the rest of the
country because it was surveyed at an earlier time. There are other
reasons that effect the differences in land law also.
All states have variations on land law that has been established
in courts over the years.
In Arkansas as well as most States in this part of the country,
most streets for public use are Right of Ways.
If you think a Right of Way belongs to the dominant party,
(just use the city in this case), then you should pick up a Black's
Law Dictionary.
And if you can not afford the hundreds of dollars to buy one, maybe
you should take the word of a professional land surveyor with over
30 years experience.
By legal definition, in any part of this country:
A Right of Way is the
[size=x-large]Use of someone elses property by another party.[/size]
The other party may be the city, county, State or federal government
or other parties.
But they do not own the land. The land owner does.
Sorry but you can not win.
That is just how it is and until the commies take over it probably will
not change.
Happy Hunting,
Tabdog
Easements are a little different under the law than Right of Ways.
And yes the North East is different in land law than the rest of the
country because it was surveyed at an earlier time. There are other
reasons that effect the differences in land law also.
All states have variations on land law that has been established
in courts over the years.
In Arkansas as well as most States in this part of the country,
most streets for public use are Right of Ways.
If you think a Right of Way belongs to the dominant party,
(just use the city in this case), then you should pick up a Black's
Law Dictionary.
And if you can not afford the hundreds of dollars to buy one, maybe
you should take the word of a professional land surveyor with over
30 years experience.
By legal definition, in any part of this country:
A Right of Way is the
[size=x-large]Use of someone elses property by another party.[/size]
The other party may be the city, county, State or federal government
or other parties.
But they do not own the land. The land owner does.
Sorry but you can not win.
That is just how it is and until the commies take over it probably will
not change.
Happy Hunting,
Tabdog