If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Anchorage Daily News)   Don't you hate it when the Coast Guard clear cuts some trees on your property without your permission to maintain a navigational beacon that has been in place since World War II but went out of service in 2009?   (adn.com) divider line 68
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

9014 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jun 2014 at 12:29 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-12 11:14:13 AM
Likely they have the right to maintain it, but the Fifth Amendment would require that they compensate him for the destruction of his land
 
2014-06-12 12:36:01 PM
FTFA:
"I don't think (Thoerner's lot) is going to exist at all in 50 years," Thoerner's attorney Jason Ruedy said.

Resolve the dispute by selling the land to the Coast Guard then.
 
2014-06-12 12:36:18 PM
You completely misunderstand how these things work. Obviously the CG version of Installations branch took eight years to process the work order, that's all. Nothing to see here.

/DNRTFA
 
2014-06-12 12:36:49 PM

cgraves67: Resolve the dispute by selling the land to the Coast Guard then


Why should the ladies get it/
 
2014-06-12 12:37:40 PM
I suspect the most agreeable outcome for all would be to have the CG haul in a bunch of rock to halt the erosion, then they wouldn't have to worry about replacing this one when it washes away in the future and the land owner would not have to worry about his island washing away either, pretty much win-win.  Which pretty much means this option is not going to ever be on the table.
 
2014-06-12 12:38:50 PM
Who names their boat "coast guard" anyway?
 
2014-06-12 12:39:11 PM
Ronald Reagan, "The scariest saying in the English language is "I am from the Federal goverment and I am here to help."  Of course I think Scotchlandia is on the right track, it probably just took them that long to get the paperwork correct.
 
2014-06-12 12:39:39 PM
Give em an inch...
 
2014-06-12 12:41:04 PM
Sounds like the CG needs to bring in the CoE to shore up that land, replace the beacon, and possibly replant those 44 trees they cut down.
 
2014-06-12 12:41:16 PM
If the beacon was already there, I'm pretty sure the Coast Guard is correct in their belief they have the right to access the land and cut trees.
 
M-G
2014-06-12 12:41:50 PM
Nice bit of trolling in the headline.  Makes it sound like the CG put the beacon out of service, and now years later is coming in to cut down trees.  But the beacon is out of service because of erosion, and the CG wants to put in a replacement, but the landowner got all gun-happy on them when they started the work.
 
2014-06-12 12:43:43 PM
anotar:
I suspect the most agreeable outcome for all would be to have the CG haul in a bunch of rock to halt the erosion, then they wouldn't have to worry about replacing this one when it washes away in the future and the land owner would not have to worry about his island washing away either, pretty much win-win. Which pretty much means this option is not going to ever be on the table.

That could lead up to the guy suing the Coast Guard for NOT maintaining the land they had as an easement, and due to that lack of maintenance, the owner's land is now threatened by erosion.
 
2014-06-12 12:43:51 PM
Gaddam naval beacons!

www.modernthrill.com
 
2014-06-12 12:44:05 PM
Alaskans yells at erosion, imagine they can control mother nature.
har har har

anotar: I suspect the most agreeable outcome for all would be to have the CG haul in a bunch of rock to halt the erosion, then they wouldn't have to worry about replacing this one when it washes away in the future and the land owner would not have to worry about his island washing away either, pretty much win-win.  Which pretty much means this option is not going to ever be on the table.


Nope.  Erosion will still come, eventually.  Geez, I'd be hip to purchase the next property downstream and sue them for attempting to decrease the value of investment I made as my land was growing until they stopped the erosion.
/completely serious, really, well about the erosion coming anyway anyway
 
2014-06-12 12:45:27 PM
Went out of service "sometime after 2009" due to the ongoing issues.  This is still a location for an active navigational aid.  I agree with the previous poster that said sell it now before it all washes away naturally.  The previous owner apparently did just that.
 
2014-06-12 12:45:34 PM
Not sure we have the whole story but there is a typical process for these things.  You send notice to the land own informing them of your intentions, we will be trimming trees to protect power lines, navigational beacons, the presidents tee shot.  You then state your authority, power grid protection act of 1213, admiralty law, PGA rule 17.  If the land owner disagrees you go to court.  Sending a work crew with chain saws is the wrong way to start.
 
