 |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SeaDog1
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 2629
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hi!
Well, since the boat launch is the town of Morris property -> They could put up a "No Trespassing except for Authorized Vehicles/Police take Notice" sign.
That would be legal!
Just like posting "No Trespassing" or "No Hunting/Fishing" signs on you own property!
If they do that -> Then no ordinance is required!
SeaDog1
P.S.
Oh!!!
If you park where it is posted as "No Trespassing" -> Then don't worry about getting ticketed -> Your vehicle/trailer can be legaly towed away and impounded!!!!!
Think what a headache and the cost will be!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
thevinman
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not true.
The ordinance specifically speaks to the legality of ticketing non-residence, not the sign. Ticketing or towing (targeted specifically and to only non-residents) are no different...both are forms of restricting access -> not legal.
Also, private property is different than town/municipal property. You can surround a lake by private citizen's property and bar public access. Not right, but it happens. Indian Lake...prime example. Surrounded by private property. No public access. The difference here is that the Bantam town launch is not private property. It's municipal property. Leydon v. Greenwich specifically addresses - "whether a municipality constitutionally may restrict access to a municipal park to its residents and their guests." The Supreme Court found this to be unconstitutional. Read: A municipality may not restrict access to a municipal park to its residents and their guests.
The town can probably put up a new sign that says:"Beware of the Wangdoodles, and Hornswogglers, and Snozzwangers, and rotten, Vermicious Knids"...as long as they don't restrict public access. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SeaDog1
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 2629
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Vinman!
Sorry! But your Wrong!
The boat launch isn't a park to play in, and has no other use other than for boat launching.
Yes! It is municipal property and municipal property "CAN" be cordoned off or closed just like municipal dumps or municipal DOT yards are and posted with "No Trespassing" signs!
Even municipal water supplies are fenced off with "No Trespassing" signs posted!
The Question Is! -> Is Bantam lake under the juristiction of the town or the state?
Access to Bantam is still available via the marinas, though you will have to pay a fee.
East Twin's only access for boat launching off trailers is through O'Hare's marina, and there is a $10.00 fee.
In Lakeville, Lake Wononskopouc's only boat launch is town operated and they charge a fee.
Lake Pocotopaug, in East Hampton, has No Public access other than the marina with fee charged.
MDC, operates a boat ramp at Lake McDonough and charges not only for launching but also parking.
The town of Morris built and owns the ramp at Bantam Lake -> So they could very well do the same and charge a fee for boat launching and for parking.
All of the above are Not UnConstitutional!!!!!
SeaDog1
SeaDog1
Last edited by SeaDog1 on Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
PECo
Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 5203
Location: Avon, CT
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:26 pm Post subject: Geez! |
|
|
I'm starting to wish that I has studied for the CT Bar. 
_________________
Don't forget to wear sunscreen and don't litter! |
|
| Back to top |
|
SeaDog1
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 2629
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Phil!
Yeah Buddy! 
Luckly I had to take International as well as US Maritime law at the academy so I do have a working knowledge.
And what I don't know -> I can find on the Internet or just go to downtown Winsted where Ralph Nader has his Community Law Assitance office to get answers.
SeaDog1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
thevinman
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With all due respect, I'm not sure where I am mistaken...Please read my post more carefully:
| thevinman wrote: |
The ordinance specifically speaks to the legality of ticketing non-residence, not the sign. Ticketing or towing (targeted specifically and to only non-residents) are no different...both are forms of restricting access -> not legal.
|
To your point; the town can certainly try and close the launch entirely and to everyone, yes, but they would be in violation of the original land owner's wishes. "The property was given to the town by the Whittlesey and Harrison families in 1963, with the restriction that it be used for recreational use."
You are also correct in that they can also charge a fee. In all your examples, non-residents can (read: they are not restricted from) access to these waters. But, that is not what is happening here.
The position of the town through it's actions has been to "restrict access to a municipal park to its residents and their guests." and ONLY its residents and their guests. No ramp fee, no non-resident sticker, no parking fees. No non-resident access option what so ever from a municipal launch. This is wrong.
The Attorney General of the State of Connecticut believes the actions of the Town of Morris to be wrong as well, hence his letter to the First Selectman Karen D. Paradis advising her that restricting the boat launch to only residents would be very difficult to defend against a constitutional challenge. He used Leydon v. Greenwich as an example. Upon receipt of the Attorney General's correspondence the Town of Morris removed the "residents only" signage that was posted at the boat launch.
