My girlfriend and I thought about a day trip somewhere on Saturday. Guess we found the spot!

Public easements for footpaths are common in MA, and there's no criteria that it needs to be for critical infrastructure. So I still don't think the government (taxpayers) should start buying up these properties. I'm also not convinced it would save tax dollars to move this money from legal fees to property purchases.

I've explained elsewhere

You have a fair point, but one that I was not really planning on discussing. My only point I wanted to make was that the easement shouldn't have existed in the first place, and there's no time like the present to rectify it

Thanks , Did your bunion went away permanently after the surgery? How long was recovery

Thank you!

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the globe so I can't read the article.

Certainly a spicy opinion lol, but I can understand your perspective. I think it should be dependent on other factors. Like, if your whole lot is less than a quarter acre, for example, I see no problem why you can't have your land extend to the waterfront to give you a bit more space.

But it was already there before she bought it, if she had a problem with it than she shouldn’t have bought it. It’s really that simple. It doesn’t matter if it should have been there in the first place because it was there when she agreed to the price.

Huh? Lol. She bought a property that had a deed restriction. Why is the government wrong?

It’s crazy, you’re absolutely getting screwed, I hope you’re able to find a resolution!!

I never said there was a rule, I was sharing my opinion.

Honestly nobody should get to own a piece of coastline.

It was simply an explanation as to why I didn’t know what network/news outlet channel 7 is. Without that context the converse answer would have been “what are you stupid? Just turn your tv on”.

I know of no rule that states easements can only be applied to critical infrastructure. While I have never practiced in property law, so I admit my knowledge is limited, the classic example of easements in law school is a footpath. You have every right to disagree with the concept of easements, but the fact is it was written into her deed, she either knew, or should have know about this before she purchased the property. Essentially she went into this with her eyes open and now is trying to change the rules for everyone else.

It's not critical infrastructure, there shouldn't be an easement there. Easements should only be used in places where it's necessary. This is a footpath, it's not necessary. If the state insists a footpath should be there, they should buy that portion of the land via eminent domain.

How is the government wrong here? You only own up to the high water mark plus there is an easement in place. She bought the land for as cheap as she did cause of those things, it would be bullshit to reward her for trying to renege on the agreement she made by buying it. She’s a lawyer, she knew exactly what she was buying, if she didn’t like it she shouldn’t have bought it or she should sell it.

The benefit to the taxpayers is twofold:

One, they can continue to use the land without harassment.

Two, their tax dollars wouldn't be wasted fighting a lawsuit against NIMBY's who, regardless of our opinion on them, should have the right to decide who is and isn't allowed on their land.

I'm arguing that easements should only be allowed for critical infrastructure, not for recreational footpaths.

That’s the most frustrating thing, Im an excellent driver! And I know every single state traffic law better than any course instructor. I am the production manager of major touring band and in the first 5-7 years of the bands major explosion I spent 9 months a year on the road driving a van-towing a trailer and even drove the tour bus on our first dozen tour bus runs. I’ve seen every inch of every major highway on the entire continent(US/Mexico/Canada) several times. I estimate I’ve driven over 1 million miles in the last 18 years and that ticket in 2008 is my only legitimate traffic violation lol. It’s nuts!

The first application is awful ,from now on you only need to report changes ,but if no changes it's just sign and return next year

Wow, if there was ever a stock photo for "evil old wretch with money"

But why should they buy it when they already have easements and established rights of way? Seems like that would amount to the taxpayers giving her a windfall, for no added benefit to the taxpayers.

What an asshole thing to do. I've never been but now I plan to visit, and linger, with my dog and long range camera lens. :)

Right, I'm not saying that she is right, I'm saying that the government is wrong.

I'd argue that the public shouldn't have the right to use private property. I understand easements with regards to managing telecom boxes in cluttered neighborhoods and the like, but this isn't an easement for critical infrastructure, it's an easement for a recreational footpath. The state shouldn't have the right to tell us what we can and can't do with property we own. If the state decides they want the land to be used for a specific purpose, they should buy the land off her to achieve that purpose.