2014-06-12 12:47:55 PM

advex101: Went out of service "sometime after 2009" due to the ongoing issues.  This is still a location for an active navigational aid.  I agree with the previous poster that said sell it now before it all washes away naturally.  The previous owner apparently did just that.


Doesn't an active navigational technically have to work to qualify as active?
 
2014-06-12 12:48:02 PM
Farking easements, how do they work?
 
2014-06-12 12:48:13 PM
How long before armed patriots come to the rescue?
 
2014-06-12 12:50:02 PM

Cheron: Not sure we have the whole story but there is a typical process for these things.  You send notice to the land own informing them of your intentions, we will be trimming trees to protect power lines, navigational beacons, the presidents tee shot.  You then state your authority, power grid protection act of 1213, admiralty law, PGA rule 17.  If the land owner disagrees you go to court.  Sending a work crew with chain saws is the wrong way to start.


Of course, by chopping down trees they cause erosion which disables the beacon.

So they move the beacon further inland where they chop down the trees causing eroision which disables the beacon.

So they move the beacon further inland where they chop down the trees causing eroision which disables the beacon.


So they move the beacon further inland where they chop down the trees causing eroision which disables the beacon.


So they move the beacon further inland where they chop down the trees causing eroision which disables the beacon.


So they move the beacon further inland where they chop down the trees causing eroision which disables the beacon.
 
2014-06-12 12:50:53 PM

error 303: Farking easements, how do they work?


Beat me to it.
 
2014-06-12 12:51:03 PM

Cheron: Not sure we have the whole story but there is a typical process for these things.  You send notice to the land own informing them of your intentions, we will be trimming trees to protect power lines, navigational beacons, the presidents tee shot.  You then state your authority, power grid protection act of 1213, admiralty law, PGA rule 17.  If the land owner disagrees you go to court.  Sending a work crew with chain saws is the wrong way to start.


I'm also inclined to believe that their approach was "We can do what we want, so tear up anything in our way." They cut down 44 trees, that seems a bit excessive to place one navigational beacon that was working in 2008.
 
2014-06-12 12:51:15 PM

cirby: anotar:
I suspect the most agreeable outcome for all would be to have the CG haul in a bunch of rock to halt the erosion, then they wouldn't have to worry about replacing this one when it washes away in the future and the land owner would not have to worry about his island washing away either, pretty much win-win. Which pretty much means this option is not going to ever be on the table.

That could lead up to the guy suing the Coast Guard for NOT maintaining the land they had as an easement, and due to that lack of maintenance, the owner's land is now threatened by erosion.


^^ This.  It's called an appurtenant easement.
 
2014-06-12 12:59:16 PM

ArkAngel: Likely they have the right to maintain it, but the Fifth Amendment would require that they compensate him for the destruction of his land


For liability purposes, it is the sea that will destroy your land.
 
2014-06-12 01:00:22 PM
So the beacon dies in 2009.  In 2011 CG starts installing a replacement but are forced to stop midway under a threat of violence, thus leaving the work site in the worst possible situation.  This guy wants the CG off his property while at the same time demands they return and fix what they broke. This guy is his own worst enemy.
 
2014-06-12 01:00:37 PM

Gary-L: cirby: anotar:
I suspect the most agreeable outcome for all would be to have the CG haul in a bunch of rock to halt the erosion, then they wouldn't have to worry about replacing this one when it washes away in the future and the land owner would not have to worry about his island washing away either, pretty much win-win. Which pretty much means this option is not going to ever be on the table.

That could lead up to the guy suing the Coast Guard for NOT maintaining the land they had as an easement, and due to that lack of maintenance, the owner's land is now threatened by erosion.