Again, for a municipality to restrict access only to residents of the municipality remains the point of contention, not the entire closure of the launch. This is precedent case law and a real letter from the Attorney General to First Selectman Karen D. Paradis. I'm not making this up.
Here is more on the letter from the AG, in case you will not take my word for it:
http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2009/09/09/news/doc4aa7307b11d5a740304390.txt
Here is more on some of the proposed "legal" options (including fees and stickers) and a reiteration of the AG issue with the actions of the town of Morris to bar non-residents:
http://www.countytimes.com/articles/2010/03/11/news/litchfield/doc4b9917c967d7e885240564.txt
Here are the official Connecticut Judicial documents of Leydon v. Greenwich
http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/257cr116.pdf
If you believe any of my other statements to be inaccurate, I welcome the discussion. This is an important issue to all sportsman.
Last edited by thevinman on Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
SeaDog1
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 2629
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Vinman!
Ok! The 'Leydon vs Greenwich" argument which Blumethal pointed out as an example is without merit.
This was concerning the plantiffs right to access to US public property -> Which all land and beaches from the water to the high-water mark belong to all US citizens and the right of access to.
In that case Greenwhich was in violation of US Interstate law.
Now internal lakes and ponds within a state DO NOT fall into that category.
Internal state waters DO NOT fall under the juristiction of US law.
Only those waters that, such as Beach Pond Ct./R.I. and Indian Lake Ct./N.Y., are Interstate DO come under US law AND any incidents that may occur on such waters are under and administered by the US Coast Guard.
Now, lakes and ponds (all waters per se) are NOT considered parks.
They may fall within the boundries of a park but not a park of themselves.
Now the public can only access (boats on trailers) to East Twin thru O'Hare's which is private and charges a fee to access a state annually stocked water.
Lake Wononoskopomuc in Lakeville can only be accessed by the public thru municipal town property which charges for that privilage which the state also annually stocks.
Blumenthal made a very serious mistake with his veiled threat to the town of Morris.
Yes! The town did take down the sign, but is now in the process of determing their legal status concerning this matter.
Again! Who has juristiction over Bantam Lake? -> The town or state?
I am trying to find the answer to this question.
Either way -> the town can do whatever they want with their property and the state has NO SAY whatsoever!
Are non-resident users of Bantam Lake upset about the ramp closing -> Sure!!
But the state is the real culprit in not re-negotiating, for public use of the ramp, in good faith so the state is trying a heavy handed threat against the town.
Very bad form Mr. Blumenthal and State of Connecticut.
Yes! I would very much like to see the ramp re-opened for public and sportsman use.
But in this case I have to side with the town which is having their right to self determination being violated!
SeaDog1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
thevinman
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SeaDog1 wrote: | Hi Vinman!
Ok! The 'Leydon vs Greenwich" argument which Blumethal pointed out as an example is without merit.
This was concerning the plantiffs right to access to US public property -> Which all land and beaches from the water to the high-water mark belong to all US citizens and the right of access to.
In that case Greenwhich was in violation of US Interstate law.
Either way -> the town can do whatever they want with their property and the state has NO SAY whatsoever!
|
Quite to the contrary, a town can not do whatever they want with their property, given the courts stance on public parks. They simply and clearly cannot ban non-residents from access to a public park.That is clearly the court's constitutional interpretation.
This is an excerpt from the case journal:
Thereafter, the plaintiff appealed from the trial
court’s judgment to the Appellate Court, which con-
cluded that, contrary to the determination of the trial
court, the plaintiff had established his common-law
claim. In so concluding, the Appellate Court stated:
‘‘For almost two centuries, [the Connecticut] Supreme
Court has discussed the concept that land held by a
municipality as a public park or public beach is held
for the use of the general public and not solely for use
by residents of the municipality.
16
. . . These [Supreme
Court] cases clearly reflect that land held by a munici-
pality as a public park or public beach is for the benefit
of all residents of this state.’’
17
(Citations omitted.) Ley-
don v. Greenwich, supra, 57 Conn. App. 718–19.
From what I read, Leydon v. Greenwich is not about "access to US public property" , "US Interstate law" or even the classic "high-water mark" rights. It's about a public park not being restricted to only residents of the municipality, by the municipality. Nothing in there about Federal or interstate rights.
As stated, regarding the origins of the launch..."The property was given to the town by the Whittlesey and Harrison families in 1963, with the restriction that it be used for recreational use."
