I don’t have this corner crossing issue where I hunt in Mississippi but if the public land has no reasonable access, then it’s not very public. So from a land owner prospect, is the issue not being compensated for the crossing itself? What would that compensation look like? Sounds like the land owner has an advantage over the rest of the public because he has unfettered access.
I’m guessing easements should have been taken care of when the surrounding properties were bought?
I’m on the fence with this one. Pun intended.
Clyde
Read my earlier post about how these tracts became land locked. Nobody wanted them.
Now people want to impose impediments upon properties which have been in private hands for, in most cases 100 years or more.
City people would not be happy if it was their lot being talked about. But HELL, as long as it's someone else's ox getting gored, why should any of us care. Simple matters of right and wrong matter little in the new Socialist society where class envy is the norm.
I don’t know what the answer is, but regardless of whether no one wanted them 100 years ago, people want access now. The landowners were the only people who had access to public property. Therefore, it wasn’t public. Reasonable access isn’t a helicopter ride. However, just compensation is warranted. I agree with that. Seems to me tho, a multi millionaire isn’t concerned with a monetary settlement for public access.
Once again, not saying the landowner shouldn’t be compensated. I just don’t think that is where his interests lie.
JMO
Clyde
The liberal mind is an endless black hole of stupidity.