^^ This.  It's called an appurtenant easement.


i don't think rock alone would do it.  you'd probably need to build some kind of erosion wall or bulkhead or something, since it's a navigable waterway, you don't want to dramatically affect the draught water depth approaching the cliff.  it sounds like a pretty big project.

but, basically, this is the old argument, here is something for free, but we need to make sure that this area remains navigable.  and then, after a few decades, the freeloader says, fark you i got mine.

oh well.  navigation is more important than this property owner's interest.  sucks, but such is life.  maybe he should be arguing for compensation instead of attacking the easement.  although, sounds like the property is pretty useless.
 
2014-06-12 01:11:55 PM

Satanic_Hamster: If the beacon was already there, I'm pretty sure the Coast Guard is correct in their belief they have the right to access the land and cut trees.


It is in the current location because the Coast Guard keeps relocating it as the island washes away.

If TFA is correct, the part of the island where it originally sat - and for which an easement existed - is now under water.
 
2014-06-12 01:12:38 PM

cirby: anotar:
I suspect the most agreeable outcome for all would be to have the CG haul in a bunch of rock to halt the erosion, then they wouldn't have to worry about replacing this one when it washes away in the future and the land owner would not have to worry about his island washing away either, pretty much win-win. Which pretty much means this option is not going to ever be on the table.

That could lead up to the guy suing the Coast Guard for NOT maintaining the land they had as an easement, and due to that lack of maintenance, the owner's land is now threatened by erosion.


Especially since the Coast Guard had the same problem with the landowner's grandfather 60 years ago and was specifically told to seek cooperation and inform the landowner before doing any work. Though they claim to have attempted to contact the landowner, judging by the fact that the landowner knew nothing until they showed up and started cutting down trees, my guess is that they didn't. It's not as though the property has been unoccupied by the same family since 1955. Since the Coast Guard obviously is aware of where the beacon is and has had this same fight before, I'm guessing they were pretty well aware of the address and are flat out lying about having followed the long-standing orders given about notifying the landowner prior to doing any work.
 
2014-06-12 01:12:39 PM

pute kisses like a man: Gary-L: cirby: anotar:
I suspect the most agreeable outcome for all would be to have the CG haul in a bunch of rock to halt the erosion, then they wouldn't have to worry about replacing this one when it washes away in the future and the land owner would not have to worry about his island washing away either, pretty much win-win. Which pretty much means this option is not going to ever be on the table.

That could lead up to the guy suing the Coast Guard for NOT maintaining the land they had as an easement, and due to that lack of maintenance, the owner's land is now threatened by erosion.

^^ This.  It's called an appurtenant easement.

i don't think rock alone would do it.  you'd probably need to build some kind of erosion wall or bulkhead or something, since it's a navigable waterway, you don't want to dramatically affect the draught water depth approaching the cliff.  it sounds like a pretty big project.

but, basically, this is the old argument, here is something for free, but we need to make sure that this area remains navigable.  and then, after a few decades, the freeloader says, fark you i got mine.

oh well.  navigation is more important than this property owner's interest.  sucks, but such is life.  maybe he should be arguing for compensation instead of attacking the easement.  although, sounds like the property is pretty useless.


What exactly is the 'freeloader' getting in this narrative?

/assuming you mean the landowner and not the CG
 
2014-06-12 01:13:08 PM
That Mavis Beacon! She's just the type to do this
 
2014-06-12 01:15:13 PM

advex101: Went out of service "sometime after 2009" due to the ongoing issues.  This is still a location for an active navigational aid.  I agree with the previous poster that said sell it now before it all washes away naturally.  The previous owner apparently did just that.


No he didn't. Hedied in 2008, but he had finally allowed the Coast Guard to place the beacon after the Coast Guard agreed to seek cooperation and inform him prior to working on the beacon. Did you read the same article the rest of us did?
 
2014-06-12 01:19:38 PM

redmid17: advex101: Went out of service "sometime after 2009" due to the ongoing issues.  This is still a location for an active navigational aid.  I agree with the previous poster that said sell it now before it all washes away naturally.  The previous owner apparently did just that.

Doesn't an active navigational technically have to work to qualify as active?


True. But I think the reason they were there to begin with was that erosion had knocked the beacon over (if I read the article right).

My question would be... if the beacon has been inop for five years and no vessels have crashed in that time due to there not being a nav beacon there, is that nav beacon really a necessity? Or is the Coast Guard just trying to spend budget money before October rolls around (yes, that is a thing we did every year in the military to avoid losing budget money).
 
