Remix.run Logo
▲ snide 2 hours ago

First, this is cool! Well done.

I live next to a State Park. It sounded really cool when I bought the house. No neighbors! Privacy! There is a trail accessible from my properly that goes into some woods, which you only want to be in during the Fall / Spring because the ticks and chiggers are intense.

The biggest issue with sharing a border with the state is the fence line. Technically it's on them to maintain. The woods are filled with mostly 200 foot trees. They exist right up to my property and fall every year during big storms. There goes the fence line. I have dogs so the fence is important. Otherwise they run out into the woods that have licensed bow-hunting during the Winter.

In practice its impossible to get the fence fixed. You are working through layers of bureaucracy and mismanagement. There is no vested interest from a parks service to work well with hundreds of neighbors individually. I'd build fence lines myself, and could easily pay for it, but it's the upkeep of those fences that would be difficult because so many trees (really, it's every year) fall down from their side.

My main point is that sharing a properly line with the government is more like sharing a properly line with nobody. You may as well own that land. Don't expect any upkeep and go in with eyes open.

▲weitendorf an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Hey, I mean this in as kind a way as possible, but I actually don’t think the government should pay for the fence line!

If you wouldn’t even pay for it yourself, as pretty much the sole beneficiary and someone who could afford it but would rather the money go elsewhere, why would it make sense for other taxpayers to pay for it?

Isn’t the premise of “you may as well own that land” the entire appeal of living next to public land anyway?

▲jerf an hour ago | parent | next [-]

My family used to live next to state land. The state can be very pissy about its land. If the fence line is on the state land, which it almost certainly is barring a surveying error when it was put up, it is entirely possible that if he fixed it, he would actually get in trouble with the state. Hopefully not actual legal trouble... but only hopefully, certainly not a "oh they would never bother". Oh they most certainly do sometimes decide to bother about the most random things.

My default presumption, without checking with them directly, is not only that it would not be allowed, but that this is also very much not a "better to ask forgiveness than permission" situation either. Even just asking the question can draw attention from them you may not want.

The ready accessibility of the land is advantageous in some ways, but as neighbors the state can be quite nasty. Your other neighbors don't tend to have anywhere near the regulatory firepower to make sure you comply with what they want.

▲estearum 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I think they’re suggesting building their own fence on their own property and eating the cost (as the sole beneficiary) of maintaining it through tree falls.

▲_heimdall 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I'd also assume the fence is on state land if its theirs to maintain. That doesn't stop someone from putting up their own fence on their side of the property line though.

▲jerf 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

You couldn't integrate it into theirs, so you'd be looking at having to fence in the entire space you want the dogs in because the gap you'd leave would have to be big enough for a dog.

Which is hardly the end of the world, but it can definitely grind the gears to be spending thousands when you could fix the problem for several hundreds, if not perhaps several tens, of dollars if they wouldn't be assholes about it. But I would absolutely advise anyone in that situation to spend the thousands and not bank on the state not being assholes about it.

I can also add that you can't even be sure that if you got away with it for years that you will continue to get away with it. The particular issue that my father got into a bit of hassle with the state about is that he accidentally put a pole barn across the state line. Didn't mean to, but he misread the survey markers. Fortunately, they let him remediate it at his expense without pursuing the matter any further legally... but it means they did, after several years of it being there, come through a with a survey team and verify that nobody on the border was crossing into their land, and anything they found they made the residents fix no matter how many years the deviation had been there. All the laws about such thing between two citizens mean nothing to the state.

▲troupo 12 minutes ago | parent [-]

> You couldn't integrate it into theirs, so you'd be looking at having to fence in the entire space

Oh no. Tbe preposterous idea of putting a fence around your own property.

▲IanCal an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Hey, I mean this in as kind a way as possible, but I actually don’t think the government should pay for the fence line!

Which is a fine option, but it should be something agreed to by both parties. You can't just hand over a cost like that, and if you buy property with some kind of agreement this choice is baked into the original price. It makes perfect sense for the government to uphold agreements it has made.

Secondly - if they did own the fence line, it'd be on the government to come and fix it when one of their trees breaks it, surely?

▲estearum 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

Did the government agree to maintain a fence…?

▲empyrrhicist 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Isn’t the premise of “you may as well own that land” the entire appeal of living next to public land anyway?

If you start actively managing it (removing invasive species, dead trees etc.) the state can take a more active interest at any time and sue/fine you into oblivion.

▲slingvora an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲bdcravens an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Put up your own fence inside of your property line that you can keep up to your needs and standards.

▲timcobb 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

Sounds like trees would fall onto it every year :/

▲intrasight 29 minutes ago | parent [-]

So move your fence 50 feet away from the property line. Obviously, this means you need to find a big property if it's adjacent to state land with large trees.

▲ram1500natrluvr 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you have room to put up a fence away from the treeline?

▲hasbot 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's a good point. What about wetlands? My property has a terrible mosquito problem and I just found out there is a pond/swamp hidden in the brush. Since it's my property, I'll take steps to reduce the mosquito problem next year but if it was public land, that'd probably wouldn't be acceptable.

▲jaggederest an hour ago | parent | next [-]

If you throw some mosquito dunks with BT into any given water body small enough it doesn't have a name, nobody is going to come after you. I think it's probably a pretty prosocial thing to do, unless I'm missing something

▲verelo an hour ago | parent [-]

My internal dialog can imagine my biologist wife yelling at you already.

Honestly i do not know the full scope of this one, but if there's one thing I've learnt from observing her work over the last decade...it's humans need to stop adding chemicals to water bodies with the goal of thinking they're helping something.

▲jephs an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Note it's not a chemical agent; its bacterial spores that infect and kill mosquito larvae! I'm pretty sure they're not harmful to anything that isn't a mosquito, blackfly, gnat, or midge. Though midges are important to pond ecosystems as a source of food for fish and dragonflies and stuff? Idunno, ask this guy's wife.

▲verelo an hour ago | parent [-]

I will ask her and report back...

I can imagine her having some long explanation about the unknown risks of man spreading this substance, even if its not a chemical agent. I lean on the edge of listening to Grandpa Simpson on these kind of things: https://i.imgur.com/MdjduDH.png

▲ses1984 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Mosquito dunk is some kind of microbial culture that’s supposed to be safe.

▲verelo an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The path to hell is paved with good intentions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toads_in_Australia

It might well be safe, but the question is what are the downstream affects of reducing the population of mosquitos (or other bugs in the water that this substance impacts). Maybe they've exclusively positive, but I assure you determining that is no walk in the park.

▲smaudet an hour ago | parent [-]

I can see the headline now:

"Mosquito dunks linked to declining bear population - farmers struggling with deer populations"

▲verelo 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

ha yeah, that's exactly where my brain goes too.

▲james_marks an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The mosquitoes don't exist in isolation though. Isn't this exactly how food chains / ecosystems work? You can't remove a tier without consequences.

▲amanaplanacanal 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

It depends. In North America our worst mosquitos (the disease carrying ones) aren't native, they are from the old world. I think everybody would be fine if they were no more.

▲otherwatersflow 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲bell-cot 32 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I live next to a State Park.

In what state? Last I knew, the State Parks in most US states were miserably underfunded - so quick fixes (for pretty much anything, not just fences) just ain't gonna happen.

And what's the legal status of the fallen trees? In a fair number of places a 200' tree, already down, might be kinda valuable.

▲ an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲otherwatersflow 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]