NID trail trolls ....- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    fabricator
    Reputation: carnitas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    49

    NID trail trolls ....

    Anybody ride snow mountain NID ditch to hwy 20 in Nevada city? What is up with the grower troll closing 50 ft of the ditch? I really dislike folks that live on a utility easement and close it to through traffic..... But the solutions are difficult
    - mandate all utilities to include public easement and watch your bills go up
    - civil disobedience through trespass
    - purchase from the landowner the public access?
    - develop alternate routes...... Hard with the land status

    Unfortunately I am not one to add more work to recreate when the battle looks long and drawn out...I will find alternates...
    Lost, confused, in debt.. shoes, shorts, helmet, bike, pedaling, directed, stoked. Up thehill now in GV
    ourjam

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,515
    I've spoken with some of the BONC directors about this. It is NOT an easy situation to resolve, as you've said. To their credit, BONC leadership is *very much focused on a solution*, whatever it may end up being. They are working with multiple entities, such as the Bear Yuba Land Trust, to work this out.

    The solution will take some time. Legal challenges take years and big $$$, even if that route is viable/desirable. Other options are definitely being pursued as well.

    One thing I am certain of: confronting the landowner is definitely not productive in this case. Heels get further dug in and a belligerent stance increases. If you're angry about this, please be patient. Believe me, I live a mile from this trail and it impacts me *every week*; I'm as frustrated as anyone. Certain people have confronted him and it has made things much, much worse.

    Support your local IMBA chapter! It's the best thing you can do for better local riding:

    Join or Donate - Bicyclists of Nevada County

  3. #3
    bike whore
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    137
    You link the BONC site on your signature. Attempts are being made by BONC and the Land trust to resolve this. So far, not so good. Don't forget, all of Miners is on private property and could go away just as easily. To many growers, blue hairs and tweekers in the area. No vision of the possibilities that a first rate trail system would bring to a community. That being said,to many people don't respect private property rights. It is his property and his decision however we feel about it.
    The rules for access are often very simple. The inability of the public to follow them is mind boggling.

  4. #4
    fabricator
    Reputation: carnitas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    49
    True Romad private property is private...I turned around when confronted with signage... I was just venting my frustrations and the issues with land status.

    As you mention the pressures of rapid growth, less than desirable occupationally challenged folks and "blue hairs" does pose a rift for the development of well planned trail loops that bring the community together while providing destinations for visitors.

    The other problem is that many of the trails that came from utility easements or historic routes are woefully under sized, erosive and generally not sustainable.
    So in the end it may not be worth hanging on to the olden routes of long time ago.
    Thanks for the dialog.
    Lost, confused, in debt.. shoes, shorts, helmet, bike, pedaling, directed, stoked. Up thehill now in GV
    ourjam

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126
    I'm out of the area, so let me ask something maybe you locals already know:
    Does the property owner have the right to post the signs, as in, are they legally enforceable?

    The original poster calls the person a grower troll. As in "medical marijuana"? Some of the folks in that biz are up and up, but some of them think its a free pass to ignore other laws. If I was NID, I'd be checking to make sure he isn't sucking water that isn't his out of the ditch. There might also be code enforcement issues on the property...

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Shonbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    98
    Like memine, I also live about a mile from this barrier and it cuts off a major artery for folks looking to access many of the local trails from town.

    Here's a photo of the sign in all of its grammatically incorrect glory.
    NID trail trolls ....-image.jpg

    Here's a shot of the "fence".
    NID trail trolls ....-image.jpg

    Word around the campfire is that the owner is working with BYLT to sell that portion of the property. Hopefully someone with more details can jump in here and confirm whether that's true.

    At the risk of sounding like a gossip queen, I also heard this was a legal grow but, while responding to the owner's complaints about trespassers, the sheriffs discovered that the grow was too close to a school bus stop, and the plants were confiscated. I can only imagine how volatile the owner is at this point and recommend folks steer clear for now.

    -Shon

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: squareback's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,528
    Legal grow means non profit....