2014-06-12 01:21:25 PM

MadMonk: How long before armed patriots come to the rescue?


"The situation escalated, and at least one local resident arrived with a firearm," Fields wrote. The Alaska State Troopers later arrived on scene but failed to remedy the dispute. Fields says due to the "tense" situation, the Coast Guard postponed its plans to rebuild the light.

Another illegal land grab by the Federal Government averted by armed true patriots exercising their Second Amendment rights under the US Constitution. One armed true patriot single-handedly turned back the jack-booted thugs of the US Coast Guard.  Remember the great We The People victory at Bundy Ranch! Don't tread on me. Don't retreat, reload! Karma Karma Karma Chameleon! The Lakers Win the Pennant, The Lakers Win The Pennant! There's always room for Jello Pudding!
 
2014-06-12 01:21:52 PM

Aigoo: redmid17: advex101: Went out of service "sometime after 2009" due to the ongoing issues.  This is still a location for an active navigational aid.  I agree with the previous poster that said sell it now before it all washes away naturally.  The previous owner apparently did just that.

Doesn't an active navigational technically have to work to qualify as active?

True. But I think the reason they were there to begin with was that erosion had knocked the beacon over (if I read the article right).

My question would be... if the beacon has been inop for five years and no vessels have crashed in that time due to there not being a nav beacon there, is that nav beacon really a necessity? Or is the Coast Guard just trying to spend budget money before October rolls around (yes, that is a thing we did every year in the military to avoid losing budget money).


Also valid questions. I think the CG needs to help maintain that particular patch of land if their equipment is damaging or degrading the easement itself. Threatening the work crew with a gun is not exactly a great idea, but I can understand why someone would be very pissed if you saw part of your land being destroyed.
 
2014-06-12 01:27:04 PM
It's easier to ask for forgiveness that for permission in today's world.

Cut it down and do what you need to do, then let the taxpayer dollars worry about the legal issues.
 
2014-06-12 01:31:42 PM

Mr_Crink: MadMonk: How long before armed patriots come to the rescue?

"The situation escalated, and at least one local resident arrived with a firearm," Fields wrote. The Alaska State Troopers later arrived on scene but failed to remedy the dispute. Fields says due to the "tense" situation, the Coast Guard postponed its plans to rebuild the light.

Another illegal land grab by the Federal Government averted by armed true patriots exercising their Second Amendment rights under the US Constitution. One armed true patriot single-handedly turned back the jack-booted thugs of the US Coast Guard.  Remember the great We The People victory at Bundy Ranch! Don't tread on me. Don't retreat, reload! Karma Karma Karma Chameleon! The Lakers Win the Pennant, The Lakers Win The Pennant! There's always room for Jello Pudding!


I don't think that's exactly what (or how it) happened... but it's pretty damned funny. :D
 
2014-06-12 01:32:03 PM
Oh good lord.  Every couple of years people show up to our ranch with bulldozers  and plow under all the trees and shrubs that have grown up along the power transmission lines.  It is what it is Alaskan Derpman.  If you have property that belongs to someone else on, or running through, yours they are going to show up from time to time to take care of it.  If they have to cut a road to get there, they will.
 
2014-06-12 01:37:34 PM
Point Woronzof, on the other side of the river, has been receding 2 feet a year.  http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1093/report.pdf

The Coast Guard should put their beacon on a sledge and drag it inland every few years.
Not that a moving navigation beacon would be a lot of fun for navigators.
The pilots dealing with the airport on Point Woronzof might have a few words about losing land.
 
2014-06-12 01:38:44 PM

jtown: ArkAngel: Likely they have the right to maintain it, but the Fifth Amendment would require that they compensate him for the destruction of his land

For liability purposes, it is the sea that will destroy your land.


Obama administration lost that argument last year in SCOTUS in  Sackett v. EPA
 
2014-06-12 01:48:01 PM

Aigoo: cirby: anotar:
I suspect the most agreeable outcome for all would be to have the CG haul in a bunch of rock to halt the erosion, then they wouldn't have to worry about replacing this one when it washes away in the future and the land owner would not have to worry about his island washing away either, pretty much win-win. Which pretty much means this option is not going to ever be on the table.