From what I read of the case journal, the point of contention is whether the land the launch was built on, maybe even the lake or parts of the lake (accessible from the launch) are considered to have "characteristics of a public park"...in the case journal it reads over and over..."characteristics of a public park". This seems to be the defining factor, at least in the 'Leydon vs Greenwich" case.
So, if the land the ramp is on was expressly designated for "recreational use" by the donors then Blumenthal is right on point. I cannot see how this is "without merit"? If anything it is full of merit, but open to interpretation...hence the difference of opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SeaDog1
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 2629
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Vin!
Well I see we're in agreement to disagree! 
This situation with the town and state will obviously come down to a court battle and decision!
The key word here is "Juristiction"!
Also, when the property was given to the town, with the restriction for recreational use, -> was that for town residents or the general public?
We'll have to find out the exact wording as expressed by the donors.
That will be very important in the court's decision and be the proof if Blumenthal is right or not!
Anyway, this has turned into a lively and gentlemanly debate!
Best regards,
SeaDog1
Last edited by SeaDog1 on Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
PECo
Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 5203
Location: Avon, CT
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, SeaDog1, but I gotta go with Blumenthal and thevinman on this one. In Leydon v. Greenwich, the Court relied primarily on both a federal and a state constitutional "freedom of speech" argument and a factual determination of whether the property in question were a "traditional public forum". I don't think the fact that the primary purpose of the boat launch ramp is to simply launch boats disqualifies it as a "traditional public forum", especially in light of the examples of "speech" that were enumerated by the Court, "Although the number and kind of such activities virtually are limitless, they would include sitting or walking on the beach in a T-shirt that expresses a particular political view or religious conviction, distributing literature or pamphlets in the parking lot, walkway or at a picnic table, participating in a silent vigil anywhere in the park, and soliciting signatures for a petition at the entrance to the park." I plan to participate in as many silent vigils on the ramp as I can.
_________________
Don't forget to wear sunscreen and don't litter! |
|
| Back to top |
|
SeaDog1
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 2629
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Phil!
Glad to see you jump in on this!
The more the merrier!
We'll see what the original donors exact words are concerning the property!
That will be the proof of the pudding!
Till then, we can argue and speculate all we want!
If the donors words state that said property is given to the town of Morris for the pleasure and use of the residents (with nothing indicating the general public) then thats that!
Keep in mind that the state came along at a much later date and negotiated, at a price, the use of the ramp for public use.
The state is the "Bad Guy" here because it ignored any re-negotiation when its lease for the ramp expired in 2008.
This is classic and typical state heavy handedness!
As a sportsman I do not want to see any access to us closed.
But, RIGHT is RIGHT and WRONG is WRONG!
The town made every possible overture to settle this problem over the last 2 years with little if any response from the state.
So the town closes the ramp and the state gets up on its high horse and crys foul!
So, BOTTOM LINE! Who suffers for the state's negligents and incompetency!
WE DO! We sportsmen that pay for our licenses each year and expect the state and DEP to do its job.
So my friends -> What in your heart do you belive is RIGHT?
Best regards,
SeaDog1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Phish
Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 454
Location: West Hartford
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If the key word is "Juristiction" and we're dealing with "Negligents" then I propose we need a new "Strategery." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
PECo
Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 5203
Location: Avon, CT
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:26 am Post subject: Hey, Phish! |
|
|
I refudiate your reply! 
_________________
Don't forget to wear sunscreen and don't litter! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bass Sniper
Joined: 05 Feb 2010
Posts: 255
Location: west haven
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I plan to hold vigil there this weekend as well.....Blumenthal can ride in the front of the canoe....
_________________
"Taco flavored Doritos
And my orange life vest
caught a hundred pound sturgeon
On twenty-pound test " |
|
| Back to top |
|
SeaDog1
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 2629
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Guys!
Great! Loved your replys!
Phish -> Strategy? -> Who doubled sportsman Lic. fees?  and lets get the state to quit spending our money stocking trout in Indian lake and Lake Quassapaug (residents only) that have NO Public access! 
Phil -> Sarah! -> OK! -> Better than having Pelozi or Reno in your face! Yuck! Who let the dogs out!
BS -> Blumenthal in the bow of the canoe? Uuuuuuh! Plan to use him as an anchor or just ballast!
Best regards,
SeaDog1
Last edited by SeaDog1 on Wed Sep 08, 2010 9:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