    But I bet there's a brand new 2015 Dodge Cummins Supercrew on the property somewhere.

    And a new Gator side-x-side, and a new deck, and a marble countertop with a Wolf range.

    And a Ski Natique wakeboard boat

    etc etc

  8. #8
    AKD
    AKD is offline
    Getting hillier every day
    Reputation: AKD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by HarryCallahan View Post
    I'm out of the area, so let me ask something maybe you locals already know:
    Does the property owner have the right to post the signs, as in, are they legally enforceable?
    Not a local, and not knowledgeable about the facts beyond what's been said here, but generally speaking, a private property owner does have the right to exclude the public from their lands, sign or no sign. This is true even if the landowner has granted an easement to a utility to enter upon the land to site utility equipment or access utility equipment.

    Things get a little complicated when (as appears to be the case here) the public has used private land openly, continuously, and for a sufficient period of years (if memory serves, it's five years in California). It's been a couple of years since real property law, but uncontested public use can lead to the creation of a prescriptive easement, which would allow the public to continue using the path.

    To answer the original question, the landowner can call the police to prevent the public from trespassing. If the landowner can establish ownership, the police may cite and/or arrest the trespasser. The issue of a prescriptive easement would be a defense in court, but probably not effective on the police officer (and also probably not a good idea to have as your only defense in an interaction with a cranky pot-growing landowner).

  9. #9
    Old,slow,still havin fun.
    Reputation: fgiraffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,055
    "you're".

  10. #10
    Sweater
    Reputation: Buzzaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,945
    Quote Originally Posted by fgiraffe View Post
    "you're".
    Between you're, they're, and too I've had to force myself to get past it.
    All out of S**** and down to my last F***

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Shonbo View Post
    Like memine, I also live about a mile from this barrier and it cuts off a major artery for folks looking to access many of the local trails from town.

    Here's a photo of the sign in all of its grammatically incorrect glory.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	120 
Size:	174.3 KB 
ID:	931476

    Here's a shot of the "fence".
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	126 
Size:	294.1 KB 
ID:	931478

    Word around the campfire is that the owner is working with BYLT to sell that portion of the property. Hopefully someone with more details can jump in here and confirm whether that's true.

    At the risk of sounding like a gossip queen, I also heard this was a legal grow but, while responding to the owner's complaints about trespassers, the sheriffs discovered that the grow was too close to a school bus stop, and the plants were confiscated. I can only imagine how volatile the owner is at this point and recommend folks steer clear for now.

    -Shon
    Shon,

    Thanks for all that info, including the photo. I agree with the assessment that folks stay clear for now. I was more wondering about the legality of the guy blocking the path. From the photo, I see he has excluded the utility company employees as well, so suspect he may be hearing from them...

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,515
    To me, it's interesting that this puts up all these hillbilly signs, barbed wire, tape etc., but has not actually erected the gate yet. The iron posts have been siting there a while now.

    This might actually be a positive indication: he's leaving his options open by not yet dropping $ for the gate.

  13. #13
    Clever Title
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    529
    The state high court held that to prove adverse possession, a litigant need only "provide evidence that persons have used the land as they would have used public land" without interference for at least five years. For the landowner to prevent future public use, "he must either affirmatively prove that he has granted the public a license to use his property or demonstrate that he has made a bona fide attempt to prevent public use."

    Interestingly enough, this is from a case involving NID and and a canal road and public access. The public group won.

    Prescriptive Rights: Recreational Trail Users Win Right to Access Dirt Road | California Planning & Development Report

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,515
    Quote Originally Posted by BStrummin View Post
    restingly enough, this is from a case involving NID and and a canal road and public access. The public group won.
    Indeed they did, but it took many years and big $$ from what I understand.

Similar Threads

  1. Increasing amount of trolls in the WL?
    By Stripes in forum Women's Lounge
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-20-2014, 01:57 PM
  2. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 11-09-2011, 10:03 PM
  3. How to deal with trolls. *Complete Guide*
    By RideMe in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 07-26-2011, 07:45 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-27-2011, 01:23 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.