That could lead up to the guy suing the Coast Guard for NOT maintaining the land they had as an easement, and due to that lack of maintenance, the owner's land is now threatened by erosion.

Especially since the Coast Guard had the same problem with the landowner's grandfather 60 years ago and was specifically told to seek cooperation and inform the landowner before doing any work. Though they claim to have attempted to contact the landowner, judging by the fact that the landowner knew nothing until they showed up and started cutting down trees, my guess is that they didn't. It's not as though the property has been unoccupied by the same family since 1955. Since the Coast Guard obviously is aware of where the beacon is and has had this same fight before, I'm guessing they were pretty well aware of the address and are flat out lying about having followed the long-standing orders given about notifying the landowner prior to doing any work.


You could take the same set of facts and come to the conclusion that the landowner is lying about not being notified.  How did you decide it was the Coast Guard doing the lying?
 
2014-06-12 01:52:21 PM

Click Click D'oh: Oh good lord. Every couple of years people show up to our ranch with bulldozers and plow under all the trees and shrubs that have grown up along the power transmission lines. It is what it is Alaskan Derpman. If you have property that belongs to someone else on, or running through, yours they are going to show up from time to time to take care of it. If they have to cut a road to get there, they will.


The power company almost certainly has an easement allowing them access to that land and the right to maintain it as they see fit.  According to TFA, no such easement exists in this case.
 
2014-06-12 01:53:28 PM

redmid17: Sounds like the CG needs to bring in the CoE to shore up that land, replace the beacon, and possibly replant those 44 trees they cut down.


What's the Church of England got to do with this?
 
2014-06-12 01:55:01 PM
The situation escalated, and at least one local resident arrived with a firearm,"

I miss Janet Reno. She knew how to handle these people.
 
2014-06-12 01:56:19 PM

Hack Patooey: redmid17: Sounds like the CG needs to bring in the CoE to shore up that land, replace the beacon, and possibly replant those 44 trees they cut down.

What's the Church of England got to do with this?


Either the trilateral commission or the bilderbergs. Can't really remember and it's so hard telling them apart.
 
2014-06-12 02:03:47 PM

redmid17: Hack Patooey: redmid17: Sounds like the CG needs to bring in the CoE to shore up that land, replace the beacon, and possibly replant those 44 trees they cut down.

What's the Church of England got to do with this?

Either the trilateral commission or the bilderbergs. Can't really remember and it's so hard telling them apart.


This isn't the Trilateral Commission's bailiwick.

www.bbc.co.uk
 
2014-06-12 02:10:30 PM
looks like a sucktastic situation all around.  Beacon is needed, serves higher purpose; erosion will happen without intervention; guy will lose his land either way.
 
2014-06-12 02:16:49 PM

JustGetItRight: According to TFA, no such easement exists in this case.


Did we read the same TFA, because CG pretty clearly believes the easement exits and have been using it for the last 59 years.
 
2014-06-12 02:17:30 PM
content8.flixster.com
static.tvtropes.org
 
2014-06-12 02:22:15 PM

Click Click D'oh: Did we read the same TFA, because CG pretty clearly believes the easement exits and have been using it for the last 59 years.


Yes, the CG believes it exists, but that doesn't mean that it actually does.  The original patent does not specify that the easement can wander with the shifting of the sands.  It's common practice (according to TFA) to specify that propensity if desired.  It was not specified.  Since the original property easement has fallen into the sea, the CG assumes they can move it back onto existing land, but would the homeowner be able to do that with his property line if it wasn't specified in the deed?  Not likely.

So can the CG continue to move the easement back ad infinitum, through other people's land as well, once this guy's land is gone?  If they would like to do that, perhaps they should file the proper legal paperwork.
 
2014-06-12 02:23:47 PM
FTA: Further complicating some older land transactions is "vague language" written in patents, Menefee said, which can lead to disputes.

Does his property have rounded corners?
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report